POLL: Fire Nate McMillan or Trade Andre Miller

[SalemStoner]

:O :O
I'm not a big blazers fan but i was soooo surprise when i seen fire nate more the trade andre

please explain to me why do you guys want nate fired he's an amazing coach

I think there's plenty of threads to find that offer a laundry list of complaints against him... but to name a few.

1) Offensive scheme is stagnant and lacks any variety, as well as being overly oriented to Roy ISOs.
2) It took five injuries(Batum, Outlaw, Rudy, Oden and JoelP) AND a chat with management for Nate to get Jerryd Bayless on the court at all.
3) He simply watches our team get beat down and hosed by refs too often, I think I've seen him take one T to protect a(ny) player(s) in all of his time as Blazer coach.
4) He came into this season clearly trying to play the same way he played last year, only with far more tools.
5) He spent the first month and a half of the season treating Steve Blake like he was a borderline All Star, regularly playing him over 30mpg.
6) He tried to put Andre Miller in the same role we had for Sergio Rodriguez, and his first fix for Andre finding that situation frustrating/insulting was to move Martell Webster(our only perimeter defender with Batum hurt) to the bench and to play Roy at SF with Blake or Miller at SG.

Frankly the complete lack of planning and foresight Nate had this season is a disturbing trend, it's almost as though he didn't plan on being here this season because he came into the season pretending this season was last season, and it wasn't until Oden AND JoelP went down that we started to see Nate begin to make sensible lineup and strategy adjustments(ie Blake getting less than 30minutes a night, Bayless getting regular court time, Andre Miller starting and slowly actually getting to run the offense). It wasn't until after both Cs got hurt, that we regularly started to see looks where Roy was off the ball and a catch and shoot player instead of acting as our PG for much of the game by initiating our offense.

Nate is a good coach, but we have our record due to a tremendous amount of talented players on the roster and the good fortune that Roy hasn't missed any significant time this season. If anything Nate's coaching or lack thereof has cost us a few games this year(the MEM game this week, the ATL game earlier this season) by going into clock stall Roy iso mode entirely too early for no reason... it's like we want to stop the games at 45min instead of 48min by letting up our attack - as opposed to last night where late in the game we kept going at the basket in the final minutes to keep our lead.

[TBpup]

1) Offensive scheme is stagnant and lacks any variety, as well as being overly oriented to Roy ISOs.

2) It took five injuries(Batum, Outlaw, Rudy, Oden and JoelP) AND a chat with management for Nate to get Jerryd Bayless on the court at all.

3) He simply watches our team get beat down and hosed by refs too often, I think I've seen him take one T to protect a(ny) player(s) in all of his time as Blazer coach.

4) He came into this season clearly trying to play the same way he played last year, only with far more tools.

5) He spent the first month and a half of the season treating Steve Blake like he was a borderline All Star, regularly playing him over 30mpg.

6) He tried to put Andre Miller in the same role we had for Sergio Rodriguez, and his first fix for Andre finding that situation frustrating/insulting was to move Martell Webster(our only perimeter defender with Batum hurt) to the bench and to play Roy at SF with Blake or Miller at SG.

***************************************************
Nate is a good coach, but we have our record due to a tremendous amount of talented players on the roster and the good fortune that Roy hasn't missed any significant time this season. If anything Nate's coaching or lack thereof has cost us a few games this year(the MEM game this week, the ATL game earlier this season) by going into clock stall Roy iso mode entirely too early for no reason

S-Stoner...normally I don't like quoting such large blocks of text but that was so well written it was worth repeating. I do believe Nate coaches the team to play hard but in the playoffs when everyone is going to play hard, it is not enough. I would highlight one or two of the six reasons above as the biggest offenders but they are all valid points.

[SalemStoner]

1) Offensive scheme is stagnant and lacks any variety, as well as being overly oriented to Roy ISOs.

2) It took five injuries(Batum, Outlaw, Rudy, Oden and JoelP) AND a chat with management for Nate to get Jerryd Bayless on the court at all.

3) He simply watches our team get beat down and hosed by refs too often, I think I've seen him take one T to protect a(ny) player(s) in all of his time as Blazer coach.

4) He came into this season clearly trying to play the same way he played last year, only with far more tools.

5) He spent the first month and a half of the season treating Steve Blake like he was a borderline All Star, regularly playing him over 30mpg.

