Results-based judgements (McMillan)

although truthfully every blazers fan wants a team that can smash the L*kers at every opportunity, im very thankful of the clear path KP, Nate and the blazers organisation took with rebuilding the team after many dark seasons.

i dont know how much i can directly attribute to the coaches, but the positive development of the team, and forcing them to learn the fundementals of the game (slow boring offense) will serve them well in grind it out playoff series, where teams like memphis and OKC will 4-0 in any playoff seies, as they dont regularly play at a slow pace.

overall im happy to be patient for a few more seasons, for sure when broy/LMA/Oden/Rudy etc get to age 26+ and have a few seasons playing together under their belt, they will win 50+ every season,.

my 2c anyways

i suspect the reason why nate has been trying to get the guys to knuckle down on defense is because we have so many offensive weapons, i dont think scoring will be an issue in the future, especially once we get our running game happening.

ripcity > showtime

It´s not too late for Sergio being grateful to Nate.

That can easily change over the next years in Portland, and is not meant to bash his qualities. While maybe not a coaching marvel he is a very solid coach, but didn’t start out with good teams initially :)

Let me spell it out for you. 3 blowouts plus a hefty win last night and Shav still hasn’t had any playing time. The guy went 9 for 9 in a preseason game, yet Nate keeps giving all Shav’s playing time to Ike. Until Nate can see that Shav is better for this team over Ike, I’ll continue to think he’s a horrible coach.

It’s not to interrupt a Nate-praising thread with any difference of opinion. People who like Nate get real cranky when someone disagrees. It’s like a political thing or something.

Suffice it to say, I’m not sure the numbers you posted really say much about the coaching, in either direction. Much more about the players and the draft scouting. But that’s a larger topic we’ll save for a thread that’s not about praising Nate.

Nate is so far the ultimate example in truthiness.

One thing positive to say: He’s shown improvements this season. He actually realizes you’re allowed to play Joel in crunch minutes. And he sometimes doesn’t take the hot player out of the game anymore. I specifically was saying yesterday that I haven’t seen Nate do some of the “Nate things” this season, which is a nice surprise.

Baby steps.

People may not agree with Nate, but that’s life. People who know basketball have their own opinions about what to do in a given game situation, and at times they don’t agree with the coach, regardless of which team they watch. Of course, the people who really really know basketball (analysts and what not) seem to agree that Nate happens to be one of the best coaches out there. I love the guy, and this post is an excellent expression of why I feel that way. There are a lot of people who will think that Nate doesn’t make the right calls, that even an idiot could make better in game decisions, or that he can’t be a championship coach (I don’t even know what that argument means, that he’ll forget how to coach once he gets into the Finals?). But all of those people are still watching the game from a distance, while Nate is a winning NBA coach with a very young team playing elite level basketball with significant contributions from nearly all of the players. Thanks for writing this ericande.

We are starting to see McMillan’s team first personality come out in the players. I love the attitude we are seeing from most of our players regarding the playing time. All of the following players could have reasonable aspirations of playing starters minutes somewhere in the league: Webster, Outlaw, Bayless, Sergio, Blake, Frye, Pryzy, Rudy & Oden. Those guys seem happy & play right when they get minutes. Good job Nate.

I know this came up earlier in the thread, but I just wanted to address it separately:

How can we confirm these changes are due to Nate’s coaching influence, and not simply due to general player development?

Also, how much of the on-court improvement is due specifically to the development of the floor leader, Brandon Roy, and his effect on the team around him?

(Also, let’s rule out Nate’s development of players as the cause. I’m not saying it’s not a cause; however, it’s often a crutch to explain improvement for players who are already hungry to improve on their own… and every coaching staff works to improve young players, so it’s impossible to say if Nate has had any special effect)

Please note, not trying to be a downer here. It’s a serious question.

But while that will always be true, no matter what, what better way to address the question of x’s and o’s than out of a timeout when the play or D scheme is drawn up. If you are going to demand an x’s and o’s coach, but submit that there is no way to ever know if a coach is good or not, than what are you looking for? Also, not personal, but keeping everything objectionable makes for a difficult argument. Through this lens, if you desire an x’s and o’s coach how would you prove he is a good x’s and o’s coach?

You need talent to be any good, but then once your good, how much of that has to do with the coach? Phil has won so many titles and still gets tagged with the Michael and Kobe causation. Rightfully so?? Perhaps it just takes the right guy for the right group. talent will always trump the debate. I certainly never thought Doc Rivers would be a championship coach!

Screw the whole thing! I freakin hate coaches!!

If you are willing to acknowledge:
A. That any team that has won with an amazing go to guy (or two) has a potentially average coach, and;
B. Most ‘great’ coaches are made by the players and situations where the coaches have stumbled into something great and took advantage and;
C. That no coach is absolute in their greatness

then I have no further beef with you as we have a fundamentally differing starting opinion on coaching. Any further discussion requires a concession from one or the other.

If you disagree with any of the above, I feel like there is a ton of good Nate has done and too little bad to put him in the ‘mediocre’ camp.

PS. If ‘give it to Brandon and he’ll take care of it’ is the best plan, then that is good X’s and O’s. =)

Nate is a fine coach. He lacks imagination. I see a lot of paint by numbers coaching but sometimes that’s just what the doctor ordered as he knows the numbers. He has not handled the Sergio issue or the Oden Issues maybe as well as I would have liked but that’s not damning of his skills and is from an outside perspective. But beyond that his mistakes are just in game mistakes that most any coach will make from time to time. Nate still knows ball and he has this team playing full out as a team. Key statement, AS A TEAM. This is huge. There isn’t anyone padding stats or not with the program. He preaches D, demands D, Nate loves the D. He deserves his shot at making this team a title winner and contender. He has three years tops to put us in the finals.

I dont think people criticize Nate’s skill in developing players…he has clearly done an awesome job doing that. No one can deny that. There are other parts of coaching that are a bit questionable with Nate. Minute distribution is an extremely tough thing to do…so lets just throw that out. Nate’s substitution has been pretty questionable at times…last year Nate made some weird moves late in games regarding Pryz and going with LMA at center…the Cleveland Cavs game is one that comes to mind, where the final possession of the game was with the Blazers on Defense, and Pryz not being in the game to alter Lebrons layup.

Aside from that…how he handled Sergio and the Starting SF spot with Batum/Outlaw was unprofessional as well. In both cases tho he ended up doing the right thing (not only by demonstrating confidence by giving playing time, but by his praises to the media as well).

All in all, like the team, Nate is young and inexperienced. As the team is growing, so is Nate as a coach. I expect him to go through the same growing pains as well. I don’t know if he will be the coach that leads us to a championship, but even if he isn’t he is still a damn good coach.

is that what we observe in our desire to see this team win….what we write and rant about and pick apart…seems to be the same subset of things the coaching staff sees, takes on and emphasizes…

sooo..the improved play — better results..==>good coahing…

game over game improvement in cohesion and flow..roles emerging and solidifying..

great start