I voted to fire him, and agree with these. He's an average coach. You give them 2-3 years and then try someone else. There are just too many fish in the sea, and one might excel. You don't refrain from fear that the next fish may be a little worse. If so, you get rid of him after only a year and throw out your net again. You keep doing this till you find a great coach.
What is a "mediocracy"? When a team is run by a sportswriter? Are we doomed to become the Timberwolves? Is that why Canzano is leaving the Oregonian? :MARIS61:
Why have a coach at all if you're just going to blame the players for sub-par play on the court? Hand the keys over to your best player and then you can lay all the blame on the players you want.
That's not what I said...I asked if you considered the players to have any responsibility, because you seemed to think that any failure on the court was purely McMillan's fault. I do think player talent matters far more, in basketball, than coaching. Coaching isn't irrelevant, but a team's fate is much more closely tied to their overall team talent. As I said, among NBA coaches (that is, this doesn't apply to someone just pulled off the street), I believe the vast majority have no real impact on the team's fortunes...and I think McMillan is among that group. So I hardly feel like McMillan is crucial. I just think he makes a convenient whipping boy for fan frustration over what is actually a paucity of talent (partly due to injury). If you're going to be able to get a difference-making coach (like a Phil Jackson or a Rick Adelman), great. Fire McMillan and make that change. If you're just going to replace him with another of the "no significant impact" coaches, I don't see the point. It's not risk-free to change coaches...you could get a negative-impact coach like PJ Carlisimo. So, I really have no deep desire to see McMillan remain as coach. I just think he absorbs much more of the blame than he deserves and no one who advocates his dismissal generally provides a good and likely replacement. That's not to say there's no one out there who could do better...I don't think the Blazers should feel any hesitation to replace McMillan if they think they've found someone better.
Many who advocate his replacement, however, disagree with your assessment of Nate as a no-impact coach. If one believes that the team's success is being hindered by Nate's abnormally slow pace (resulting from his predilection to avoid turnovers at all costs), as well as his inability to install a versatile offense that takes advantage of his players' strengths or to dictate to opponents by capitalizing on obvious matchup advantages, then one could easily argue that he is in reality a negative-impact coach. One could also argue that even if McMillan is a no-impact coach, then once that fact is discovered, then we are obligated to jettison him for the opportunity to find a difference-maker. If the goal is to win a title, then there is no value in a no-impact coach unless you have superior talent. We clearly do not, so there is then no possibility of a championship without a difference-maker on the sidelines. Treading water is of no value if there's no boat out there to rescue you; you have to swim somewhere. Yeah, you might head out to deeper water, but if you move, there's at least there's a possibility of reaching shore.
I realize that. I was simply offering my opinion, not saying that it's objective reality. You're responding to my disagreement with their assessment that McMillan is a "negative impact" coach. If you believe he's a no-impact coach but most NBA coaches do make positive impact, then yes, I agree with you. As I said, my opinion is that very, very few NBA coaches make significant impact. I believe one's chances of landing a superstar player are greater than landing a coach who makes a significant positive impact (that is, gets a team to play above its talent level). From such a world view, I think if you replace McMillan, you stand a higher chance of acquiring a negative-impact coach (there are plenty of those, because most of them aren't currently in the NBA...the Pistons just jettisoned one in Keuster) than you do of acquiring a positive-impact coach (because there are so few such basketball coaches in the world, IMO). The greatest likelihood is you acquire another "no-impact" coach. This isn't an argument for stasis. If the Blazers organization believes they've found someone better, someone who might be a positive-impact coach...they should go for it. What this is an argument for is not to fire McMillan "just for the sake of change." It's also an argument that McMillan is scapegoated for things outside of his control, IMO. That's not to say he's done everything right...obviously I don't believe that. But he doesn't control team talent or injuries, and I think those two things have been far and away the most guiding to the team's path.