6) He tried to put Andre Miller in the same role we had for Sergio Rodriguez, and his first fix for Andre finding that situation frustrating/insulting was to move Martell Webster(our only perimeter defender with Batum hurt) to the bench and to play Roy at SF with Blake or Miller at SG.

***************************************************
Nate is a good coach, but we have our record due to a tremendous amount of talented players on the roster and the good fortune that Roy hasn't missed any significant time this season. If anything Nate's coaching or lack thereof has cost us a few games this year(the MEM game this week, the ATL game earlier this season) by going into clock stall Roy iso mode entirely too early for no reason

S-Stoner...normally I don't like quoting such large blocks of text but that was so well written it was worth repeating. I do believe Nate coaches the team to play hard but in the playoffs when everyone is going to play hard, it is not enough. I would highlight one or two of the six reasons above as the biggest offenders but they are all valid points.

Thanks Pup. I know I came into the year thinking Nate could be our coach long term, but as that list has grown in my head the past couple months I just find it harder and harder to believe we'll bring Nate back next season.

[Agenda42]

Nate is a good coach, but we have our record due to a tremendous amount of talented players on the roster and the good fortune that Roy hasn't missed any significant time this season. If anything Nate's coaching or lack thereof has cost us a few games this year(the MEM game this week, the ATL game earlier this season) by going into clock stall Roy iso mode entirely too early for no reason... it's like we want to stop the games at 45min instead of 48min by letting up our attack - as opposed to last night where late in the game we kept going at the basket in the final minutes to keep our lead.

While there are some tactical things that you can certainly complain about, let's give Nate some credit here. A lot of teams would have packed it in after all these injuries, but Nate has these Blazers playing with hustle and energy. Nate has shown more flexibility in terms of lineups and playcalling this season than we've ever seen before. Nate has the Blazers playing defense that is doing a remarkably good job of hiding the fact that Juwan Howard is the starting center -- look at how little damage Andrew Bynum did last night.

I think this is Nate's best season coaching the team. I didn't like how he started the season at all, but he has come up big in my eyes in finding rotations and defensive schemes to try to cover for our injuries.

[monopoman]

Well apparently anytime Nate does something right its hidden under the "opposing coach" did not utilize the scenario.

Phil Jackson comes in here and KNOWS that Oden and Przybilla will play 0 minutes. Unfortunately with his 10 rings he is not able to get his players inside to get easy buckets+fouls. But apparently this is not because of McMillan its because of Phil Jackson not being to exploit a VERY OBVIOUS FLAW.

I swear some of the fans just have the burn him at the stake mentality not matter what. Then once the next coach comes in here unless things change over night he will be the next one on the chopping block.

Nate has problems as a coach obviously, but to pretend that he does nothing to help this team win is a joke.

I actually bet if we got another coach lets say starting in February and, hypothetically let's say athe Blazers lose about 5-7 more games that month then in January, about 60-70% of posters here would then demand that coach be fired immediately.

[NateMustGo]

Well apparently anytime Nate does something right its hidden under the "opposing coach" did not utilize the scenario.

Phil Jackson comes in here and KNOWS that Oden and Przybilla will play 0 minutes. Unfortunately with his 10 rings he is not able to get his players inside to get easy buckets+fouls. But apparently this is not because of McMillan its because of Phil Jackson not being to exploit a VERY OBVIOUS FLAW.

I swear some of the fans just have the burn him at the stake mentality not matter what. Then once the next coach comes in here unless things change over night he will be the next one on the chopping block.

Nate has problems as a coach obviously, but to pretend that he does nothing to help this team win is a joke.

I actually bet if we got another coach lets say starting in February and, hypothetically let's say athe Blazers lose about 5-7 more games that month then in January, about 60-70% of posters here would then demand that coach be fired immediately.

Thats one thread that was a total waste of time to even read. Nate was a hero on here until this year. A couple of years ago (of which you were not here) you would not have read one bad word about Nate. Last year there were about three posters on here Odd, TSE and BigBen that wanted Nate canned and we all called them crazy. Well they were right, Nate is a motavator not a coach sound familier? There is about 5 posters on here and you being one, that try to shut down dissent and what a boring world we would have without it. So before you go calling others out, know what you are talking about.(which you dont) Nate needs to go he has lost this team and now its fans.

[wreck]

I had to vote for firing Coach Nate. Not because I think he's a poor coach but because the team on its best day, is a 1st round playoff team. The team doesn't have enough talent to compete with the top teams in the West and it's a testament to Coach Nate's ability to have them overachieve like he has done the last 3 seasons.

