# Fire Nate McMillan.



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

*Fire Nate McMillan. (Or maybe get him some spectacles? Or a Cataract operation?)*

I don't give a ****. Cut the politically correct crap. That's exactly what Nate's doing.

Politically Correct isn't going to get us anywhere.

Just fire him. Plus send him a time-machine, He can go back and coach in the 60s- Maybe he'll have more success then.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

He was hired to be a disciplinarian on a very different looking Blazer roster. Now we don't need a tough guy, but a creative coach that recognizes the strengths of the entire team. I'd like to see him go for Adelman, but Nate's not going to get fired with that huge contract.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Where do I sign :signup:


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

craigehlo has it down. Exactly what I was thinking. I think management thought it would take longer for this team to be rid of the misfits. Nate is making some blunders out there, but for the most part, this team is over-achieving.


----------



## RoseCity (Sep 27, 2002)

Fire the guy who has our team overachieving in a major way? I would give Nate another year PLUS with this group. Make sure we get rid of Darius Miles first!


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

I thought logical posts weren't allowed on this board...


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)

mmmm a tad premature...


----------



## sa1177 (Feb 18, 2005)




----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

He has the team overachieving because we thought he might play the kids and let them grow up on the floor.

BTW i just got home from work and 23/10 from Sergio! WOOHOO!!!


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

You guys do realize that all coaches look bad for rebuilding teams...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

how about we get a balanced roster first?

you know, like trade the guy who when he's not getting his points, does abso-freaking-lutely nothing else.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

As long as Paul Allen is the owner, I doubt we'll ever see Adelman as our coach again.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

I`d like to see Rick Pitino as coach 

He`s superb with younger players


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

www.starbury.com said:


> I`d like to see Rick Pitino as coach
> 
> He`s superb with younger players


He's a good college coach, but that experiment already failed. Which I think is a sign of a great recruiter, but not the best at catering to ego's and the pressure surrounding them at the pro level.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

The problem isn't Nate. 

The problem is, every player on the roster is either merely average, or is really inexperienced and therefore slightly below average. Other coaches have a lot of their decisionmaking taken care of simply because of large discrepencies in ability. Portland has a bunch of 'okay', inconsistent players.


----------



## Todd (Oct 8, 2003)

RoseCity said:


> Make sure we get rid of Darius Miles first!


Yeah, because he just hasn't been playing well lately.:buddies:


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

Samuel said:


> The problem isn't Nate.
> 
> The problem is, every player on the roster is either merely average, or is really inexperienced and therefore slightly below average. Other coaches have a lot of their decisionmaking taken care of simply because of large discrepencies in ability. Portland has a bunch of 'okay', inconsistent players.


It's true, other coaches have it easier. We need to have a coach who can take a highly imperfect roster and maximize the output. 

I'm not saying Nate isn't that guy... but if I were in Nate's position, I'd be trying a few more experiments.

barfo


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

honestly, who starts Dickau over Sergio?! 

even more strange is Power Serg (my new name for him) ends up playing 3x the minutes Dickau does , cmon Nate at least give the kid the start and bring him along with some confidence!


----------



## Huey Lewis (Jan 2, 2007)

I also think Nate should be canned. He is just like Mo Cheeks. He plays favorites instead of putting out the best lineup. How can you justify starting Dikau over Sergio. Dikau really doesn't belong in the league. Every time I see him I think of the movie Rudy.


----------



## Paxil (Jan 1, 2003)

You fire Nate and the whole team falls apart. Remember where Seattle was with Nate? You have to look down to see them now. And yes... they were saying the same thing some of you are saying now. If he gets this much out of youngsters... don't you want to see what he will be like with a more mature team in a few years? This team is not going anywhere regardless of who is coach. Why in the world would you want to send a message like that. Some people are looking short term and if you want that in a rebuilding team... sucks to be you. Two more years... then you make up your mind on Nate. If you are letting it get to you... you are pissing in the wind right now.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Nate is finaly doing something possitive for this team and you want to fire him? Playing Dickau and Zach last night as much as he did in the 1st and 3rd quarters was brilliant. Nate single handedly got us one step closer to Oden or Durant. His cunning ability to play Raef as much as he did also was a bold move.


