Where does Nate rank among coaches?

[Diesel]

Nate may be the best coach in the game. 

What's the squawk think??

[niremetal]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

Nate may be the best coach in the game. 

What's the squawk think??

I just can't give that title to someone whose never taken a team past the conference finals. Especially one who only had one playoff series win before this year. I have to admit I hated him before this season because he definitely did not impress me when he was coach of the Blazers (his offense was Woodyball).

The best coaches are the ones who've proven they can pretty much always get the most out of whatever team they are given. I think the coaches who fit that mold the best at this point are Pop, Kerr, Spoelstra, and Monty Williams (who I thought did an impressive job with a rotating series of awful rosters with the Pelicans before his fantastic work with the Suns the past two seasons). Admittedly, Kerr hasn't shown the versatility of the other guys, but the fact that he instantly turned a solid-but-not-contending team into an all-time great dynasty while largely revolutionizing the strategy of how the game is played makes it impossible not to put him in the top tier, especially after the Steph-but-no-one-else Warriors nearly snuck into the playoffs last season.

In the next tier are guys who always do a solid job, but who lack either the proven versatility or success of the guys above. I'd place Nick Nurse, Rick Carlisle, and Bud in this category.

It's where I'd place Nate now--but with the recognition that he could easily go up or down depending on what he does over the next two seasons. The reason I'd place Nate in Tier 2 despite the relative lack of playoff success is simply the revolving door of lineups he had to play due to injuries last season...beating a full-strength Bucks squad with Trae out twice (once in April, once in the playoffs) stands out.

An aside...Doc is the perfect example of a coach who is only a great fit for certain kinds of teams--namely, teams with lots of great role players and no clear lead dog. In 2000, he took a Magic team that should have won 15 games at most (their best player was Darrell Armstrong) almost to the playoffs. Similar thing with the Clippers in his next-to-last season there, when he nearly squeezed 50 wins out of a team whose "big 3" was Gallo, Tobias Harris, and Lou Williams. But for the most part, give him star players, and he usually doesn't know what to do--he almost wants to treat them like role players too. The Celtics were great for him because he had three co-equal star players with different, complementary skill sets. He also probably would have done great (maybe even better than Bud) with the '15 Hawks or the 2000s Pistons. But he always underachieves when he has a clear talent advantage. So weird.

[sillent]

Honestly I'll give the credit to Ty Lue right now. I don't really know the coaches schemes so I'm looking at their rotations.

Being able to be flexible and versatile is important for any roster and their players.

If you can maximize all the weapons you have on the bench and put the right pieces in at the right time you have a chance.

[Spud2nique]

I got Pop, Nate and Snyder the top 3. 

[Diesel]

10 hours ago, niremetal said:

I just can't give that title to someone whose never taken a team past the conference finals. Especially one who only had one playoff series win before this year. I have to admit I hated him before this season because he definitely did not impress me when he was coach of the Blazers (his offense was Woodyball).

The best coaches are the ones who've proven they can pretty much always get the most out of whatever team they are given. I think the coaches who fit that mold the best at this point are Pop, Kerr, Spoelstra, and Monty Williams (who I thought did an impressive job with a rotating series of awful rosters with the Pelicans before his fantastic work with the Suns the past two seasons). Admittedly, Kerr hasn't shown the versatility of the other guys, but the fact that he instantly turned a solid-but-not-contending team into an all-time great dynasty while largely revolutionizing the strategy of how the game is played makes it impossible not to put him in the top tier, especially after the Steph-but-no-one-else Warriors nearly snuck into the playoffs last season.

In the next tier are guys who always do a solid job, but who lack either the proven versatility or success of the guys above. I'd place Nick Nurse, Rick Carlisle, and Bud in this category.

It's where I'd place Nate now--but with the recognition that he could easily go up or down depending on what he does over the next two seasons. The reason I'd place Nate in Tier 2 despite the relative lack of playoff success is simply the revolving door of lineups he had to play due to injuries last season...beating a full-strength Bucks squad with Trae out twice (once in April, once in the playoffs) stands out.

