# No more McMillan bashing



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

Nate McMillan doesn't play Aldridge enough. He doesn't know how to substitute during a game. He won't give Sergio more minutes. He isn't designing enough shots for Webster. He likes Magloire more than is warranted. Blah, blah, blah . . .

The Blazers just completed a 4-2 road trip. They won their last 3 in a row, including one without their leading scorer and rebounder. Two nights ago they squeeked one out even though they played horribly, and tonight they managed to beat Memphis with Randolph being almost invisible in the second half. How are they doing it? Gee, it must have something to do with their coach, don't you think?

With all of our injuries and all of our new faces, we sit at 10-14 right now. That's almost a miracle, guys. I say enough with the ridiculous bashing of McMillan. He obviously knows something about coaching.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

So you're in favor of playing guys who aren't part of our future like Raef Dixon and Magloire?
That's my only gripe. Quit playing guys who aren't going to be here. We aren't goign anywhere this year so we might as well get as much PT for our core as possible!


----------



## drexlersdad (Jun 3, 2006)

The Outlaw sub at the end was genius. He had 3 blocks right out of the gate 2 on Gay, who was killing us. Great sub. He still doesn't play Martell enough for anyones liking, but you know what? He doesn't care about "developing" our youth. He just wants to win every game we play. And thats cool with me. Now if only our youth could win, I would be really happy!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Or at least be fair with the bashing. The idea that NAte doesn't play youth is wrong. Anyone notice how many minutes Jack got? 

Nate plays who he thinks will help win the game, regardless of their age. I don't think the players, including Webster and Aldridge, would want it any other way.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> So you're in favor of playing guys who aren't part of our future like Raef Dixon and Magloire?


That's something else I'm sick of--the steady bashing of Dixon. The guy has made more big-time shots for us this year than anyone except Randolph. We'd have three or four more games in the loss column without his steady shooting. On a team woefully short of offensive firepower, Dixon is a welcome presence on the court.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

drexlersdad said:


> The Outlaw sub at the end was genius. He had 3 blocks right out of the gate 2 on Gay, who was killing us. Great sub. He still doesn't play Martell enough for anyones liking, but you know what? He doesn't care about "developing" our youth. He just wants to win every game we play. And thats cool with me. Now if only our youth could win, I would be really happy!



I actually think he'd like to see Webster be a lot more aggressive, I just think Webster doesn't have his game going right now or doesn't fully understand that all of us want him to take as many shots as he can get. Dixon scored 8 in that third quarter and as much as I don't like the runt's defense, his aggressiveness kept us in the game, something I think Webster is trying to figure out.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

MAS RipCity said:


> So you're in favor of playing guys who aren't part of our future like Raef Dixon and Magloire?
> That's my only gripe. Quit playing guys who aren't going to be here. We aren't goign anywhere this year so we might as well get as much PT for our core as possible!


I'm in favor of playing the best players. I'm in favor of a coach who gives out minutes based on who is going to give his team the best chance of win. 

I don't want a coach who gives minutes to players because of what pick they were in the draft, how much money they make, or because they're 19 years old.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> With all of our injuries and all of our new faces, we sit at 10-14 right now. That's almost a miracle, guys. I say enough with the ridiculous bashing of McMillan. He obviously knows something about coaching.


I've probably never agreed with any of your posts more than this one.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> So you're in favor of playing guys who aren't part of our future like Raef Dixon and Magloire?
> That's my only gripe. Quit playing guys who aren't going to be here. We aren't goign anywhere this year so we might as well get as much PT for our core as possible!


Maybe they're hoping to up those players' trade value? Or, he's playing the best players we actually have right now, so that the young guys actually have to EARN their playing time. Either way, it's not worth complaining about constantly.

We went 4-2 on the road trip. I would not have predicted that...would you? I doubt it. I think that means you need to admit that Nate knows a little something about what he's doing and why. Have some faith.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> That's something else I'm sick of--the steady bashing of Dixon. The guy has made more big-time shots for us this year than anyone except Randolph. We'd have three or four more games in the loss column without his steady shooting. On a team woefully short of offensive firepower, Dixon is a welcome presence on the court.