----------



## Webster's Dictionary (Feb 26, 2004)

I was going to post something supporting Nate, but I don't post much anymore. Any positive opinion about anyone except one of our rookies will immediately be bashed like a bug on a windshield. (honestly, who can I support besides a rookie that will not result in immediate bashing? Maybe supporting Jack won't exactly get a bashing, but just wait. If Sergio has one more good game, it will come.)
I guess the same thing can be said about anything negative about Nate. This board has just evolved into one giant flame war. Great times.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Webster's Dictionary said:


> I was going to post something supporting Nate, but I don't post much anymore. Any positive opinion about anyone except one of our rookies will immediately be bashed like a bug on a windshield. (honestly, who can I support besides a rookie that will not result in immediate bashing? Maybe supporting Jack won't exactly get a bashing, but just wait. If Sergio has one more good game, it will come.)
> I guess the same thing can be said about anything negative about Nate. This board has just into one giant flame war. Great times.




I think most people on this board who hate Nate will always acknowledge when he coaches well. I know I do. I think he's a good coach, just not for a young rebuilding team. This team isn't going anywhere, and has a young promissing PG that he doesn't want to play as much as dan Dickau????? How can you support that move? He has come out and said numerous times that it is he and he alone that decides who to play, yet he benched Aldridge in favor of Magloire when Aldridge was clearly playing better, and still does on most nights. Again, how can you support that?


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Well record wise, Blazers are no better than last year . . . I'm not on the fire Nate ban wagon, but I expect more from Nate.



I think Kent would be a good coach for the Blazers : )


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

barfo said:


> It's true, other coaches have it easier. We need to have a coach who can take a highly imperfect roster and maximize the output.
> 
> I'm not saying Nate isn't that guy... but *if I were in Nate's position, I'd be trying a few more experiments.
> *
> barfo


What do you mean by experiments? If you mean lineup and rotation changes, we've had those in droves over the last season and a half. Last season every guy on the roster started a game. This season I think we've had everyone but Raef and Sergio start. He uses 11-man rotations and lets nearly everyone on the team play, then goes with whoever is hot that month. A lot of that is due to injuries, but Nate has been quite a tinkerer. If anything, he's guilty of not setting a rotation and defining roles for players.

If experiments means running different kinds of offense, we just aren't going to see that. He's adapted it somewhat to fit players, like he did with Telfair last year, but mostly he's going to stick with a strict structure. That is tough for young guys to play in, but it's also the kind of basketball that wins playoff games. Learning to play that way is thus important, so even if we could get a temporary bump from playing more freestyle, it probably wouldn't pay off in the long run.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Webster's Dictionary said:


> I was going to post something supporting Nate, but I don't post much anymore. Any positive opinion about anyone except one of our rookies will immediately be bashed like a bug on a windshield. (honestly, who can I support besides a rookie that will not result in immediate bashing? Maybe supporting Jack won't exactly get a bashing, but just wait. If Sergio has one more good game, it will come.)
> I guess the same thing can be said about anything negative about Nate. This board has just evolved into one giant flame war. Great times.


Yeah it does get pretty annoying sometimes, especially during a losing streak. Meh.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> What do you mean by experiments? If you mean lineup and rotation changes, we've had those in droves over the last season and a half. Last season every guy on the roster started a game. This season I think we've had everyone but Raef and Sergio start. He uses 11-man rotations and lets nearly everyone on the team play, then goes with whoever is hot that month. A lot of that is due to injuries, but Nate has been quite a tinkerer. If anything, he's guilty of not setting a rotation and defining roles for players.
> 
> If experiments means running different kinds of offense, we just aren't going to see that. He's adapted it somewhat to fit players, like he did with Telfair last year, but mostly he's going to stick with a strict structure. That is tough for young guys to play in, but it's also the kind of basketball that wins playoff games. Learning to play that way is thus important, so even if we could get a temporary bump from playing more freestyle, it probably wouldn't pay off in the long run.



