One of My Concerns

that phrase is also perfectly applied to the rookies we just amassed. We had bright eyed rookie hopefuls in the position to help improve the team sooner rather than later. They now play for other teams, like these guys probably will. I am feeling your concern.

I know Lynam was considered a top basketball guy in his day, but he’s long in the tooth. And Bickerstaff never seemed top-notch to me. These guys may be in Nate’s comfort zone, but they seem redundant to me. If Nate is old-school & conservative, doesn’t he need some young blood to balance that?

As for Danny Ferry, I’m a member of that tiny minority who doesn’t blame the “supporting cast” for LeBron’s failures in Cleveland. The players Ferry assembled had played pretty well elsewhere for the most part. I tend to blame the plodding, LeBron-centric offense for their struggles in Cleveland. But having said that, it seems like Ferry could have done a LITTLE better than he did. As Jason Quick might say, Ferry’s performance in Cleveland was “underwhelming.”

Oh, BTW, Dave: I’d take Hubie Brown at 100 years old—half-blind and and half-senile—over most of the assistant coaches in the NBA. What passion, incisive hoops insight, and communication ability Hubie has. I’ve always liked him.

I can’t picture anyone telling Marcus Camby to cool it down. Will hishustle rub off on LMA? For that matter the second year bangers should continue bringing the works. And, the perennial hope and game changer is a healthy Greg.

Cagey old vet or young savant— each brings a different quality, but I just want them to be good. They don’t even have to smile nice.

While of course it has some impact and each have their own flavor, I don’t see an assistant coach bringing enough of a difference at this stage to make or break the team’s fortunes*. An exception would be the sort of coach that’s brought in and given ownership over a key task, like running the defense, or installing a new offensive system. I don’t see Lynam or Bickerstaff playing that role, although having some experience on hand is a plus.

Still, you just want the best available. I don’t see a problem with bringing in some old hands, and it even being a plus to add some balance to the staff, as long as you haven’t bypassed great talent to do so.

As it relates to a GM, I suppose there’s more of a generation gap in that the up and comers who’ve embraced advanced analytics tend to be younger? I haven’t gotten a sense of a real thread in common as far as GM philosophy goes from the names that have been showing up on everyone’s candidate short list. Although here as well it feels like they are likely to favor experience.

I guess for better or worse, that could be the new phase. The Experienced Basketball Project.

Out of curiosity, I haven’t seen Juwan Howard’s name tossed into the rumor mill yet? That seemed to be a popular sentiment at one point, among fans anyway. I’m sure he’s not the best candidate compared to a veteran coach, but with Monty gone, is the “recent player who can relate to the kids” slot also up for grabs?

*Unless that coach is actually a Gypsy Fortuneteller. In which case I take it back. And Mike Rice as “the swami” doesn’t count.

Please don’t tell me he’s our answer to our wing player coach need. What role could he possibly play on our coaching staff. Shooting coach? Meh.

I do know that playing conservative or playing not to lose as the PTB did much of last year because Nate didn’t have the confident to let them get out and get with it. That also includes slow down offense in order to prevent the other team from scoring. It works about half of the time, but if the shots aren’t falling then we are in deep trouble because we don’t know how to run and gun.

That is my concern.

Who – don’t laugh – reportedly did a pretty good job in Minnesota and Charlotte in a role a bit similar to that of Bill Bayno for the Blazers. Hard to say if he is considered a true up-and-coming gem in the NBA like Monty, but if he learned a lot from his father and added his own thoughts and learnings… http://www.nba.com/coachfile/john-blair_bickerstaff/

I share the feeling that many of the names mentioned right now as GM and coaching candidates are long in the tooth and have a mixed track record. And also one has to wonder why the head coach feels like lack of experience among his assistants was his biggest problem.

Well, a lot of stuff. For example, why do the Blazers need to prop up Nate? If he can’t get the job done, why not get someone else (including whomever they want as their assistants)? Yeah, Nate’s a “Seattle guy”. Is that really the only reason he’s still here?

Also, why are there so many assistant coaches these days? When you look at the bench it seems like the number of “suits” is fast approaching the number of bodies in uniforms. Is there any evidence that the number of assistants has any correlation with how well a team plays and how many games it wins? Seems like all of those salaries just drive up the overhead and the cost of tickets.

An average head coach is generally the equivalent of a very good assistant, and with luck, an elite one. Most head coaches, including both Lynam and Bickerstaff, get their shot because they were hotshot assistants once upon a time.

If Nate was told to shake up his staff – it may have been specific. “Get rid of Demopolous and that newish guy Joe Whatshisname and bring in some guys who have been in the league for a long time.” He may have even been given a list of names to choose from and the final selection may have been the only ones Nate was willing to have on his staff and were willing to come. My feeling is also that one could step in as head coach in case Allen decides Nate is done before the season is – a sort of seamless transition – which may be part of the plan. Maybe not to take over long term, but till there is time to woo a big name.

As usual in my posts of conjecture I offer the disclaimer that I hope I’m wrong. I really dislike micro-managers.

I am firmly off the Nate train, but am willing to give him another chance I guess. I just don’t see how new assistant coaches are going to transform the Sarge’s style.

Lynam and Bickerstaff seem far more like “Stand back and don’t hurt yourself” folks

Isn’t this message just what the team needs, considering how many injuries there were last year?

   The Blazers in their obtainment of assistant coaches and in their search for a GM do seem to be relying on the tried and true. Having a track record seems to be a big priority. I would present the admitted speculation that this is the desire of Paul Allen. We have to remember that Paul Allen has been the owner of The Blazers for over two decades.

  As much change and turmoil as seems to plague this franchise one place that has been relatively unchanged is ownership. Ultimately a team will reflect the desires of ownership. I don’t know if Paul Allen was ever comfortable with the inexperience of Kevin Pritchard. But we have had enough speculation in this area…

  I agree with Dave that the danger with the choices The Blazers face comes from the psychology of desire for change which can lead to throwing away the baby with the bath water. I think it’s akin to people buying cars. If you’ve owned a small sports car for years, your desire for your next purchase can be to get the big SUV…just for the change.

   With the infusion of Bickerstaff(s), Lynmans and candidates like Danny Ferry for GM, The Blazers are definently changing the fabric of our management. The reality being that while I don’t think you are going to be suprised with what you get when you hire or add on a Bernie Bickerstaff or even a Danny Ferry, the problem being you are not going to be suprised…these are not up and coming talents.

   To borrow from player lingo, Bickerstaff, Lynman and Ferry are all veterans. You know what their skills and weaknesses are, and you know their operational ceiling.

   And that can be good, but that can also be bad. I would like a better balance. I want the guy that can make something happen in either a trade or a draft because he IS inexperienced enough to believe it can happen. I want someone who can say…Why Not? With Bickerstaff, Lynman and Ferry you have experience of the Mt. Rushmore type. These guys aren’t going to bother to ask “Why Not?” they have enough collective experience to instantly answer that question for themselves. The pendelum is definently swinging towards the tried, true and tested. I just don’t want us to end up with coaching and management that is so tried, true and tested that creativity and spontaneity is lost in translation.