And how many games has he shot us out of..wasn't he like 4 for 28 during a stretch of the road trip this past week? I actually like Jaun but if he starts taking away Websters minutes then theres no reason for that.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Yea, let's give McMillan the purple heart too, he's doing so great. Look at the records of the last 3 teams we won, and realize that NONE of these teams had their star players in Bosh, Iverson, or Gasol. Look at what we've sacrificed, we sacrificed developing the #2 overall pick this year, and we sacrificed developing the #6 overall pick last year. BUT MCMILLAN IS DOING GREAT! Some of you guys are so damn short sighted.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Fork said:


> Maybe they're hoping to up those players' trade value? Or, he's playing the best players we actually have right now, so that the young guys actually have to EARN their playing time. Either way, it's not worth complaining about constantly.
> 
> We went 4-2 on the road trip. I would not have predicted that...would you? I doubt it. I think that means you need to admit that Nate knows a little something about what he's doing and why. Have some faith.


I hate the laying someone to up their trade value..it never works. Did it work with Darius..NO...Did it work with Rahim..Abosolutely not..Then why is it going to work now?

4-2 is good, before I would have predicted 1-5 or 2-4, but that was BEFORE I knew Charlie V was out for the Bucks, O'Neal out for the Pacers, and AI out for Philly. If I knew that, I would have predicted 4-2 or 5-1.


----------



## TiMVP2 (Jun 19, 2003)

nate mcmillian should play lamarcus 48 min


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

MDIZZ said:


> nate mcmillian should play lamarcus 48 min



But the league doesn't allow 15 fouls a game. :biggrin:


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Sambonius said:


> we sacrificed developing the #2 overall pick this year, and we sacrificed developing the #6 overall pick last year. BUT MCMILLAN IS DOING GREAT! Some of you guys are so damn short sighted.


McMillan is playing both of those guys 21 minutes per game. Were you aware of that?


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> McMillan is playing both of those guys 21 minutes per game. Were you aware of that?


Minutes don't necessarily mean developing, opportunities such as shots and being put in a position to succeed are just as important, if not more.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Sambonius said:


> Yea, let's give McMillan the purple heart too, he's doing so great. Look at the records of the last 3 teams we won, and realize that NONE of these teams had their star players in Bosh, Iverson, or Gasol. Look at what we've sacrificed, we sacrificed developing the #2 overall pick this year, and we sacrificed developing the #6 overall pick last year. BUT MCMILLAN IS DOING GREAT! Some of you guys are so damn short sighted.


Well...we were without our 2nd best player for all 4 of those wins and without our best player for one of them.

What's OUR record by the way? Pretty bad still, right? 4 wins on the road for a team that was 6-11 going into the road trip...that's damn good no matter who played for what team.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> Well...we were without our 2nd best player for all 4 of those wins and without our best player for one of them.
> 
> What's OUR record by the way? Pretty bad still, right? 4 wins on the road for a team that was 6-11 going into the road trip...that's damn good no matter who played for what team.




We've been without Roy for awhile now. It would be different if we had lost him right before these games like our opponents did.

Also, Portland is a very talented team. We are just young and inexperienced at most possitions. 


That being said I thought when I read this thread title Nate had gone away from his antiquated low post offense and decided to play Aldridge more.....I guess I was incorrect.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

mediocre man said:


> Also, Portland is a very talented team.


That's news to everyone.

Potential doesn't make us talented.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

Fork said:


> Well...we were without our 2nd best player for all 4 of those wins and without our best player for one of them.
> 
> What's OUR record by the way? Pretty bad still, right? 4 wins on the road for a team that was 6-11 going into the road trip...that's damn good no matter who played for what team.


So you're comparing the talent level of the Raptors, Sixers, and Grizzlies to the Blazers? Those teams have an atrocious level of talent on those teams in my opinion, especially without Bosh, Iverson, and Gasol. At least our team is filled with lottery picks. Oh look, Bargnani was given playing time tonight and he produced. Look at the guy who was drafted 1 pick later, yea he only played 4 minutes the entire game. I am not impressed by these wins at all.


----------



## bryyan11 (May 24, 2006)

MAS RipCity said:


> So you're in favor of playing guys who aren't part of our future like Raef Dixon and Magloire?
> That's my only gripe. Quit playing guys who aren't going to be here. We aren't goign anywhere this year so we might as well get as much PT for our core as possible!