God knows the Lakers from the 80's, Bulls from the 90's and Suns now never run. They never make the playoofs. Even structured teams like Detroit, Miami, Dallas, San Antonio run a more free style offense than Nate does. 

Every announcer from the opposing teams....I know they don't know as much as Nate does....says we should play the younger guys more and play a quicker game. The team was absolutely dominant last night when Sergio was in and we were playing more up tempo. I even saw some of the fans smiling and having a good time.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Every announcer from the opposing teams....I know they don't know as much as Nate does....says we should play the younger guys more and play a quicker game. The team was absolutely dominant last night when Sergio was in and we were playing more up tempo. I even saw some of the fans smiling and having a good time.



You mentioned Memephis as a team that has decided to turn it loose and run. Did you catch their 50 point drubbing by Chicago this weekend? Not too many Memephis fans smiling there.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> You mentioned Memephis as a team that has decided to turn it loose and run. Did you catch their 50 point drubbing by Chicago this weekend? Not too many Memephis fans smiling there.




Or like us scoring 74 points against Dallas playing Nate's way. We ONLY lost by 25, so I guess that's better.

I wonder what the attendence figures are in Memphis? I wonder if more people are buying tickets with the increased scoring? Anyone want to take the time to find that out it would be appreciated.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Or like us scoring 74 points against Dallas playing Nate's way. We ONLY lost by 25, so I guess that's better.


Dallas is the best team in the NBA. Did you honestly expect a more respectable result? 

If you did, you shouldn't have. 



> I wonder what the attendence figures are in Memphis? I wonder if more people are buying tickets with the increased scoring? Anyone want to take the time to find that out it would be appreciated.


So you don't have basis for your point, but want someone else to go find some for you?

Nice.

I think the fast paced game is good for the second unit, but it's unclear whether it would actually help this team improve. Portland is not a good team, and it's not like going fast paced will change anything.

Q: If Portland went fast-paced, what winning percentage would the team have for the rest of the season? Just curious.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> Or like us scoring 74 points against Dallas playing Nate's way. We ONLY lost by 25, so I guess that's better.
> 
> I wonder what the attendence figures are in Memphis? I wonder if more people are buying tickets with the increased scoring? Anyone want to take the time to find that out it would be appreciated.



The Blazer game was the second game of a back to back on the road, with the second game being against the best team in the league . . . you live in TX, didn't you see that blow out coming.

What I did learn from that braodcast is according to the announcers (your favorite source :biggrin: ) they attributed Dalls' success this year and last to the fact they have stop being an offensive only team and decided to concentrate on defense . . . can you believe that . . . concentrate on defense . . . how boring is that?


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

What Actually hurt me the most- Was the half-time Interview with one of our Assistant Coaches (I'm almost sure it was Maurice Lucas)..

During that Interview- the Coach was asket about Sergio- In a somewhat enthusiastic spirit - I can't recall the exact question, But It was something like "What About the Incredible Spanish Sergio".. And the coach goes like- "Oh.. Yeah.. He's been playing solid for us.. But he has to bring himself down and start controlling the team in a stable way.."

And I Was just disgusted. I felt terrible. Plain and simple. Yesterday, at the 2nd quarter, I saw the new Blazers. Passionate. Running. Young. Hungry. Stroking of offense, Making troubles to the other team's offense. Just making me proud again.

Guys- It's not a bussiness meeting for Christ's sake- It's a Basketball game. Where's the Passion!? Where's the Taking risks part? With no taking risks- No one can succeed. Aside of that- I was disgust b/c It felt like Nate was trying to make a statement. No matter how good you are- It's my way, or the highway. Their Treating Sergio like a little toy - When Ironically he's the best team player on this roster, and he could be the one saving this franchise. 