There's just a couple of questions that I see as pertinent as far as Nate's job security. Is he a great coach? Does his presence add value in the playoffs? And lastly, does he still have the ear of his team? If you can't answer definitely yes to those questions then his job shouldn't be safe. Aside from the third question I don't think you can answer in the affirmative. Nate's decent, but if for instance they could have dumped him to add a guy of Adelman's caliber (who wasn't under contract at the end of last year) then I would have no qualms about it.
Just for the sake of perspective (to those who may be mistakenly assuming that I'm an ardent McMillan defender), I fully agree with these sentiments. I think McMillan is a "decent" coach, his job shouldn't be safe or assured and I'd love to dump him for a guy of Adelman's caliber.
As far as I can tell from watching the NBA for about 40 years, no coach's job is "safe". The easiest thing to do when management wants to shake things up is to dump the head coach. Fans seldom give a coach more than a season or two before they start calling for a change if things aren't going to their expectations. Players can reach a point where they won't listen to a coach if he's telling them to do things in a way that they don't like. Even a great coach like Jack Ramsay reached a point where he was no longer effective with the players he was coaching. So, no, I don't think Nate's job is "safe" regardless of what he's done in the past. I also think that he knows this better than any of us around here do. It goes with the territory. Unlike other coaches, he's avoided the financial security of demanding long contracts. I respect that. He wants to be judged on his record, and he also wants the freedom to move on if he thinks that management is no longer doing what needs to happen to build the team into a winning franchise. Nate's got integrity and that can't be said about every coach in the NBA.
If we had a player who is average in the league, would we give him 8 years without just trading him for the hell of it, trying to get someone better? That's how this league works. If you're average, you get a couple of years and then it's change for change's sake. And that's good. We have an average, easily replaced coach. The next guy could be a lot better, but only a little worse. Why not keep trying to improve instead of letting the job vegetate? The answer is, every time Paul Allen makes a change he's crucified by the local hater media. So he's scared. In other industries, you change personnel all you want if you're an owner. Why is this one different?
Well let's see. Patterson Nash KP Cho Hat Guy Bert Kolde Larry "I don't want to be a GM" Miller Soon to be Chad Buchanan and himself
If Nate had a more adaptive coaching style, I think there'd be a much better argument for keeping him on long-term. But Nate-ball is one kind of style--grind-it-out, plodding, iso-heavy, low-risk. I'd like to see guys like Batum and Aldridge get a chance to expand their games under a different type of coach, even if it's just going to be another mediocre coach. I'd prefer to see various types of mediocrity than the same one year after year. The turnover does, of course, expose us to the risk of another Mo Cheeks, but it also gives us the chance to unearth the next Phil Jackson too.
I am going to be interested to see tonight if the pace is faster or not. I think at least some of reason for the slowness of the Blazers' pace over the past few seasons has been that Brandon Roy and Andre Miller both were guys who liked it that way. The personnel on the roster this year definitely favor a faster pace. We'll see if Nate will actually adapt to loosen the reins to match his players.
That's incorrect, regarding Andre Miller. His whole career, prior to Portland, Miller had been a fast break, up-tempo point guard. It was a big point of contention between Miller and McMillan, as McMillan wanted Miller to play more conservatively and Miller chafed under that. It's why McMillan made the big error of starting Blake over Miller at the start...Blake was more "his type" of point guard. It is definitely true, though, that Roy preferred a slow-it-down type of half-court attack.
IMO, Nate is one of the best coach's in the league. Top 10 for sure. Every year he goes into the season with the idea of having a certain roster, then injury's blow it all up. He's had to adjust the past 4 years more then any other coach in the league. He deserves more credit than he gets IMO.
Andre was known for pushing the ball earlier in his career, but he was pretty slow his two years in Portland. There were a bunch of times I can recall him walking it up with Nate on the sidelines yelling for him to push it. But that's in the past. All I'm saying now is that Roy's no longer on the roster and Nate's got a group that definitely fits a running game style of attack. We've heard nothing but comments that the Blazers plan to push it, that they've been practicing with a 15 second clock, etc. I just want to see it in action on the court before offering any opinions as to whether Nate has shown that he can adapt or it's proven that he cannot.
