Nate McMillan Is The Blazer's Coach!
Ahhhh... After a long lunch I have decided that I will try out this blogging thang. I really don't have much else to do with my time (my wife would probably disagree with that statement).
So the question then becomes, what do I blog about? Will this be a totally unprivate diary? A forum to rant about my opinions? A place to foment revolution?
Maybe I should look for some unexcavated niche and make it to the big time. Like every blog could be about how Rushmore was the best movie ever and why. That would be kind of funny... or not.
A bigger question is, of course, why bother. I have a feeling my only reader is my friend Pete. Why don't I just call him and tell him that the Detroit Pistons are overrated or that I like the White Stripes CD, but not quite as much as he does. But this all sort of reminds me of when I had a radio show at my high school station and the only person who listened was my mom. It was still worth it for some reason.
So without further ado.... I'd like to begin by writing about just how excited I am that the Blazers hired Nate McMillan to be their coach. Marc Stein writes an interesting article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&id=2102121) about why this might not be a great move. His basic point is that one 50 win season does not make a man. And that Nate probably isn't worthy of being the second-highest paid coach in the NBA.
What he fails to mention though is that the Blazer's owner is one of the richest men in the world so it really doesn't matter what he pays him. This spend-thrift attitude has hurt the Blazers in the past because they've overpaid their players- and that was a mistake. They lost flexibility by doubling the salary cap. And they got stuck with decent players who had huge salaries and, thus, were untradable (no one really wanted Damon Stoudamire's max contract for instance). But overpaying coaches? Who gives a fuck? Like it matters if Paul Allen makes money from the Blazers.
So in deciding whether this was a good move or not, the only real requirement is will he be a good fit- and I think he will be great fit.. Nate has always had mediocre talent in Seattle and his teams have been competitive. He used a creative offensive system this year and won't give players minutes if they don't play defence. His reputation is as a likable disciplinarian. No great expert on character then sex-offender Ruben Patterson was coached by him and loved him, saying in today's Oregonian that, "He's a great guy,"and, "he doesn't take anything from anyone, and that's what we need here in Portland."
Ruben is right (for once). Maurice Cheeks was a nice guy, but had his hands full trying to maintain discipline on a team where players were almost run over at strip clubs and holding illegal dog fights. That's why I think Nate might even be a better than Phil Jackson would have been. Although Jackson would have felt very at home in the Northwest sipping coffee and wandering through the aisles of Powell's, he's always been more about fitting talent together than developing players. And with a team who's average age is 23.5 and whose summer-league's starting line-up won't be all that different than their opening day's line-up, I can't see Phil working his championship magic.
Yes, this really is a great move. It's always pissed me off that the Blazer's have not had great coaches (PJ, Dunleavy, Mo) when they could afford one. Marc Stein might be right that Nate's not a great coach yet. But, at worst, he'll be great fit here.
So the question then becomes, what do I blog about? Will this be a totally unprivate diary? A forum to rant about my opinions? A place to foment revolution?
Maybe I should look for some unexcavated niche and make it to the big time. Like every blog could be about how Rushmore was the best movie ever and why. That would be kind of funny... or not.
A bigger question is, of course, why bother. I have a feeling my only reader is my friend Pete. Why don't I just call him and tell him that the Detroit Pistons are overrated or that I like the White Stripes CD, but not quite as much as he does. But this all sort of reminds me of when I had a radio show at my high school station and the only person who listened was my mom. It was still worth it for some reason.
So without further ado.... I'd like to begin by writing about just how excited I am that the Blazers hired Nate McMillan to be their coach. Marc Stein writes an interesting article (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&id=2102121) about why this might not be a great move. His basic point is that one 50 win season does not make a man. And that Nate probably isn't worthy of being the second-highest paid coach in the NBA.
What he fails to mention though is that the Blazer's owner is one of the richest men in the world so it really doesn't matter what he pays him. This spend-thrift attitude has hurt the Blazers in the past because they've overpaid their players- and that was a mistake. They lost flexibility by doubling the salary cap. And they got stuck with decent players who had huge salaries and, thus, were untradable (no one really wanted Damon Stoudamire's max contract for instance). But overpaying coaches? Who gives a fuck? Like it matters if Paul Allen makes money from the Blazers.
So in deciding whether this was a good move or not, the only real requirement is will he be a good fit- and I think he will be great fit.. Nate has always had mediocre talent in Seattle and his teams have been competitive. He used a creative offensive system this year and won't give players minutes if they don't play defence. His reputation is as a likable disciplinarian. No great expert on character then sex-offender Ruben Patterson was coached by him and loved him, saying in today's Oregonian that, "He's a great guy,"and, "he doesn't take anything from anyone, and that's what we need here in Portland."
Ruben is right (for once). Maurice Cheeks was a nice guy, but had his hands full trying to maintain discipline on a team where players were almost run over at strip clubs and holding illegal dog fights. That's why I think Nate might even be a better than Phil Jackson would have been. Although Jackson would have felt very at home in the Northwest sipping coffee and wandering through the aisles of Powell's, he's always been more about fitting talent together than developing players. And with a team who's average age is 23.5 and whose summer-league's starting line-up won't be all that different than their opening day's line-up, I can't see Phil working his championship magic.
Yes, this really is a great move. It's always pissed me off that the Blazer's have not had great coaches (PJ, Dunleavy, Mo) when they could afford one. Marc Stein might be right that Nate's not a great coach yet. But, at worst, he'll be great fit here.
posted by chuckdaddy2000 at 12:32 pm
2 Comments:
The Portland Jailblazers don't need a good coach they need a drug counselor.
To Petrovich - where do I start? I can't possibly respond to your deserved rips on Star Wars, that would be its own blog, but I will comment on The Life Aquatic. I think "The Idiots" you speak of are rooting for Wes Anderson so bad that they forgot what is required for something to be a good movie. If you don't care about the characters, and the plot is random you can not have a good movie, no matter how quirky it is. Rushmore had great characters you rooted for, a great story, and so the quirkiness was a great addition. Wes Anderson needs to get back to that.
Post a Comment
<< Home