I don't think that this team has started tanking in purpose, but Let me tell you one thing- If you swap Coach D'Antoni and Nate McMillan- You might as well swap both teams' records. 

And everybody - Cut the "discipline" crap- You can't be a coach if you don't have discipline. And I don't see Nate actually doing something about Zach and his game. I can Only see the exact opposite. A great bold and basketball passionate coach- Just wouldn't start him for couple of games. Let alone at the 2nd Half yesterday! What an embarrassment.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

PhilK said:


> What Actually hurt me the most- Was the half-time Interview with one of our Assistant Coaches (I'm almost sure it was Maurice Lucas)..
> 
> During that Interview- the Coach was asket about Sergio- In a somewhat enthusiastic spirit - I can't recall the exact question, But It was something like "What About the Incredible Spanish Sergio".. And the coach goes like- "Oh.. Yeah.. He's been playing solid for us.. But he has to bring himself down and start controlling the team in a stable way.."
> 
> ...


great post. I hate how he downplays Sergio and LMA's stellar play, and then benches them for weeks at a time for the smallest miscue.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> God knows the Lakers from the 80's, Bulls from the 90's and Suns now never run. They never make the playoofs. Even structured teams like Detroit, Miami, Dallas, San Antonio run a more free style offense than Nate does.


Add the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, the 90s Bulls, the 90s Jazz and the Van Gundy Knicks to that list of teams that play with structured offenses, and then observe that you're talking about nearly every team that has been to the Finals in recent memory. The Suns are great this year, but are clearly the exception to the rule.

Playing structured doesn't mean never running, it just means the team relies on half-court execution to win. Nate is pretty harsh about slowing the team down since becomeing the Blazers coach, but when he feels like they are playing under control, he lets them speed it up, such as the Blazers were with Steve Blake last year, or when Nate was the Seattle coach. Since we have such a young team, the tempation is there to try to maximize their present production by letting them play fast and loose, but if they can learn to execute and play under control first, they and the team are going to be much better in the long run. It's probably much harder to teach a kid to play slow after he's played fast than the reverse.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

PhilK said:


> I don't think that this team has started tanking in purpose, but Let me tell you one thing- If you swap Coach D'Antoni and Nate McMillan- You might as well swap both teams' records.


Are you serious? Am I reading this right?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> The Blazer game was the second game of a back to back on the road, with the second game being against the best team in the league . . . you live in TX, didn't you see that blow out coming.
> 
> What I did learn from that braodcast is according to the announcers (your favorite source :biggrin: ) they attributed Dalls' success this year and last to the fact they have stop being an offensive only team and decided to concentrate on defense . . . can you believe that . . . concentrate on defense . . . how boring is that?



So boring they are 12th in the league in scoring at 99.15 a game. I'm not saying not to play defense. I'm saying loosen up the offense a bit. Portland is 13th in the league in winning % when they score more than 100. unfortunately it has only happened 8 times (6-2) or 26th in the NBA. Only two other teams have scored 100 points as few times as the Blazers NO/OK (6-2) and ATL (4-4). NO/OK record is 14-22 and Atlanta's record is 11-23. Dallas on the other hand has scored 100 points 18 times and has gone 17-1 in those games


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

dudleysghost said:


> Add the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, the 90s Bulls, the 90s Jazz and the Van Gundy Knicks to that list of teams that play with structured offenses, and then observe that you're talking about nearly every team that has been to the Finals in recent memory. The Suns are great this year, but are clearly the exception to the rule.
> 
> Playing structured doesn't mean never running, it just means the team relies on half-court execution to win. Nate is pretty harsh about slowing the team down since becomeing the Blazers coach, but when he feels like they are playing under control, he lets them speed it up, such as the Blazers were with Steve Blake last year, or when Nate was the Seattle coach. Since we have such a young team, the tempation is there to try to maximize their present production by letting them play fast and loose, but if they can learn to execute and play under control first, they and the team are going to be much better in the long run. It's probably much harder to teach a kid to play slow after he's played fast than the reverse.



