TBpup wrote:This is where I disagree--Pup and I have been very consistent whether winning or losing that Nate wasn't a great coach.
I'll get crucified for this...but since Nate's career winning percentage is .478, the losing has happened more than the winning. I'm glad Nate reached the career goal of 300 wins but he had 326 losses at the time. That went unreported so it's just a matter of context.
I'm going against my prior proclamation of not delving into the Nate discussions, but did see something I'd like to point out...
61 of those losses came during a single season when Nate had absolutely NOTHING to work with in his first year with the Blazers.
It's fun to look at raw stats, but it's foolish to think that they tell the whole story about Nate's coaching ability.
And while I haven't been following this thread that closely, I have yet to see any of the anti-Nate people give a suggestion as to who would be an acceptable replacement/improvement for the coaching position...