It may be good for both the Trail Blazers' fans and Coach Nate. Let Coach Nate go at the end of the year and the Trail Blazers can bring in a coach whose style of play is better suited for the personnel on the team and let Coach Nate go to a team where he finally has the talent and front office/management expertise to be a contender's coach, something he just doesn't have in Portland.

[mojomarc]

[A couple of years ago (of which you were not here) you would not have read one bad word about Nate. Last year there were about three posters on here Odd, TSE and BigBen that wanted Nate canned and we all called them crazy.

That's not true--I was probably the first to call Nate overrated and question him as a coach. I actually did it in the "we just hired Nate McMullen!" thread, whatever it was called (I think that was right, because that's how he was introduced ). I never thought he was that good of a coach in Seattle, and I still don't think he's that good a coach.

Oh, and I have been saying plenty bad about Nate for years.

[DaVoiceMaster]

You might have said it, but I was thinking it!!!

[NateMustGo]

[A couple of years ago (of which you were not here) you would not have read one bad word about Nate. Last year there were about three posters on here Odd, TSE and BigBen that wanted Nate canned and we all called them crazy.

That's not true--I was probably the first to call Nate overrated and question him as a coach. I actually did it in the "we just hired Nate McMullen!" thread, whatever it was called (I think that was right, because that's how he was introduced ). I never thought he was that good of a coach in Seattle, and I still don't think he's that good a coach.

Oh, and I have been saying plenty bad about Nate for years.

Sorry I missed you Mo as you were one that hated Nate from the start, I'm sure their was a couple of others also that I forgot, but the point is we were behind Nate on this site about 95% until this year!

[NateMustGo]

You might have said it, but I was thinking it!!!

Now I'm in trouble for not being able to read minds, You must be related to wiz.

[Wizenheimer]

You might have said it, but I was thinking it!!!

Now I'm in trouble for not being able to read minds, You must be related to wiz.

leave me out of your dumbass jihads

[mojomarc]

[A couple of years ago (of which you were not here) you would not have read one bad word about Nate. Last year there were about three posters on here Odd, TSE and BigBen that wanted Nate canned and we all called them crazy.

That's not true--I was probably the first to call Nate overrated and question him as a coach. I actually did it in the "we just hired Nate McMullen!" thread, whatever it was called (I think that was right, because that's how he was introduced ). I never thought he was that good of a coach in Seattle, and I still don't think he's that good a coach.

Oh, and I have been saying plenty bad about Nate for years.

Sorry I missed you Mo as you were one that hated Nate from the start, I'm sure their was a couple of others also that I forgot, but the point is we were behind Nate on this site about 95% until this year!

Ben and I probably were the first two, as Ben was a Sonics fan and I lived in Seattle, and both of us watched for years Nate coach his way to the hot seat until he pulled off his winning streak to start his last season there. The guy went from completely incompetent in the views of local fans and media to hero all because of a 28-6 start (or something about that miraculous).

[soobias]

hey!!!! don't forget about me!!!!!! i was there too, and actually it was closer to 2 years

[Shem]

If I was here last season, I would have been on the opposed Nate users. I was upset at how Bayless was handled and especially how Sergio was playing in front of him.

I also didn't like how slow the offense was at times and how it allowed defenses to catch up and set themselves to make it harder to compete on offense. I was also impressed by the team's talent, but not how they were coached.

Don't get me wrong that there are some good things about Nate, but overall I would have to say that he doesn't have what it takes to win an NBA title. And after watching the playoffs last season, I was even more convinced.

[wreck]

If I was here last season, I would have been on the opposed Nate users. I was upset at how Bayless was handled and especially how Sergio was playing in front of him.

I also didn't like how slow the offense was at times and how it allowed defenses to catch up and set themselves to make it harder to compete on offense. I was also impressed by the team's talent, but not how they were coached.

Don't get me wrong that there are some good things about Nate, but overall I would have to say that he doesn't have what it takes to win an NBA title. And after watching the playoffs last season, I was even more convinced.

For the amount of complaints about the way Coach Nate runs an O, you'd think it'd be terrible but the facts remain that he has done a good job running an offense. If any side of the ball needs work with a Nate coached team it'd be the defense.