Just like playing structured doesn't mean never playing Up tempo. I really want you to understand that I don't want the Phoenix offense. I want an offense that plays more uptempo.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> Playing structured doesn't mean never running, it just means the team relies on half-court execution to win.


"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."

This team isn't capable of good half-court offense. We've tried it for Nate's entire tenure. Our outside shooting is streaky at best and the passing out of the post is horrendous. Even if we get good ball rotation, it's much more often than not a player throwing up a brick.

I'd rather play an uptemo game where you have the advantage of attacking a defense that's a bit on their heels. It worked well with Sergio in the game last night.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> Just like playing structured doesn't mean never playing Up tempo. I really want you to understand that I don't want the Phoenix offense. I want an offense that plays more uptempo.


That's fair. I still think it's important to learn to play slow first though, but certainly most of the great teams can do both. Nate seems to let the team play looser when he's confident they are under control, so I'm not worried just because he won't let our young team run. Things come with time.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

craigehlo said:


> "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results."
> 
> This team isn't capable of good half-court offense. We've tried it for Nate's entire tenure. Our outside shooting is streaky at best and the passing out of the post is horrendous. Even if we get good ball rotation, it's much more often than not a player throwing up a brick.
> 
> I'd rather play an uptemo game where you have the advantage of attacking a defense that's a bit on their heels. It worked well with Sergio in the game last night.


The team isn't capable because it is young and inexperienced. It's not insanity to do the same thing over and over and expect improvement, it's practice. Fast-paced basketball is fun, but the team has to learn how to play under control. In the long run, that's the way to win, as evidenced by the fact that all the best teams in recent history have played that way. If Phoenix actually wins the West this year, that will have changed, but I'm guessing they will lose to a half-court team like Dallas, San Antonio or even boring old Utah, probably in the second round.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> I really want you to understand that I don't want the Phoenix offense.


I wish that were even an option, but we are such a crap 3-point shooting team it's not.

We need to attack the hoop on the break and get to the foul line more. No more pulling the ball back on offense when the opposing defense isn't set (Jack does this all the time). We need guys looking to attack in those situation, not pull back to set up our all-too-predictable set offense.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

PhilK said:


> I don't think that this team has started tanking in purpose, but Let me tell you one thing- If you swap Coach D'Antoni and Nate McMillan- You might as well swap both teams' records.


maybe if you swapped Nash with D'Antoni too.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Hap said:


> maybe if you swapped Nash with D'Antoni too.



Not if Nash cut into Sergio's time . . .


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> The team isn't capable because it is young and inexperienced.


Inexperience is an excuse you can't give to Zbo, Joel, Maglore, Raef, Dixon or Ime. I'd argue if they can't be effective on a half-court offense by this point in their respective careers, it's just not going to work out for them.

I think the guys who you can excuse for inexperience are LaMarcus, Sergio, Martell and Roy. 

If you don't recognize the strengths of individual players on your team, you aren't doing you job as a coach. We are a poor half-court team. That we know. Let's see how we fare pushing the ball. I doubt it would be much worse than our already sad .385 winning percentage.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Not if Nash cut into Sergio's time . . .


I've lost track of which side is for which here..so um..I agree? I think.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

http://www.nba.com/news/survey_age_2006.html

Keep in mind: we're still the 3rd youngest team in the NBA. And if one charted that statistic by people who actually play, I suspect we'd surpass Golden State as the 2nd youngest team in the NBA.

You just can't expect much from a group this young. 

Are you like me? Do you often forget that Brandon Roy, simply because he went to school for 4 years, just played in his 17th full game (excluding his injury games vs. LAC and NOK).

Do you also forget that Jarrett Jack, everyday starter, is just as old as Brandon Roy, the rookie? 