I dont understand this logic... One way our young players will develop is if we WIN. 

Dixon, Raef, Magloire, They are veterans who play to win. One part of developing young players is teaching them how to win. Getting repeatedly destroyed every night(like last season) is detrimental.

Nate has done an admirable job so far... we are 10-14 without having a full, healthy team one time this entire year!


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

mediocre man said:


> That being said I thought when I read this thread title Nate had gone away from his antiquated low post offense and decided to play Aldridge more.....I guess I was incorrect.


Did you notice the Blazers won the game?


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Fork said:


> That's news to everyone.
> 
> Potential doesn't make us talented.




Jack is a good PG
Dixon is a solid if not streaky and hard to watch shooter
Ime is solid
Zach is as close to a star as you can be without beig one
Joel solid at blocks and ok at rebounds

Travis playing well
Aldridge, when Nate plays him usually plays well
Webster starting to play better


Compared to the teams we just beat, we are way more talented. 

Villenueva
O'Neal
Bosh
Iverson
Gasol


All those players...there teams best mostly were out when we played them. Great for us, but definately a factor


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kiss_My_Darius said:


> Did you notice the Blazers won the game?




Did you notice that we should have won going away?


----------



## porkchopexpress (May 24, 2006)

mediocre man said:


> We've been without Roy for awhile now. It would be different if we had lost him right before these games like our opponents did.



Um...when did Gasol go out....oh yeah, before Roy.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

porkchopexpress said:


> Um...when did Gasol go out....oh yeah, before Roy.




Not all the teams. I realize Gasol has been out, all I'm saying is that Portland caught a huge break in playing these teams when we did.


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

we lost a big chunk of the lead when aldridge was in the game....


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Utherhimo said:


> we lost a big chunk of the lead when aldridge was in the game....




WTF are you talking about????? Aldridge was in the game for 4 minutes in the first half. We lost our lead in the second half when he didn't even play

He entered the game at 29-14 and left at 34-23. not that we increased our lead, but I'm quite certain he wasn't the reason for our second half collapse


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Sambonius said:


> Minutes don't necessarily mean developing, opportunities such as shots and being put in a position to succeed are just as important, if not more.


Lol, you're like a machine. You should take a look at the stat sheets and see how much opportunity those guys you listed are actually getting. You might be surprised at how generous Nate is by comparison.


----------



## porkchopexpress (May 24, 2006)

If you don't mean all teams then don't make broad statements. Also I think we would have beaten the Sixers with AI anyways. What is Dixon's biggest problem on D, his size, problem solved agaisnt AI, (I am not saying that Dixon would have contained him).

Zach being out of the Toronto game should counter the Rapters not having Bosh. Both teams were without their best player, plus we were without our 2nd best.

So, while in the games we won we benefited by the opposition having a top player missing, we were at an equal, or greater, loss in 2 of those games and the third the team just flat out sucks all the time.

[I took too long, this is in response to MM a few posts above.]


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Some of you may be interested to know that despite all the bad teams we've played on this road trip having missing stars, we were heavy underdogs in all those games. -3.5 against Philly, -5.5 against Memphis, and worse against the rest, and yet we won 4 of 6. It seems that Vegas and professional bettors don't think we have an overwhelming talent level compared to these other teams.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

I'm sure everyone here saying Aldridge should play 48 minutes would have no problem if some 4.0 GPA college graduate came in and took their job because he had potential to be a better employee. 

And let's not forget how stupid Detroit was for not playing Darko during their championship runs. 

It would be short sighted to give someone unearned minutes unless you planned on giving out unwarrented minutes in the long-term. Players won't play hard for a coach they don't respect, and I can't think of a quicker way to lose respect than give people minutes based on where they were picked in the draft.

Aldridge will be fine, what's the rush? It might actually be good for him to be forced to work hard and earn his minutes.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

EARN MINUTES!?!?! Dude is the hardest worker in the weight room according to the charts. He definatley puts forth the effort. He deserves to be out there, and let's not forget he is leaps and bounds better then Mag and Raef...shoot, Raef hasn't made a field goal all year long!


----------



## Hype #9 (Feb 14, 2004)

MAS RipCity said:


> EARN MINUTES!?!?! Dude is the hardest worker in the weight room according to the charts. He definatley puts forth the effort. He deserves to be out there, and let's not forget he is leaps and bounds better then Mag and Raef...shoot, Raef hasn't made a field goal all year long!