Portland's talent is some of the most overrated in the NBA, mainly due to its fanbase. If the team had better front office management (Pritchard should take lessons from Sam Presti on how to run a team and assemble talent) then the Trail Blazers would be in great shape for the future with more flexibility.

The reality is that the team has peaked (having overachieved under Coach Nate) and it would be in the best interests of both parties to let a new coach come in that has a style of play more suitable for the current personnel and let Coach Nate go to another team where he can enjoy more success.

[Shem]

If I was here last season, I would have been on the opposed Nate users. I was upset at how Bayless was handled and especially how Sergio was playing in front of him.

I also didn't like how slow the offense was at times and how it allowed defenses to catch up and set themselves to make it harder to compete on offense. I was also impressed by the team's talent, but not how they were coached.

Don't get me wrong that there are some good things about Nate, but overall I would have to say that he doesn't have what it takes to win an NBA title. And after watching the playoffs last season, I was even more convinced.

For the amount of complaints about the way Coach Nate runs an O, you'd think it'd be terrible but the facts remain that he has done a good job running an offense. If any side of the ball needs work with a Nate coached team it'd be the defense.

Portland's talent is some of the most overrated in the NBA, mainly due to its fanbase. If the team had better front office management (Pritchard should take lessons from Sam Presti on how to run a team and assemble talent) then the Trail Blazers would be in great shape for the future with more flexibility.

The reality is that the team has peaked (having overachieved under Coach Nate) and it would be in the best interests of both parties to let a new coach come in that has a style of play more suitable for the current personnel and let Coach Nate go to another team where he can enjoy more success.

Here is my problem with the Blazer offense that I can back up with numbers.

The Blazers are last in the league in both points in the paint and fast break points.

My biggest problem is points in the paint. The Blazers average 34.1 a game. That's last place (30th). The Indiana Pacers are at 29th with 36.2 a game. That's actually a huge gab between two teams if you look at the whole list as most teams that are one up or one down in the rankings are a point or less. The Blazers are 2.1 below the 29th place team. That's the 2nd biggest gap between teams. The largest gap is between Memphis (52.5 a game) and Sacramento (47.2 a game). What that also mean is that the Blazers take too many jump shots.

Then the fast break points issue. Some teams just don't run it that often as others, but the Blazers are the slowest in the league with their young and athletic players. Basically their athleticism isn't be taken advantage of. 27 of the 30 teams average 10 or more points a game in fast break. 28th, and 29th place are 9.6 and 9.2, so they're close to 10. The Blazers average 7.6 a game. That leads to more standing around and more jump shots for the Blazers again.

That makes the Blazer rely on the jump shot more than any team in the league. I can guarantee you that will never win an NBA championship with their type of offense. So many neutral party commentators around the league say that unless the Blazers learn to get more easy buckets, they'll never get far. That was exposed in last year's playoffs and some experts predicted that because of that issue and were proven right. Their lack of points in the paint shows the problem. And guess who's fault that is?

That is why I don't think Nate is the right guy to help the team win a championship. Nate has his strengths as a coach that I admire, but his weaknesses clearly outweigh those strengths needed to go all the way.

Sure, I could be proven wrong, but the numbers are still going to be there and they don't lie. And those are what will be the Blazers' downfall unless they change their philosophy and to do that Nate needs to change his offense or they need a new coach.

[mojomarc]

If I was here last season, I would have been on the opposed Nate users. I was upset at how Bayless was handled and especially how Sergio was playing in front of him.

I also didn't like how slow the offense was at times and how it allowed defenses to catch up and set themselves to make it harder to compete on offense. I was also impressed by the team's talent, but not how they were coached.

Don't get me wrong that there are some good things about Nate, but overall I would have to say that he doesn't have what it takes to win an NBA title. And after watching the playoffs last season, I was even more convinced.

For the amount of complaints about the way Coach Nate runs an O, you'd think it'd be terrible but the facts remain that he has done a good job running an offense. If any side of the ball needs work with a Nate coached team it'd be the defense.

Portland's talent is some of the most overrated in the NBA, mainly due to its fanbase. If the team had better front office management (Pritchard should take lessons from Sam Presti on how to run a team and assemble talent) then the Trail Blazers would be in great shape for the future with more flexibility.

The reality is that the team has peaked (having overachieved under Coach Nate) and it would be in the best interests of both parties to let a new coach come in that has a style of play more suitable for the current personnel and let Coach Nate go to another team where he can enjoy more success.