An aside...Doc is the perfect example of a coach who is only a great fit for certain kinds of teams--namely, teams with lots of great role players and no clear lead dog. In 2000, he took a Magic team that should have won 15 games at most (their best player was Darrell Armstrong) almost to the playoffs. Similar thing with the Clippers in his next-to-last season there, when he nearly squeezed 50 wins out of a team whose "big 3" was Gallo, Tobias Harris, and Lou Williams. But for the most part, give him star players, and he usually doesn't know what to do--he almost wants to treat them like role players too. The Celtics were great for him because he had three co-equal star players with different, complementary skill sets. He also probably would have done great (maybe even better than Bud) with the '15 Hawks or the 2000s Pistons. But he always underachieves when he has a clear talent advantage. So weird.

I thought about the past, but then I have to say... with us... did he show that he has learned from past mistakes?  I think you have to leave room for growth.   And yeah... like you said.. fit.   For instance, Popp's team's lately have looked pedestrian.  He's still a great coach but not having the best players kind of exposed him as a coach.   I think if you do have a top tier...

Kerr is definitely up there. 

Spoelstra is definitely up there. 

Even Carlisle and Bud can definitely be up there. 

However, you have to make room for this rendition of Nate.  With what he has learned in other stints, I think he is putting it all together. 

He outcoached Tibbs and Doc.   He was on his way to Outcoaching Budd... and the way that Monty failed against Budd tells me that Nate coaches better than Monty.  But nobody could thought of us as contenders going into last season.  I would hazard to hunch that we were probably less than 10,000 to 1 chance of going to the finals.  And we almost made it. 

 

1 hour ago, sillent said:

Honestly I'll give the credit to Ty Lue right now. I don't really know the coaches schemes so I'm looking at their rotations.

Being able to be flexible and versatile is important for any roster and their players.

If you can maximize all the weapons you have on the bench and put the right pieces in at the right time you have a chance.

That's a good point, Ty Lue and Snyder both escaped my memory. 

[Diesel]

 

 

So here it is...  Let's put these twelve in order (you number them from 1 - 12) :

 

Monty Williams. 

Quinn Snider 

Eric Spolestra

Popp

Nick Nurse

Ty Lue

Doc Rivers

Nate McMillan

Steve Kerr 

Thibbs 

Rick Carlisle 

Steve Nash

 Bud

[Gray Mule]

Current is always best!  A bird in hand is better than 2 birds in the brush.

I believe the Atlanta Hawks, as currently constructed, has the very best head coach that they could get.  He proved to all of us that these players would listen to him.  He led them into the playoffs and, despite having players out injured, the Hawks went farther than any one not a Hawk fan could imagine.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Gray Mule

[Spud2nique]

1 hour ago, Diesel said:

Kerr is definitely up there. 

Huh, why? I could have won 3 rings with Durant Curry Klay and Draymond. Nah man imagine a roster that equal, you can’t base this off how their team performs, I mean obviously you have to but the roster talent matters. 
 

Kerr didn’t make the playoffs with Curry? What happened there. He had an MVP on the roster. 

[RedDawg#8]

Bud just won a title, I think you have to at least put him in consideration over a Steve Nash

2 hours ago, Diesel said:

 

 

So here it is...  Let's put these twelve in order (you number them from 1 - 12) :

 

Monty Williams. 

Quinn Snider 

Eric Spolestra

Popp

Nick Nurse

Ty Lue

Doc Rivers

Nate McMillan

Steve Kerr 

Thibbs 

Rick Carlisle 

Steve Nash

 

[MarylandHawk]

15 hours ago, Diesel said:

Nate may be the best coach in the game. 

What's the squawk think??

I will let you know after he delivers our first championship. Lol. 

[Spud2nique]

Nate went from about 7-10th best imo to top 5, this last year he really showed out.

[NBASupes]

Top 5 for me: 

1. Doc

2. Nate

3. Monty

4t. Thibs

4t. Synder

4t. Bud

 

Over a career, he's barely top 5

1. Pop

2. Doc

3. Rick C.

4. Spo

5. Nate

Bud right there with Nate but I don't really respect Bud. 