I mean seriously... Travis Outlaw is probably the biggest staple of the Blazers, and he's _younger_ than Roy.

Even Atlanta plays guys like Claxton and Johnson.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Samuel said:


> You just can't expect much from a group this young.


That's too easy a cop out. If you look at the age table you'll notice that Utah, Golden State, Chicago and Bucks are right around our age range (within 1 year).

Age doesn't have to equal poor defense, bad shooting and stagnant offense. It's a convenient excuse for apologists.


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

You cant really expect this much from a group this young and inexperienced?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

craigehlo said:


> That's too easy a cop out.


Well, if you've ever heard Nate McMillan in a press conference, he reminds us of this fact after every game. 



craigehlo said:


> If you look at the age table you'll notice that Utah, Golden State, Chicago and Bucks are right around our age range (within 1 year).


With Utah, the only young guy on that team who plays heavy minutes is Deron Williams. Everyone else is a veteran. Brewer and Milsap play small minutes off the bench. Anyway, Utah is the exception, not the rule. It's no coincidence that the older teams in the league are better. 

Portland, meanwhile, has Randolph, Dixon, and the C position as the only spots with NBA experience. Udoka's 'age 29' might as well be '22' because he's basically a rookie. If you weighted the list by 'minutes played' I'm confident you'd find the gap between Portland and GSW, MIL and Chicago would grow. Also, MIL and CHI's records would be a lot worse if they played in the west.



craigehlo said:


> Age doesn't have to equal poor defense, bad shooting and stagnant offense. It's a convenient excuse for apologists.


Are you suggesting that I'm placing the blame for Portland's poor performance solely on age? That's odd.

Of course you can have a young team succeed. But it rarely happens. Poor defense, bad shooting, and stagnant offense just happens to be the residue of rookies. That's not an excuse, it's a fact.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Remind me again, why are we firing Nate McMillan?

Is it because of the record, which is better than any of the NBA projections had for us at the start of the season?

Is it because he doesn't play the young guys enough? The fact is that Brandon Roy is playing more than double the average for all rookies from last year's draft (31.1 mpg vs. the average of 14.98) and more than any other rookie except Adam Morrison. LaMarcus Aldridge is playing an average of 18.6 MPG and rising...8th most of all rookies despite the fact that he missed camp and all of November due to shoulder surgery and the fact that the Blazers' roster is loaded with big men. Sergio Rodriguez is averaging 10.5 MPG despite the fact that he was only the 27th pick of the draft, has zero college experience, and is still getting considerable playing time compared to other rookies in the second half of the draft.

Is it because we don't like his rotation, despite the fact that the roster is totally out of balance...something Nate has zero control over...and he has to deal with competing long term interests of developing youth vs. short term goals of getting the most trade value for players that management may want to move?

Or is the reason that some of you are calling for Nate's head on a platter simply a matter of you thinking you know better than he does and being ticked that he's not doing things the way you'd like to see them done? Given that there are about as many opinions of how things should be done as there are Blazers fans, I'm guessing that no NBA coach could live up to that criterion.

The way I see it, the team is just about exactly where I thought they'd be at this point in the season. There's no way the Blazers are even considering dumping McMillan after giving him a big contract and the keys to the team's future. If you can't deal with that fact, I guess maybe you need to find another team to root for.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

Samuel said:


> Well, if you've ever heard Nate McMillan in a press conference, he reminds us of this fact after every game.


What do you expect him to say? "I was yet again outcoached and didn't react quickly when the game got away from us?" He's a bad coach, but not stupid.



Samuel said:


> With Utah, the only young guy on that team who plays heavy minutes is Deron Williams.


Yes. And he's turned that team around in his 2nd season. It didn't take him 4 years to become a legitimate player. Yet our rebuilding process moves ahead at the pace of a glacier. We are almost exactly at the same record we had last season where we were the worst in NBA.

