RealGM

Now that the Blazers let him go, any chance we get him? Definitely one of the best coaches that I've followed when he was with the Sonics...

Is Presti too stubborn with Brooks. Would it be to rich to fire/ demote Brooks while we're having a pretty good season?

Goes against everything Presti has built. Not to mention we didn't pursue Sloan/Adelman when they became available.

What are the attributes that would make McMillan a better option to coach the Thunder over Scott Brooks?

well he did carry a pretty injured team to playoffs, that has to count for something, but his style wont match with OKC's young guys that always looking for a fastbreak.

-If you like ISO heavy offenses, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like your team to slow it down and by anti fast break, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like defenders switching on all picks until they get a favorable match up, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like a coach who is so stubborn and refuses to make adjustments even if it means your team loses, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like having your opposing team out coach you in the playoffs, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like a stagnant offense, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like poor spacing in your offense, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you don't like your players not boxing out for rebounds, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like poor execution on rare fast breaks, Nate McMillan is your man.

Shem wrote:-If you like ISO heavy offenses, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like your team to slow it down and by anti fast break, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like defenders switching on all picks until they get a favorable match up, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like a coach who is so stubborn and refuses to make adjustments even if it means your team loses, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like having your opposing team out coach you in the playoffs, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like a stagnant offense, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like poor spacing in your offense, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you don't like your players not boxing out for rebounds, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like poor execution on rare fast breaks, Nate McMillan is your man.

I think you are being ungrateful to him right now, this guy carried your bench to 50 win seasons, c'mon now.

I think the criticism of McMillan by Portland fans mirrors the criticism of Brooks in a lot of ways. If you want to change coaches then I think you look for someone different, someone known for creating an offensive and defensive system and game management.

yitur wrote:

Shem wrote:-If you like ISO heavy offenses, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like your team to slow it down and by anti fast break, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like defenders switching on all picks until they get a favorable match up, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like a coach who is so stubborn and refuses to make adjustments even if it means your team loses, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like having your opposing team out coach you in the playoffs, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like a stagnant offense, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like poor spacing in your offense, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you don't like your players not boxing out for rebounds, Nate McMillan is your man.

-If you like poor execution on rare fast breaks, Nate McMillan is your man.

I think you are being ungrateful to him right now, this guy carried your bench to 50 win seasons, c'mon now.

Nate had two 50 win seasons, one of them with a healthy Brandon Roy and Greg Oden. The one thing Nate was good at is coaching when a team going through a hard time. Before Greg Oden's last game ever with the Blazers, they were about to become the mess that they are in right now. Just ask any Blazer fan on our forum. In fact, feel free to come by our site and post a thread about how fans feel about Nate.

Another thing is Ray Allen was coached by him during their days before your team became the Thunder and Allen made it a point that you can't get close to the guy and he also mentioned that some of the players had no fathers growing up and that they look at coaches as father figures and if you look for Nate to be that guy, you're going to be disappointed. And now reports are coming out about how he was very unapproachable by the players and they felt distanced from him. Have you ever known someone in your life you knew you couldn't open up to because you knew they didn't have the mentality to have a close relationship with? One thing I feel a coach should have is a good relationship with his players and be able to relate to them. Nate isn't that type of guy. He's also a guy who is quick to point out all your faults, but never gives you praise. It's tough to play with a guy like that.

I do appreciate how Nate was able to get Portland out of the Jail Blazer era and he was the right guy for that situation, but after 2010, he needed to go and lots of Blazer fans knew it. It's like how Doug Collins was the right guy for the Bulls during the late 80's. Collins was fired right after the Bulls had their most successful season ever in franchise history at the time. Before all those championships, they never got far in the playoffs and all of a sudden they got to the Eastern Conference Finals for the first time ever in '89 and after losing to the eventual champions; the Detroit Pistons, he was fired and replaced by Phil Jackson and the rest was history.

Just look at Scott Brooks' resume, and the teams development ever year. They've only gotten better. Theres absolutely no chance the guy gets fired, at least for a long time.

OzThunder wrote:Is Presti too stubborn with Brooks. Would it be to rich to fire/ demote Brooks while we're having a pretty good season?

The question is, if it isn't broke, why try to fix it? Why would they fire Brooks? "Sorry, but you don't win enough." Really?
I just can't imagine them doing him that disservice without purpose.