[Spud2nique]

14 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

Top 5 for me: 

1. Doc

Wow really? I liked him when he coached the Magic a while back. He’s probably still in my top 5 because he’s a former Hawk of nothing else.

[NBASupes]

9 minutes ago, Spud2nique said:

Wow really? I liked him when he coached the Magic a while back. He’s probably still in my top 5 because he’s a former Hawk of nothing else.

I liked what I saw from Doc this year. His Clipper performance was underwhelming but i was impressed with him with Philly last year

[RandomFan]

In order: 

Ty Lue (best psychologist and good tactician) 

Eric Spoelstra (best tactician) 

Popp

Steve Kerr

Bud (since he finally grew into adapting)

Nate

Nick Nurse

Rick Carlisle

Quinn Snyder

Monty Williams

Thibs

Doc Rivers (most overrated in history?)

Steve Nash (inexperience)

[Diesel]

3 hours ago, RedDawg#8 said:

Bud just won a title, I think you have to at least put him in consideration over a Steve Nash

 

thought I had him in there... Done...

[Diesel]

So with the new list.. I'll jump in...

Monty Williams. 

Quinn Snider 

Eric Spolestra

Popp

Nick Nurse

Ty Lue

Doc Rivers

Nate McMillan

Steve Kerr 

Thibbs 

Rick Carlisle 

Steve Nash

 Bud

 

Historically.....

1.  Popp

2.   Kerr

3.  Spolestra

4.   Carlisle 

5.   Doc

6.  Bud

7.  Ty

8.  Nurse

9.  Nate

10.   Thibbs

11.  Monty

12.  Quinn Snyder. 

 

I guess I had to bow to the rings.   But I just saw Nate outcoach both Thibbs and Doc and hold his own vs. Budd.   Moreover, some of these guys have never moved and therefore it's hard to say that they are that good.. but Spolestra gets credit for getting three teams in contention even if one of them were a Lebron Summit Fix.

[Diesel]

9 minutes ago, RandomFan said:

In order: 

Ty Lue (best psychologist and good tactician) 

Eric Spoelstra (best tactician) 

Popp

Steve Kerr

Bud (since he finally grew into adapting)

Nate

Nick Nurse

Rick Carlisle

Quinn Snyder

Monty Williams

Thibs

Doc Rivers (most overrated in history?)

Steve Nash (inexperience)

Did Bud adapt or was Monty just too darn Stubborn for his own good?  Bud's road was paved with a lot of help...  First  Trae got hurt.   Second... Monty refused to build a wall.  I actually think had Monty not left Ayton out there to get destroyed every game and put a Miami plan on Milwaukee, they could have won. 

 

[RandomFan]

26 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Did Bud adapt or was Monty just too darn Stubborn for his own good?  Bud's road was paved with a lot of help...  First  Trae got hurt.   Second... Monty refused to build a wall.  I actually think had Monty not left Ayton out there to get destroyed every game and put a Miami plan on Milwaukee, they could have won. 

 

Bud clearly learned to adapt. Did it numerous times in our series alone. Sacrificed the best possible record during the regular season in order to experiment with different strategies, mainly defensive such as switching on D, which we got a first hand look at. 

I mean, it was kind of a big story and takeaway from their run to the championship...

Edited August 23, 2021 by RandomFan

[Diesel]

3 hours ago, RandomFan said:

Bud clearly learned to adapt. Did it numerous times in our series alone. Sacrificed the best possible record during the regular season in order to experiment with different strategies, mainly defensive such as switching on D, which we got a first hand look at. 

I mean, it was kind of a big story and takeaway from their run to the championship...

I see some coaching, but I see more luck.  Brooklyn loses 2 of the big three and then KD's toe was over the line. 

We lose Trae after taking Game 1. 

Phoenix decides that the best thing to do is play Giannis one on one with Ayton.. Giannis scored 50 in the final freaking game.. and it was like 46 before that. 

I do applaud Jrue.. Jrue is a defensive master... but the lack of defense that Phoenix showed up with was horrid coaching.