What are you talking about? Lamarcus plays more minutes than both Jamal and Raef.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

I'm talking about LATELY...as in this road trip.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Hey guys... we're 10 and 14. How many "experts" or even fans would have predicted this good of a start for us? Even through injuries we've stayed competitive and have been winning at a better clip than most would have expected.

Nate definitely has something to do with that.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Yes we are 10-14,but we haven't really beat anyone we had no business beating..The 27 pt comeback was unexpected, and to some extent the Seattle and NJ road wins and the Detoit Roady were out of the blue, so theres 4...but we've also dropped about that many to teams we shoulda thumped...most notably..Millwaukee,Atlanta, Indiana, and Orlando.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

MAS RipCity said:


> Yes we are 10-14,but we haven't really beat anyone we had no business beating..The 27 pt comeback was unexpected, and to some extent the Seattle and NJ road wins and the Detoit Roady were out of the blue, so theres 4...but we've also dropped about that many to teams we shoulda thumped...most notably..Millwaukee,Atlanta, Indiana, and Orlando.


I don't think we've been favored in a game this entire season, leading me to believe that there wasn't a game we were expected to "thump" any team.

Yes we're going to be a good team, but we're the type of team other fans are saying their team should thump on a nightly basis.


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

MAS RipCity said:


> EARN MINUTES!?!?! Dude is the hardest worker in the weight room according to the charts. He definatley puts forth the effort. He deserves to be out there, and let's not forget he is leaps and bounds better then Mag and Raef...shoot, Raef hasn't made a field goal all year long!


You're confusing earning minutes with giving effort. I could work harder than Zach Randolph, but that doesn't mean I should get more minutes in an NBA game than him. I certainly wouldn't put too much stock into weight room effort.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

MAS RipCity said:


> Yes we are 10-14,but we haven't really beat anyone we had no business beating..The 27 pt comeback was unexpected, and to some extent the Seattle and NJ road wins and the Detoit Roady were out of the blue, so theres 4...but we've also dropped about that many to teams we shoulda thumped...most notably..Millwaukee,Atlanta, Indiana, and Orlando.


Hmm, interesting tactic. When Nate's team exceeds all reasonable expectations, the North American Nate-Basher opts to change the expectations rather than acknowledge that the team is doing well.

All of a sudden we "shoulda thumped" teams, even .500+ teams like Orlando and Indiana?

Did anyone notice that we've played 4 more road games than we have home games? We've also won as many road games in the first month and a half this season as all of last season combined.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Tince said:


> I'm in favor of playing the best players. I'm in favor of a coach who gives out minutes based on who is going to give his team the best chance of win.
> 
> I don't want a coach who gives minutes to players because of what pick they were in the draft, how much money they make, or because they're 19 years old.


Exactly!

And great thread TH.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Tince said:


> I'm sure everyone here saying Aldridge should play 48 minutes would have no problem if some 4.0 GPA college graduate came in and took their job because he had potential to be a better employee.
> 
> And let's not forget how stupid Detroit was for not playing Darko during their championship runs.
> 
> ...


Excellent post.


----------



## ThatBlazerGuy (May 1, 2003)

I agree. At the begenning of the year no one even thought LaMarcus would be getting more than 10 minutes this year. Most thought this would be a Darko type year for him. He has exceeded all expectations IMO. I will admit, I hate seeing him get 4 minutes in a game. But all that matters is we won, and a culture of winning is more constructive to a young players career than giving the dude 35 minutes right off the bat.


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

I would love to see MAS and Sambonio coach this team. Idiots would be 0-24. Saying Nate doesn't know how to coach is like saying these two clowns don't know how to whine. It's nice to have an opinion guys, but stop pretending you have the answers and know what it's like to coach this team. You're making fools of yourselves. 

Coaches are hired and paid to win. Coaches will play the players that have earned their TRUST through consistent good decision making in big moments. 

If you think the Blazers should take losses to grow these kids up, you've never been a coach...or a good one anyway. There are two things in sports - Winning and Misery. Why be miserable if you don't have to?


----------



## wastro (Dec 19, 2004)

Every coach has seen their fair share of bashing over the years, even the great ones.

