I like Nate. And I don't like seeing criticism of him. I'm not being a nutrider here, just pointing out that he is a good coach, has been a good teacher, the guys on the Olympic team all gave him the thumbs up, and I expect him to be able to take this team all the way. I've seen articles and comments about how maybe sometime in the next year or two it might be a good idea to bring in a veteran coach to take the team to the next leve, or that another coach would be able to get the team to run more or that his offense is too predictable.....stuff like that. Its easy to forget his 50 win Seattle team dropped to a 30 win team (with the same players) after he left. I expect him to continue to grow as a coach, and find the right way to use the new players, and get this team to the next level. I also think we will run more this year. He tried to get them to run last year, but we didn't have the right horses. We do now.
I hope Nate stays with us throughout this ride we are about to go on! He's earned it. He's been through the tough times and deserves to go through the good.
I'm not a huge Nate fan. I look at his coaching career and see one almost entirely devoid of success. I also am firmly in the camp that believes this team will not run significantly under McMillan, irrespective of whether it would play to the strengths of the team or not. With this said? He's still young and learning and I can't point to one coach that I am confident would be better for the team. So I'm fine with him staying as the Blazers' coach and having success in Portland. Ed O.
so far, i'm cool with Nate. My bro (who also used to write for Hoopsworld Waaaay back in the day), lives in seattle and has seen him run the sonics and hated his coaching style. some of his substitutions are odd at times but overall, he's been cool.
I don't see Nate's teams ever running the way Denver or Phoenix does (did?) but I think we will see a bit more emphasis on players leaking out with Greg (hopefully) able to secure defensive rebounds or block shots leading to outlet passes down the court. LaMarcus runs like a deer, Bayless seems to have a natural instinct for the break and Rudy appears to have made a living in Spain picking people's pockets and streaking towards the hoop, so it certainly seems like the personnel are in place. I still think this team is going to make it's living on pick n' roll basketball, and feeding the post, but it sure would be nice to see 5 or 6 more easy hoops per night, I guess we just have to wait and see.
The Jordan/Pippen Bulls made their living in the half-court set, but whenever there was an opportunity for an easy transition dunk, they took it. I can see the Blazers being that style of team. New Jersey with Kidd and Phoenix with Nash have tried to push the pace and keep the game in transition as much as possible. McMillan will never allow that sort of team, but that isn't the type of team that seems optimal for Portland. A team that executes in the half-court and breaks when it has an easy opportunity seems optimal and I think McMillan will allow that sort of "running." I'm more worried about his half-court sets and whether he'll incorporate much movement and a bit of risk-taking. Or whether it'll be a very static "dump into the post and space the court." I think with the number of good ball-handlers and passers and athletes the team will have, the half-court offense should be more dynamic and motion-oriented. Always nice to be able to just dump the ball into a low-post beast, but I'd hate to see that be all the offense tries to do.
I don't understand your comment about his career being devoid of success. How can you say he wasn't successful in Seattle? Especially when he was twenty wins better than the next guy to run the same team? How can you say he hasn't been successful here? Especially when you look at what he did with last years group after Oden went down? I think he's done a great job developing the young players on our team. Sure he does things I don't understand, but in the grand scheme of things I think he has done very well. Maybe Ed you define success differently. To me, he has done well with what he has been given to work with. Maybe you see success only when a team makes the playoffs or something like that? On a different day you might get me to agree with you about the running thing. But I do believe he just didn't have the horses last year, and this year it is different. I also believe KP wants the team to run and Nate is on board with that. Either way, we'll see.
He wasn't very successful in Seattle, no. He had three seasons where he coached his team to a greater than .500 record, including the partial season his first. He ended well, for sure, with a 50 win season, but the year before he'd finished at 37 wins... which is where they were they year after he left, too. Uh... he's been successful in Portland? We've been a terrible team. Players like Jack and Sergio and even Martel Webster have been first rounders that haven't developed under Nate... just like the long line of young guys in Seattle that didn't develop. The team has so much talent, though, with so many high lottery picks, and such an absence of veterans that no matter how much Nate wants to play Udoka or James Jones, he's been unable to. The young guys are producing because of their talent and the position Pritchard has put Nate in. I define it as winning basketball games, and I define it as getting the most out of the players. I don't feel that he's gotten the most out of his players and I think that it's difficult to argue that he's done a good job of winning basketball games. Every year the story has been the same with Nate and his supporters... every year in Seattle and in Portland, the team will start to run more. Every year the team will be able to play good defense but run when they get the chance. And almost every year Nate's teams are amongst the slowest-paced in the NBA. And every year I'm making almost the exact same post as this one, with another year of data to support my position. Pace is a statistic that looks at the number of possessions a team gets, and looking at the page of Nate's teams in his career a definite pattern has emerged: 00-01: 91.6 (16th of 29) 01-02: 89.0 (24th of 29) 02-03: 88.0 (27th of 29) 03-04: 89.0 (15th of 29) 04-05: 87.9 (27th of 30) 05-06: 87.6 (28th of 30) 06-07: 88.3 (29th of 30) 07-08: 87.9 (29th of 30) Seriously. 00-01 is a combination of Nate and his predecessor, Paul Westphal, who had a more up-tempo style (13th the year before) so Nate's team's 16th place finish overall was probably dragged down by Nate's coaching. So you have that first year and then you have the 03-04 freak year. Don't you think that it's likely that he will just stay with what he knows? We agree there Ed O.
Yeah, I'm on the fence about Nate. He's a huge upgrade over Cheeks, but he has some serious flaws. I like that he brings discipline to the team. I like that he's a teacher. He gets involved in practice (something cheeks never did) and he isn't afraid to get in there and mix it up. That's a good quality in a coach. I just think his x's and o's are lacking. He isn't a strategist. His rotation can be flawed. The guy isn't perfect, but I think he's a good coach for a young team.
Maybe this is a bit cold, but I'd love for McMillan to be retained for another season or two, to instill a defensive ethic in the young players, and then look for a better offensive scheme coach, one who's good at in-game management. As I mentioned in another thread, Rich Adelman would be great, but he probably wouldn't be available in a couple of seasons. Phil Jackson is another coach of the type I'd like, but he won't be an option. So, I'm not sure who would be the right guy, if any. If no one good is available at that point, then stick with McMillan. He should be retained at least until someone better is available.
