PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on the Nate McMillan hiring?



JasonJohnHorn
05-15-2016, 01:31 PM
I find coaches get stuck with a bad rap after a failed gig. I remember when Nate's first contract ran out in Seattle, he was a hot commodity and in one of the rare cases, it wa the coach who decided to end the tenure with the team and opt for a new gig in Portland. There he helped the team every year and averaged over 50 wins for three straight years until his last season. His first year with the team, they won fewer games, but they had lost a couple of players. His last season with the Blazers was woeful, but they'd just lost Roy, and Fernandez left, and LMA only played 55 games. Only one player played more than 60 games (Wesley), and he only played 66. So there wasn't much that one could expect of a team in transition like that.


The buzz for McMillan seems to have faded, and he hasn't had a head coaching gig in four years (it seems like longer). But he was generally considered a solid coach back then. Now people seem to see this as a serious downgrade from Vogel (I might agree that it is a downgrade depending on the situation, but not a serious one).

Is this a good move? Can he maximize this roster?

kingsdelez24
05-15-2016, 01:40 PM
I find coaches get stuck with a bad rap after a failed gig. I remember when Nate's first contract ran out in Seattle, he was a hot commodity and in one of the rare cases, it wa the coach who decided to end the tenure with the team and opt for a new gig in Portland. There he helped the team every year and averaged over 50 wins for three straight years until his last season. His first year with the team, they won fewer games, but they had lost a couple of players. His last season with the Blazers was woeful, but they'd just lost Roy, and Fernandez left, and LMA only played 55 games. Only one player played more than 60 games (Wesley), and he only played 66. So there wasn't much that one could expect of a team in transition like that.


The buzz for McMillan seems to have faded, and he hasn't had a head coaching gig in four years (it seems like longer). But he was generally considered a solid coach back then. Now people seem to see this as a serious downgrade from Vogel (I might agree that it is a downgrade depending on the situation, but not a serious one).

Is this a good move? Can he maximize this roster?

They started off really hot during that lockout shortened season and then hust fell off entirely. The only negatives I heard about him was from that hellcrooner guy (former poster who loves his spaniards) for not playing Rudy Fernandez enough, thats about it.

SonicsvsBulls
05-15-2016, 02:25 PM
Great Hiring. Good 90's player.

SupremeNY.
05-15-2016, 02:44 PM
Stern.. Decorated coach, don't remember much about players catching a liking to his coaching style tho

Quinnsanity
05-15-2016, 03:23 PM
****ing dumb. Wasn't the whole goal of firing Vogel fixing their offense? McMillan's offenses were so vanilla in Portland. If they wanted to go smaller and score more points they should've hired D'antoni. If he was too rich for their blood go grab Ettore Messina. I honestly never understand the logic of promoting an assistant if you just fired their boss. If you were so great why couldn't you convince your boss to go make the changes you're supposedly going to use to save the team?

5ass
05-15-2016, 04:06 PM
Let me guess.. a 3 yr contract?

D-Leethal
05-15-2016, 04:13 PM
I find coaches get stuck with a bad rap after a failed gig. I remember when Nate's first contract ran out in Seattle, he was a hot commodity and in one of the rare cases, it wa the coach who decided to end the tenure with the team and opt for a new gig in Portland. There he helped the team every year and averaged over 50 wins for three straight years until his last season. His first year with the team, they won fewer games, but they had lost a couple of players. His last season with the Blazers was woeful, but they'd just lost Roy, and Fernandez left, and LMA only played 55 games. Only one player played more than 60 games (Wesley), and he only played 66. So there wasn't much that one could expect of a team in transition like that.


The buzz for McMillan seems to have faded, and he hasn't had a head coaching gig in four years (it seems like longer). But he was generally considered a solid coach back then. Now people seem to see this as a serious downgrade from Vogel (I might agree that it is a downgrade depending on the situation, but not a serious one).

Is this a good move? Can he maximize this roster?

Bingo. So many variables out of a coaches control that determine a teams success and record. Judging them by their previous record only is a joke of an analysis. In truth, we as fans have very little insight into the backroom dynamics that makes a coaching hire hum. We look at records and like to pretend we understand the under-the-gun in game management but really all we do is play monday morning QB and scrutinize losses by saying things like "there were no adjustments".

Larry knows what he is doing. If I'm not mistaken, we all laughed when he originally promoted Vogel too.

D-Leethal
05-15-2016, 04:15 PM
****ing dumb. Wasn't the whole goal of firing Vogel fixing their offense? McMillan's offenses were so vanilla in Portland. If they wanted to go smaller and score more points they should've hired D'antoni. If he was too rich for their blood go grab Ettore Messina. I honestly never understand the logic of promoting an assistant if you just fired their boss. If you were so great why couldn't you convince your boss to go make the changes you're supposedly going to use to save the team?

Because then they would get fired bro. There is a thing in business called organizational hierarchy. If you don't respect that you won't last long. Assistants aren't going to tell the head coach what to do and how to coach.

dhopisthename
05-15-2016, 05:07 PM
****ing dumb. Wasn't the whole goal of firing Vogel fixing their offense? McMillan's offenses were so vanilla in Portland. If they wanted to go smaller and score more points they should've hired D'antoni. If he was too rich for their blood go grab Ettore Messina. I honestly never understand the logic of promoting an assistant if you just fired their boss. If you were so great why couldn't you convince your boss to go make the changes you're supposedly going to use to save the team?

for sure it seems like this was more of a salary thing then any of the bs that bird was talking about. Mcmillan ran one of the slowest paces the years he has been in the nba.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CidjOYhVAAA-mwp.jpg:large

IndyRealist
05-15-2016, 08:38 PM
McMillan wasn't chosen because of his W/L record, or his offensive style. He was chosen because he's Kevin Pritchard's guy. Bird may have signed off on it, but he didn't make the decision. Pritchard did.

