I think Nate McMillan's speech after he was fired was one of the classiest speeches from any Blazer coach, ending in tears. Like him or not, he's a class act
For how much Hate Nate gets, I loved him. He was Mr. Sonic for one. The guy is as stand up as you will find in the NBA. I remember screaming yes when we hired him and if it weren't for Oden and Roys busts, Nate would be a top teir coach right now in my opinion
There are two ways in which Nate would have been viewed as a top-tier coach in that scenario. 1 - In the same manner that Doc is viewed as a top-tier coach. Namely, by being mediocre and relying on insurmountable talent to overcome the opposition. 2 - Because there is so little coaching talent in the league that some percentage automatically makes the cut as "top-tier". But even this would be a long-shot for Nate, as there are more than 5* coaches that are better than Nate. *What's the percentage cut-off point for being top-tier? If the top 10% are considered top-tier, then there are only 3 coaches that would make the cut - and Nate certainly would NEVER be a top-3 coach. If you make the cut-off 15% (actually 16.6%) then the top 5 coaches would make it - but at this point I think the term starts to lose meaning. I think 10% is the best cut-off point - especially now when, aside from Pops, there really aren't any coaches that deserve "top-tier" ranking. A while back it would have been Pops, Sloan, Jax (in that order), and everyone else was on a lower tier. With Sloan/Jax retiring two undeserving coaches have vaulted their way into the upper tier.
Wow, Holy overanalization batman!!! You can say that about a lot of top tier coaches though. Pat Riley had the best in the league. So did Phil. Pop has had a stellar lineup 1-12 most of his coaching carreer, though I put him as my number 1 because of how he can turn average players into solid role players on a champ team. With that said, Nates coaching style fit that team very well. D first. Half court offense. He would have won rings and would have been in the discussion in my opinion.
Nate was NOT a good defensive coach by any stretch of the imagination. Talking about defense is not the same as implementing defense, and all he ever did was talk. His half-court offense consisted mostly of Roy isolating and the occasional 3-man-weave. He is (was) the new-norm of NBA medocrity. It's no surprise that 'Dre bitched him out, and that all the vets mutinied. They all had played under other coaches and knew that Nate was a hack. It was only the young guys (and Blake!) that liked Nate because they didn't have anyone to compare him to.
Nate has a handful of medals from the team USA as defensive coordinator and has been the Pacers defensive coordinator for several years where they were a top tier defensive team. He was a mediocre offense coach but given the right defensive talent, he's been pretty successful since his Portland tenure
but wait... umm how can a coach implement? Isnt that up to the players to implement his plans he talks about? Now if you said Nate couldn't motivate his guys to play the D he wanted, I would understand, but Nate is a good D coach. D has been the foundation of his game since he entered the league and I am sure some of those skills and knowledge transfer over to coaching, but it might have been a coaching style that cause the mutiny. When you have Roy, why WOULDNT you isolate him until he is stopped consistently? We will have to agree to disagree, but I am pretty sure the consensus around the league s that Nate is an above average D man
Semantics. Nate was never able to put a good defensive product on the floor. Just because he was a good defensive player does not mean that he was/is a good defensive coach. Lots of people can be great at something but have no ability to teach that thing they are great at. Consensus around the league is that everyone is good at everything! Consensus around the league is that Doc is a terrific coach! And to riverman's point - pretty sure Olympic success had nothing to do with Nate. We won by fielding a dominant roster, not because of a finely tuned defense. Coach K might deserve some credit for getting the players all on the same page, but anybody under him was just there to help manage the players. And IND was the #1 ranked defense before they hired Nate - he didn't implement their defense, he just came in and managed an already implemented system. But Nate's coaching record speaks for itself - his defense ranked 20.6 out of 30 for his 12-year career.
Sorry, but I have to agree with most everything blue9 says about Nate (and Doc Rivers). Nate wasn't a good offensive tactician (as in, they couldn't seem to adjust when they had to unless and until Roy turned it on. And his teams didn't play particularly good D, especially inside. And he just came across....at least to me...as stubborn and inflexible. When your vets quit on you, that's on you more than them. He was truly a nice man and a very decent coach, but I don't believe he was even close to top tier, regardless of players, or lack thereof. Though, since he left Portland he's shown him himself to be a top tier assistant coach. I mostly remember my excitement when we hired him was more about it being a sharp stick in the ass of Seattle.