Of Jackson: "he's never won anything without the superstars!"

Of Sloan: "he is too rigid to succeed anymore! Boring offense!"

Of George Karl: "Too rough on the players!"

Of Mike Dunleavy: "He chokes in the playoffs!"

So it's no surprise that McMillan is demonized for the Blazers' ills. I'm not going to argue that he's made some head-scratching decisions, but let's examine a few things.

First, this team is YOUNG. Mistakes will happen.

Nate plays to win. Someone else said it in this thread, but if you play for Nate and don't give the team a good chance to win, you won't play.

Sometimes winning doesn't mean developing the youngsters. If Webster's going to play passively and pass up shots, Nate will put in Dixon, who's not afraid to shoot through a slump and put some numbers on the board.

Second, the make-up of the team is not good. At PG, you have limited experience. Same with SG. SF is our weak spot, and you have five guys fighting for PF and C minutes. It's imbalanced, and that means that Nate has to improvise.

There have definitely been times I've wondered what Nate's doing, but seriously ... how many coaches/managers can you EVER say you haven't said that about? How about Mike Holmgren's clock management in the Super Bowl? Tony LaRussa's mismanagement in the playoffs (I still say St. Louis won despite him)?

People will always second-guess the coaches, even the great ones. It comes with the territory. But I think it's not all Nate's fault.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

TP3 said:


> I would love to see MAS and Sambonio coach this team. Idiots would be 0-24. Saying Nate doesn't know how to coach is like saying these two clowns don't know how to whine. It's nice to have an opinion guys, but stop pretending you have the answers and know what it's like to coach this team. You're making fools of yourselves.
> 
> Coaches are hired and paid to win. Coaches will play the players that have earned their TRUST through consistent good decision making in big moments.
> 
> If you think the Blazers should take losses to grow these kids up, you've never been a coach...or a good one anyway. There are two things in sports - Winning and Misery. Why be miserable if you don't have to?


Thanks for the insult :wave:


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

TP3 said:


> I would love to see MAS and Sambonio coach this team. *Idiots* would be 0-24. Saying Nate doesn't know how to coach is like saying these two *clowns* don't know how to whine. It's nice to have an opinion guys, but stop pretending you have the answers and know what it's like to coach this team. You're making *fools* of yourselves.
> 
> Coaches are hired and paid to win. Coaches will play the players that have earned their TRUST through consistent good decision making in big moments.
> 
> If you think the Blazers should take losses to grow these kids up, you've never been a coach...or a good one anyway. There are two things in sports - Winning and Misery. Why be miserable if you don't have to?


 That pretty well sums them up for me, cept you need to add MM in there too. Reps to you.


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

drexlersdad said:


> He doesn't care about "developing" our youth. He just wants to win every game we play. And thats cool with me.


Nate DOES care, he just thinks that playing them when they're playing like crap is not going to help them develop.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

blakejack said:


> Nate DOES care, he just thinks that playing them when they're playing like crap is not going to help them develop.



How is Aldridge playing like crap exactly?


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

he was in the game when they started their come back


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

MAS RipCity said:


> Yes we are 10-14,but we haven't really beat anyone we had no business beating..The 27 pt comeback was unexpected, and to some extent the Seattle and NJ road wins and the Detoit Roady were out of the blue, so theres 4...but we've also dropped about that many to teams we shoulda thumped...most notably..Millwaukee,Atlanta, Indiana, and Orlando.


4 "out of the blue" wins counts for something. It's not just dumb luck.

BTW, Orlando is one of the better teams out there.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Criticizing a coach is one thing. No one, whether coach or president of the US, is above criticism. Bashing is another and I am tired of it, the idea that Nate can do NOTHING right. I mean, it's not like he's had 6 years of disasters resulting in thousands of deaths! 

If the team loses a nail biter it's Nate's fault even though there may have been a turnover or bricked free throws that made the difference.

If the team wins a nail biter it's Nate's fault because the team should have won by 20.

If the team completes a 4-2 road trip, something all but the most elite teams would consider very good, no matter who they were playing, it's no credit to Nate because the other teams sucked. Had they been 0-6 that would have been Nate's fault but going 4-2 is no credit to him.

If the team shows improvement that is a bad thing because they won't get a #1 pick in the draft, although they did not get #1 last year with the worst record in the NBA. On the other hand, if the team does not show improvement it's Nate's fault.