Here is my problem with the Blazer offense that I can back up with numbers.

The Blazers are last in the league in both points in the paint and fast break points.

My biggest problem is points in the paint. The Blazers average 34.1 a game. That's last place (30th). The Indiana Pacers are at 29th with 36.2 a game. That's actually a huge gab between two teams if you look at the whole list as most teams that are one up or one down in the rankings are a point or less. The Blazers are 2.1 below the 29th place team. That's the 2nd biggest gap between teams. The largest gap is between Memphis (52.5 a game) and Sacramento (47.2 a game). What that also mean is that the Blazers take too many jump shots.

Then the fast break points issue. Some teams just don't run it that often as others, but the Blazers are the slowest in the league with their young and athletic players. Basically their athleticism isn't be taken advantage of. 27 of the 30 teams average 10 or more points a game in fast break. 28th, and 29th place are 9.6 and 9.2, so they're close to 10. The Blazers average 7.6 a game. That leads to more standing around and more jump shots for the Blazers again.

That makes the Blazer rely on the jump shot more than any team in the league. I can guarantee you that will never win an NBA championship with their type of offense. So many neutral party commentators around the league say that unless the Blazers learn to get more easy buckets, they'll never get far. That was exposed in last year's playoffs and some experts predicted that because of that issue and were proven right. Their lack of points in the paint shows the problem. And guess who's fault that is?

That is why I don't think Nate is the right guy to help the team win a championship. Nate has his strengths as a coach that I admire, but his weaknesses clearly outweigh those strengths needed to go all the way.

Sure, I could be proven wrong, but the numbers are still going to be there and they don't lie. And those are what will be the Blazers' downfall unless they change their philosophy and to do that Nate needs to change his offense or they need a new coach.

Spot on. That's why I fought people on the efficiency ranking last year--if you're taking jumpshots and not running screens, not trying to penetrate, not trying to get to the rim, you're not going to win in the playoffs. The offense basically said "it's too hard to be a nuanced offense, so we'll take the easy shots the defense give us." The problem is that works in the regular season if you're hitting your shots, but in the playoffs you have to be able to get the dirty buckets from hard work to win because teams are allowed to play more physically on the perimeter players. So teams would just press us at the three point line, daring us to try to drive around and we had no sets at all to free our ball-handlers. The argument could be made that we have very few players who really have handles, but that misses the point that you could even free me for a drive if you set good picks, and I could make a pass to a backdoor cutter if only our players would do backdoor cuts off an off-ball screen set somewhere. But last year, we never ran those sorts of sets, instead going for "dribble dribble dribble for 20 seconds then take a long jumper." Made Travis Outlaw a favorite, because that's all he can do, but it doesn't win you playoff games.

Yeah, our defense generally sucked rocks last year, but our offense really wasn't what it should have been either.

[Wizenheimer]

Yeah, our defense generally sucked rocks last year, but our offense really wasn't what it should have been either.

I certainly don't like the defensive schemes and there's much I don't like about the offense...

however, for all of the coaching flaws and 'rock suckage' on offense and defense you guys are harping about, the Blazers still managed to be not only tied for 5th best record, but ALSO had the 5th best point differential...which is always an indicator of top teams

Something was working to create that record and point differential, and if both the offense and defense were as bad as you guys claim, offensive rebounding wouldn't be nearly enough to overcome all those team weaknesses and post the season the Blazers did

[mojomarc]

Well, Wiz, it certainly didn't hurt that we had as much or more talent as any team in the league, did it? When you have Roy and Aldridge and Oden and Przybilla and (yeah, I'll say it) Blake and Rudy and Batum and Outlaw and (I'll say it again) Frye and Bayless, you would have to be a beyond terrible coach to not win 50 games. So I disagree--offensive rebounding combined with that level of talent and any average coach would have got us pretty much to where we were last year. The issue wasn't where we ended up--the issue was how we ended up there, the qualities we used to get there. We used extremely basic schemes that mostly involved Brandon Roy in isolation or using a single screen up high on offense and blatantly refused to drive the ball inside or go for easy transition point, and on defense we either switched on every pick or we sagged in a passive zone. These might look great for offensive efficiency stats, but they sure didn't look great for defensive stats nor did they prove effective at all in the playoffs.

What this all means to me is Nate still isn't the long term coach you want, he's effective in dumbing things down for a young team but he lacks the depth of strategic vision to lead a team farther into contention.