It's a huge leap of faith to stick with a team that's showing no defensive heart, awful shooting and deteriorating post play. "Hope is not a strategy" as they say. It's the same logic that keeps us giving a chronic underachiever like Outlaw shots to improve. You have to draw a line and cut your losses at some point.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

e_blazer1 said:


> Remind me again, why are we firing Nate McMillan?
> 
> Is it because of the record, which is better than any of the NBA projections had for us at the start of the season?
> 
> ...




My reasons are simple. 

1. Nate's offense is boring
2. We are a young rebuilding team, and Nate doesn't like to play young players
3. Nate's substitution patterns are absolutely stupid


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

drexlersdad said:


> great post. I hate how he downplays Sergio and LMA's stellar play, and then benches them for weeks at a time for the smallest miscue.


No kidding. He doesn't criticize Dan Dickau, Jamaal Magloire, Joel Przybilla or Juan Dixon when they have a BAD game, yet whenever Sergio or LaMarcus have a GREAT game he finds something negative to say.

Hey Nate, one simple stat from last night's game highlights why YOUR decision to play Dan Dickau ahead of Sergio Rodriguez is painfully, oviously STOOPID!

Dan Dickau - EFF = -2.0
Sergio Rodriguez - EFF = +33.0

Even if you ignore the astronomical differences in points and assists (23 vs. 0 and 10 vs. 1), in the area of give-aways vs. take-aways, Sergio still outperformed the guy you chose to start (4 TOs + 3 STLS in 30:28 vs. 3 TOs + 1 STL in 11:46). But, yeah, let's be sure and mention those 4 TOs when the reporter asks you about Sergio's great game and positive impact on the team. Nevermind that the 33.0 EFF he put up last night is the highest EFF rating for ANY Blazers guard in ANY game this year. But hey, don't forget to mention his 4 TOs. Otherwise people might start to think playing Mr. NEGATIVE 2.0 in front of him is a bad idea. Sheesh.

BNM


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> My reasons are simple.
> 
> 1. Nate's offense is boring
> 2. We are a young rebuilding team, and Nate doesn't like to play young players
> 3. Nate's substitution patterns are absolutely stupid


I believe that put's you squarely in the 4th category, mm.


----------



## craigehlo (Feb 24, 2005)

I have a feeling Nate is a control freak that doesn't quite like it when his PG plays a wide open game. Seems like he wants to micromanage this team on the offensive end.

You have to be blind not to see Sergio's the knack for hitting the open man at the right time, no matter where he is on the court. He's making guys that have have been struggling like Webster and Maglore into solid role players.


----------



## fer (Dec 6, 2006)

*Re: Fire Nate McMillan. (Or maybe get him some spectacles? Or a Cataract operation?)*



PhilK said:


> Just fire him. Plus send him a time-machine, He can go back and coach in the 60s- Maybe he'll have more success then.


:worthy: 

+1


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

craigehlo said:


> What do you expect him to say? "I was yet again outcoached and didn't react quickly when the game got away from us?" He's a bad coach, but not stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. And he's turned that team around in his 2nd season. It didn't take him 4 years to become a legitimate player. Yet our rebuilding process moves ahead at the pace of a glacier. We are almost exactly at the same record we had last season where we were the worst in NBA.


You are talking about Utah, and I assume "he" is Jerry Sloan.

Your point might be an intriguing one if were based on facts. Unfortunately for the point you are trying so painfully to make, Utah is in the FOURTH season since Stockton and Malone left the building.

They are winning a lot of games now and looking good. It remains to be seen if their deep team will be able to get far in the playoffs against teams with the Star power so important in the playoffs and more experience than the young Utah team has.

The teams respective situations were different enough leading up to and during the rebuild decisions, making it more of an apple to orange comparison. 

If you are really interested, I can explaing the Utah situation to you in more detail. If you just wanted to smash Portland and the coach, and are bored with the Utah story now that it doesn't serve your pre-ordained purpose, I will be saved the typing.


----------