How about let's just keep criticism related to facts and not preconceived notions?

Admin, may I pay my $10 so I can update my avatar?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

I completely disagree, and I also believe that some of the Blazer victories would have been easier with Lemarcus getting more minutes, and possibly Webster getting more minutes. Just because the Blazers went 4 and 2 does not mean that they could not have done even better on this road trip. 

Did you ever stop to think that the Blazers built a 13 point lead with Webster in the game, even without him shooting. 

People talk about Dixons agressiveness, but at the beginning of the 3rd quarter, Dixon and Martell had both taken 3 shots, and each hit one. Dixon had 2 turnovers though. Amazingly enough Martell doesn't play but 3 minutes the rest of the game, and the crappiest team in the NBA almost comes back to win the game. You can't say what Martell would or would not have done if he was given the time to play. But I would rather build on him then Dixon, because he has way more upside. 

Lemarcus getting 4 minutes was a flat out travesty. He has consistently out produced Magloire while on the floor while not turning over the ball as much. I argue that part of the reason teams make such a charge on the Blazers in the second half of games is because the offensively challenged units that McMillan puts on the floor can't keep a lead. They almost blew it again last night. If it wasn't for 3 blocks by Tlaw they lose this game. 

If the Blazers would put the right mix on the floor during several of these road games, there would have been wins at Milwaukee, and easier wins for sure in Philly and Memphis. Yet McMillan keeps putting offensively challenged units out on the floor, and teams keep creeping back into games where the Blazers should be putting the hammer down on them.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

I remember threads from long ago about how we weren't allowed to "bash" Mo Cheeks whenever the team pieced together three or four wins, as though any form of success vaccinates a coach from criticism. 

Nate's clearly a better coach than Cheeks. he's also clearly getting better production out of guys like Jack, Randolph, Udoka and even Outlaw than was expected. as a consequence, he's also clearly winning more games lately than we expected. 

but it's certainly a legitimate critique to say Magloire is getting too many minutes. his 82games shows that while he puts up 10 points, the opponent puts up 14. also has a -5 Roland rating. Aldridge is just a flat out better player. and he's our future. 

I'd also like to see him work with Rodriguez more. Sergio's confidence seems shot--he's just not looking to penetrate at all in his few short minutes because he's so focused on not making mistakes. these last several games the kid seems a different (much worse) player, and I think it's a consequence of Nate cutting his playing time.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Utherhimo said:


> he was in the game when they started their come back




They came back in the second half, when Aldridge didn't play. he also blocked two shots while he was in the game, so why is it his fault?


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

As I've said before, I don't hate McMillen, and I don't think he's a bad coach. I actually like his coaching.

I just get very angry at his substitution and personnel decisions. And I still feel like he's lost us a few games because of that. 

And I don't think Nate necessarily deserves praise for our wins, as we've basically beaten two one-man-shows without their 'one man', in the last two games.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

mook said:


> I remember threads from long ago about how we weren't allowed to "bash" Mo Cheeks whenever the team pieced together three or four wins, as though any form of success vaccinates a coach from criticism.
> 
> I'd also like to see him work with Rodriguez more. Sergio's confidence seems shot--he's just not looking to penetrate at all in his few short minutes because he's so focused on not making mistakes. these last several games the kid seems a different (much worse) player, and I think it's a consequence of Nate cutting his playing time.


Mook, really now..to use Cheeks as an example in conjunction with Nate is just wrong.

The problem I have isn't that people critique Nate it's that, as crandc put it, they criticize everything no matter how the team does, some people refuse to give Nate ANY credit, and they refuse to recognize that there may be other motives at play - such as a trade for Magloire. I think we've all heard/seen/read how upper mgmt has also played a hand in determining who sits and who plays.

As for Sergio, you make a LOT of assumptions. "He's so focused on not making mistakes" etc. The reality is, none of us have any idea of the conversations between Nate and Sergio or what Nate thinks of Sergio or what Sergio is thinking when he's on the court. We all would desperately like to know. But I see how Jack is progressed and I think that you have to give Nate some credit there and maybe trust him, just a little, that he may know what he's doing in his approach with Sergio. Yes, it is frustrating, yes it requires a ton of patience.