Scoots
05-15-2016, 08:57 PM
Who is going to be the offensive coordinator? That was the issue before Nate and now it's the issue with Nate.

Aust
05-15-2016, 09:48 PM
I like the hire. He was one of the guys I was interested in for my Lakers.

JasonJohnHorn
05-15-2016, 09:59 PM
Bingo. So many variables out of a coaches control that determine a teams success and record. Judging them by their previous record only is a joke of an analysis. In truth, we as fans have very little insight into the backroom dynamics that makes a coaching hire hum. We look at records and like to pretend we understand the under-the-gun in game management but really all we do is play monday morning QB and scrutinize losses by saying things like "there were no adjustments".

Larry knows what he is doing. If I'm not mistaken, we all laughed when he originally promoted Vogel too.

I don't think anybody minded when they brought Vogel up. They fired O'Brien with good cause. He didn't make the team better in three years, and their percentage actually when down his last two. Vogel was an interim coach for the season and was over .500 with a team O'Brien was 17/27 with. Most fans, think, accepted that hiring. There was certainly a justified backlash against the Carlisle firing I think. He's proven that was a mistake by doing very well in Dallas.

People who loved the old guy will always hate the new guy.


You are right, though, we simply don't know how good a coach is. Win/loss is such a raw 'stat'. The Warriors were a great team with Jackson and improved every year, but they took an astronomical leap when he was replaced, though the firing seemed odd to many. People (myself included), fawn over Pop, say he's great, but he is a little stubborn and set in his ways, and it has cost his team important wins. He could have had back-to-back titles against Miami. They could have won the series against the Thunder. But he's set in his ways. He didn't go smaller sooner, and he's complained about shooting 3's in the past, saying that he doesn't like them, though he does use them. If he embraced them more, his team might do better. Likewise, he says he doesn't watch a lot of tape, and instead focuses on getting his guys to execute their plays on both ends in practice, but this is a limit. If a coach who hadn't won five title said these things publicly, or made calls like this, they'd get dumped, like Carlisle did in Detroit and Indiana, even after performing quite well with both teams.


Riley left the Lakers, and that was actually good for the Lakers. Everybody thought he was a great coach; but from what I read in West's autobiography, the was a sense that he was soaking up credit for a team that already had a winning chemistry before him, and that he put undue pressure on players and had a bit of an ego. Great as he was, it was time to move on from LAL when he did, and it was for the best of both parties. People on the outside might think: they should have kept him; he was doing great. But we don't know what's going on in the locker room.

Blatt is a good example. They were first and on pace for 60-wins. The didn't have as high a percentage after he left, but the players seem happier, and I doubt they'd be 8-0 with him still coaching. doug Collins is another great example. The Bull went deeper in the playoffs each year, but that last year, they were lucky to get past Cleveland; that series should have been wrapped up earlier, and should have come down to an isolation play that was just 'give it to Jordan and let him create a miracle; I'm not drawing up a play'. There is no denying that despite their success, Phil Jackson and Tex Winters created a more efficient offensive and defensive team in Chicago.

So yeah... as good as a team might be doing, only people on the inside really know if a team could be doing better, or if despite the wins, the coach is creating a negative culture.

JasonJohnHorn
05-15-2016, 10:07 PM
Who is going to be the offensive coordinator? That was the issue before Nate and now it's the issue with Nate.

Yeah... Nate wasn't even a great offensive player back in the day. He was more known for his defense. Great passer. For sure. Got give him credit. Dude led the league in steals coming off the bench playing 25 minutes a game; average over 4 steals per36 that year.

I think he can do this. I seam to remember his Seattle teams playing fairly well on offense (could be mistaken), but the Portland team lacked the pieces to excel. Having an offensive coordinator, as you put it, would be helpful.

Scoots
05-15-2016, 10:50 PM
Yeah... Nate wasn't even a great offensive player back in the day. He was more known for his defense. Great passer. For sure. Got give him credit. Dude led the league in steals coming off the bench playing 25 minutes a game; average over 4 steals per36 that year.

I think he can do this. I seam to remember his Seattle teams playing fairly well on offense (could be mistaken), but the Portland team lacked the pieces to excel. Having an offensive coordinator, as you put it, would be helpful.

The best coaches get assistant coaches where they are weaker.

IBleedPurple
05-15-2016, 11:48 PM
The best coaches get assistant coaches where they are weaker.Exactly.

If that happens here, very good signing. As it is now, decent signing.

LA_Raiders
05-16-2016, 12:52 AM
Lol, this just doesn't make sense.

ombada
05-16-2016, 01:01 AM
as a pacers fan this seems like a lateral move. Vogel and McMillan have very similar coaching profiles. McMillan has more experience. Both are seen as defensive coaches. McMillan was thought to have run very efficient offenses in the past. However, at just over 98 points per game, it was a slow drawn out offense.

I think either coach can take this team far as long as bird gets us a good 4 and a true 1.

Really we need a guy like Harrison Barnes at 4 (a dream, i know) or a guy like Marvin Williams or Ryan Anderson. They need to be able to shoot it from outside to open up the floor for George and Hill/Ellis. Rebounding and defense a definite plus, which is why Anderson is last on the list.

As far as point guard, Conley would be fantastic if we could pry him away from the grizz and bring him home, otherwise a deal for Teague would have to be the first order of business. We have to get a point guard who has better vision and real understanding of running an offense. Hill, as good as he can be, is not the answer at point. He would be best starting next to a QB on the court, with Ellis coming off the bench.