We can consider that BRoy and Oden are out of the picture, so with this line-up and if we can obtain 1-4th seed; if we don't make it out of the first round; should we:
If they get a 1-4 seed and lose again in the first round what other choice do they have but to fire him and go in a different direction? Injuries or not, at some point you have to be able to translate your regular season performance into success at the next level and a top 4 seed would indicate to me that the Blazers played well enough that something other than a "one and done" is to be expected. If on the other hand the Blazers end up with a 5-8 seed and they get bounced in the first they will have probably lived up to their potential and done what was generally expected, so Nate's job will likely be secure -- assuming he wants to stay here after 7 years of unfulfilled expectations.
I think some people want to continuously fire coaches just to fire them. We haven't had a roster that anybody would expect to get out of the first round. We've had major injuries and usually been written off by the national media but Nate has got the team to somehow get around 50 wins. We've had to deal with scrubs like Juwan Howard starting numerous games. Jerryd Bayless and Patty Mills as the backup point guard. Steve Blake, Rudy Fernandez, and Travis Outlaw as key reserves to help carry the teams scoring load. Nates players respect him, enjoy playing for him, and play hard for him. That is the most important characteristic of a coach, having the attentive ear of the players. When players start tuning out a coach its definitely time to make change. I don't understand some of his critics, if we fire GM's too frequently many say it shows we have an incompetent front office but we should be firing coaches frequently? That makes no sense. If we could bring in Phil Jackson or Coach K or another stud coach sure I'd jump on it, but we'd likely be looking at someone less qualified then the recent Los Angeles coaches, Mike Brown and Vinny Del Negro. We'd be getting a Mike Ivorini. Does anybody think our team would have a bunch of playoff series wins if we had Ivorini as a head coach? Remember the last hot assistant coach we brought in, Mo Cheeks? No thanks, I'll stick with the team USA coach who is well respected throughout the league, and is the only non-player in this organization you can say that about.
Well then this season should have no excuse baring there is no injuries right?! Also if we have no injuries, a coach that got 50 wins with a depleted roster, then we should be a lock for top 3. Personally I think nates better coaching depleted talent than a team filled with talent. Look at last season when we had all those injuries. We actually did better than when we had a healthy squad.
Isn't this poll just a wee bit premature? My answer will vary depending upon a few factors such as who's on the roster, who's injured, who the Blazers are playing, how close the series is, and whether or not I thought he was out-coached.
No, I think his success with the Blazers, never having overwhelming talent to work with and often contending with bad injury news, should certainly be factored in. Why would we ignore that?
You haven't been bashful in asserting your opinion about Nate's coaching record, but the question asked relates to how the results of this year's playoffs would affect a decision about him continuing as coach.
We had homecourt advantage and failed to get past Houston. We should have gotten past Phoenix. In both series we were underprepared and Nate failed to make adjustments. Dallas was the only team that realistically had more talent than us, and we went into that series the clear underdog.
Portland should have gotten past Phoenix with Roy essentially unavailable? (Technically he played, but as a complete shadow of himself...his performance in that series was not even NBA-caliber.) I don't agree with that at all. Portland was probably the better team with Roy, but not without their best player. As for Houston, the two teams were roughly equal but Houston was far more experienced and playoff-tested. Portland was talented, but young and looked jumpy. It didn't help that Yao was getting all the "veteran superstar" respect from officials. I think considering either series a failure that illustrates that McMillan is the problem to be a pretty flawed analysis. There were clear reasons that Portland lost each of those series that didn't involve coaching. That isn't to say that I think McMillan is unimpeachable as a coach...I think he inhabits the zone of NBA coaches who probably don't make a large impact, positive or negative, on their team's chances. I think the coaches who do make such an impact are very, very rare. So, I wouldn't mourn if the Blazers moved on from McMillan, but I also don't agree with claims that McMillan has proven himself to stand in the way of team success.
We beat Phoenix in game one one the Suns' home floor. Gentry moved Grant Hill over to guard Andre Miller and Nate never attempted to counter the move. We only won one more game after that. I also believe it is the job of the coach to prepare his team for the playoffs. We were absolutely crushed in game one on our own floor. How do you lose that badly on your own floor?
Maybe 4-5 coaches could get this team into the playoffs. If Nate is one of them, why would you replace him?
Because the Blazers had no one else playing well. Do you consider the players to have any responsibility, or is all player performance due to the coach? What "counters" can you make when no one else is capable of making plays? The Blazers/McMillan definitely tried exploiting Nash defending Batum, but Batum was also playing hurt in that series. Aldridge was given touches, but he wasn't aggressive (as per his career until last season) and didn't force the Suns to adjust their defense. You're taking the easy way out, analytically, when you say "They didn't do well, the coach should have done SOMETHING." He did try things...at what point does being less talented (with Roy a non-entity and Batum hurt) matter? And is there some specific counter to Gentry putting his best defender on the one Blazer playing well that you think McMillan should have utilized? One bad game doesn't tell us anything. If someone used one good game (like, say, the Blazers beating the Suns, on the road, without their best player) to illustrate that McMillan was a great coach, you'd suddenly see the value in using larger sample sizes than one game.
Nate isn't a bad coach....but for a very average coach he has an undeserved level of job security. If Oden leaves next season, he may (finally) start to feel some heat - but as long as he has Oden as his unimpeachable excuse for failure, he isn't going anywhere.