All that being said, there are mistakes Nate makes with regards to subs, gameplans, etc. He's human and just like every other coach in existence he makes them. But he's making fewer mistakes than other coaches and as a result we're winning.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Yega1979 said:


> And I don't think Nate necessarily deserves praise for our wins, as we've basically beaten two one-man-shows without their 'one man', in the last two games.


That's fine, just so long as he doesn't get blame for our losses either, since we've basically been beaten by much better teams.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

mook said:


> I remember threads from long ago about how we weren't allowed to "bash" Mo Cheeks whenever the team pieced together three or four wins, as though any form of success vaccinates a coach from criticism.
> 
> Nate's clearly a better coach than Cheeks. he's also clearly getting better production out of guys like Jack, Randolph, Udoka and even Outlaw than was expected. as a consequence, he's also clearly winning more games lately than we expected.
> 
> ...


I agree with your points, and I think you raise legitimate criticisms. 

But the title of this thread is not "No more criticizing McMillan!"

I think there is a big difference between raising legitimate criticisms like you do in your post, versus widespread coach bashing.

I would like to see the young guys play more, but I kind of like that Nate makes it obvious that he's not going to play young guys just to play them. 

Maybe to be credible on this, he has to be a little harder on them than he is the vets, but it should motivate them to work harder to earn playing time. If they can't rise to the challenge and just fold, then they probably shouldn't be a part of our future anyway.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

hasoos said:


> I completely disagree, and I also believe that some of the Blazer victories would have been easier with Lemarcus getting more minutes, and possibly Webster getting more minutes. Just because the Blazers went 4 and 2 does not mean that they could not have done even better on this road trip.
> 
> Did you ever stop to think that the Blazers built a 13 point lead with Webster in the game, even without him shooting.
> 
> ...


I'm sort of dumbfounded by this post. You seem to think that you are seeing all kinds of things that McMillan is missing. You actually believe that McMillan has no idea about the "right mix" out there on the floor??? You think he doesn't know who is contributing, who is slacking off, who is playing good defense, etc.? I can guarantee you he spends most of his time thinking about the "right mix" for this team and how to get the most out of his players. For God's sake, this is his business. He lives, eats, and breathes Blazer basketball.

The idea that you somehow know better that Nate, and could have gotten us even more wins on this road trip is ludicrous.

I'd like to see LaMarcus get more minutes, too, but it's clear from the heavy minutes Nate was playing Roy before his injury that he is quite willing to give a rookie minutes if he is making a good contribution. And I certainly can't argue with a 4-2 road trip for this team. If you recall, we went 0-4 at home before going on the trip. Going 4-2 was beyond my wildest dreams.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

So going 4-2 against the Pitsons, Bucks(mins Charlie V), Pacers(mins JO), Raps(minus Bosh), 6ers (minus AI), and Grizz (minus Pau)....and 4-2 was beyond your widlest dreams? Dude, we should have went 5-1 or 6-0 since we shocked Detroit. Nate isn't doing that good of a job, we are just catching teams at the right time right now.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

MAS RipCity said:


> So going 4-2 against the Pitsons, Bucks(mins Charlie V), Pacers(mins JO), Raps(minus Bosh), 6ers (minus AI), and Grizz (minus Pau)....and 4-2 was beyond your widlest dreams?


Yes, especially since we ourselves were missing Roy. Remember that this team was picked to finish dead last in the league by most experts, and that we couldn't even bag a home court win in 4 tries before going on this trip.

Beating ANYBODY on the road seemed like a stretch at that point. 



> Dude, we should have went 5-1 or 6-0 since we shocked Detroit. Nate isn't doing that good of a job, we are just catching teams at the right time right now.


Let me guess. You're a glass-half-empty kind of guy, right?


----------



## blakeback (Jun 29, 2006)

Yega1979 said:


> As I've said before, I don't hate McMillen, and I don't think he's a bad coach. I actually like his coaching.



interesting, here are some of your recent quotes:



Yega1979 said:


> Nate you are a freaking retard!!!! I HATE YOU!!!!!





Yega1979 said:


> Nate, get another career, you suck!





Yega1979 said:


> Can we please trade Nate McIdiot for a bag of crap?



yeah, I guess you were misunderstood.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

blakejack said:


> interesting, here are some of your recent quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



LOL he's more brutal than I am. Great find by the way.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

blakejack said:


> interesting, here are some of your recent quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ha! I think it's fair to say you just "owned" Yega1979. Very funny post.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

blakejack said:


> interesting, here are some of your recent quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Classic


----------



## ColoradoBlazerFan (Feb 16, 2006)

blakejack said:


> interesting, here are some of your recent quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:lol: :cheers: 

SNAP!


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

blakejack said:


> interesting, here are some of your recent quotes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very nice..very nice... :biggrin:


----------



## 2k (Dec 30, 2005)

Sambonius said:


> So you're comparing the talent level of the Raptors, Sixers, and Grizzlies to the Blazers? Those teams have an atrocious level of talent on those teams in my opinion, especially without Bosh, Iverson, and Gasol. At least our team is filled with lottery picks. Oh look, Bargnani was given playing time tonight and he produced. Look at the guy who was drafted 1 pick later, yea he only played 4 minutes the entire game. *I am not impressed by these wins at all*.


And if we didnt win those game?


----------



## Tince (Jul 11, 2004)

MAS RipCity said:


> So going 4-2 against the Pitsons, Bucks(mins Charlie V), Pacers(mins JO), Raps(minus Bosh), 6ers (minus AI), and Grizz (minus Pau)....and 4-2 was beyond your widlest dreams? Dude, we should have went 5-1 or 6-0 since we shocked Detroit. Nate isn't doing that good of a job, we are just catching teams at the right time right now.


Vegas thought we should go 0-6, and they make a pretty good living making lines. 

You mention other teams missing starters, but we are missing two starters (I know most people don't like to admit Miles is still on the team), and yet we still found a way to win. 

If Nate can get his team to win when players are out with injury, then maybe it's the coaches of the teams we just beat that are the McNuggets?


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Talkhard said:


> I'm sort of dumbfounded by this post. You seem to think that you are seeing all kinds of things that McMillan is missing. You actually believe that McMillan has no idea about the "right mix" out there on the floor??? You think he doesn't know who is contributing, who is slacking off, who is playing good defense, etc.? I can guarantee you he spends most of his time thinking about the "right mix" for this team and how to get the most out of his players. For God's sake, this is his business. He lives, eats, and breathes Blazer basketball.
> 
> The idea that you somehow know better that Nate, and could have gotten us even more wins on this road trip is ludicrous.
> 
> I'd like to see LaMarcus get more minutes, too, but it's clear from the heavy minutes Nate was playing Roy before his injury that he is quite willing to give a rookie minutes if he is making a good contribution. And I certainly can't argue with a 4-2 road trip for this team. If you recall, we went 0-4 at home before going on the trip. Going 4-2 was beyond my wildest dreams.



I don't know how many games you saw on the road trip, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a team has a bad lineup combination on the floor when they go over 5 minutes without scoring in 2 separate games. The Indiana game, Milwaukee game, Philadelphia game, and Memphis game all had a long period of the game where Nate only plays Martell for a few minutes of the second half and then he went with the lineup which included one of the point guards, Juan Dixon, Idoka, Outlaw and Magloire, while Aldridge and Martell sit on the bench. In each one of the games the Blazers had lapses from 3 to exceeding 5 minutes without scoring, and in the Milwaukee game, went 8 posessions without even getting a shot up. Does it take NBA experience to figure out that lineup isn't working? 

Secondly, while I disagree with many of Nates lineups he runs, I do think Nate does an excellent job in many other areas of the game. The team does play hard, they are learning (I can see they are improving), and they seem to have pretty good chemistry forming in many areas. So my Nate bashing is limited to the extent that I do not like the lineups he runs during certain sections of the game, and I feel that he is actually biased against the young guys for playing time when they deserve it. Before the season began he said that if a player was not ready or was not playing well he would not play them. But when I watched games this year, I don't think I was the only one who could tell Lemarcus Aldridge was already our 2nd best front line player. So he gets rewarded for it by being yanked for one bad play 2 games ago and then benched to a 4 minute role the next? I also think Martell Webster peformed very well over the last few games before being stuck on the bench for most of the night. The guy can only fill up the hoop if he is in the game. People are saying stuff like why isn't Martell playing well. Its hard to play well when you don't get minutes.


----------

