Your summary of how I felt is very much inaccurate. I wanted (and still want), the Blazers to make transactions that are more likely to improve the direction of the franchise. I have never once stated any player, coach, or front office member should have a lifelong appointment or there be no change within the organization. I predicted many times before the fact (not revisionist), that we would be unlikely to identify and acquire an upgrade from Stotts at the coaching position. When you have to make up a story to prove a point, typically it means the point you're making lacks real substance.
Again, your memory of what I said and my overall stand is incorrect. There is a search function on this forum, but you won't find me saying this franchise should never make changes or any member within it should have a lifelong appointment.
I agree there were certainly legit critiques of Stotts, I made some myself. He was far from a perfect coach. I don't think you'd find anyone here that would say he did everything right. I don't think the debate about firing Stotts was if he had or did not have flaws, it was if the next coach was likely to have more or less flaws.
Obviously, you didn't literally say that jobs are lifetime appointments. If we can get the ungettable best ___ in the world, you will soften your opposition to change. But otherwise, you will always object, can you name any better ___ than the one we have now? And obviously, you aren't the only one, just the first name that came to mind. Sociology says that an issue will have a core faction, and a soft faction who agree only when they passively hear from leaders. It's like the difference between speaking vocabulary and reading vocabulary. This is amusing. Usually I'm the one who is intimidated, ostracized, dominated by the so-called majority. I don't mean to do that now.
Your softened stance of what I was saying is still inaccurate though. Why not repeat what I said instead of grossly sensationalizing it? I just want to make sure those who were reading your summary of what I said were aware that in fact, that was not what I said at all. You've been around the board long enough, I know where you stand. For those who are new here and unaware to what I was saying years ago, I will repeat it again: I felt the Blazers were unlikely to be able to identify and obtain a better coach than Stotts, therefore I didn't think firing him was important are to focus on. I did not say Stotts was a top 5 coach, I did not say there weren't better coaches out there, and I did not say Stotts should here forever. While it's impossible to compare Stotts to Billups, I think it's pretty safe to say he was not an upgrade. I don't think Billups is the main problem right now either, but I do think the odds of the franchise finding a better replacement is higher this time than it was 3 years ago.
That’s the way I remember it. There were a number of posters that I can tag that said “Anyone is better” and things like “Doesn’t matter who just FIRE STOTTS!”. Those people are the ones who should be pointed out at this point. Not those who said “ Let’s not fire a coach just to fire a coach”. The biggest issue I have is that Olshey was not fired first!
And for those who had issues with the way Stotts coached the team in the WCF? My biggest problem was not Stotts. It was a 36 hour rest they had between game 7 and game 1 that seemed to seal the fate of that team.
For sure. Olshey was always the obvious #1 addressable issue. Shame on ownership for not realizing that.
There are many people (for good reason) who probably wish it wasn't. Then there are the people who continue to double down. Sadly, this might be a more interesting topic than the play on the court this season.
You sure are worried about what noobs think. No one in this thread said you called Stotts a top-5 coach, certainly not me. Straw man? Or did I miss a post in the last page. (I remember in Stotts's last couple of years 1 person said that, and a couple said he was top-10, but I don't remember who. To repeat, I never said you said that.) False. When you always said, "Name anyone available who would be better," you implied there was no one available who would be better. Literally, you are right, that he won't live eternally. Figuratively...no matter how bad things got, you dismissed any poster who wanted to replace him. So I said that you considered it a lifetime appointment, like the Supreme Court. If this figurative analogy worries you so much, then take up drugs or warm milk to calm yourself. We're all getting concerned about you. To repeat (to calm your nerves), you are correct, literally.
You're wrong, again. I'm not sure why you are claiming I said things I didn't. It's not as much that I'm worried what noobs think as I'd like there to be some degree of accurate information around here! My nerves are good. I did ask what better coach we could get. I knew there would be better coaches available (unemployed), but I didn't think it was likely we'd be able to identify and convince said coach to work for Olshey and the Vulcans. That appears to have been true. I would totally believe I would have put Stotts around a top 10 coach at the time based on the talent to success ratio. Putting someone top 10 probably doesn't mean much though because it's so subjective. I guess in all, I just thought it was strange that you said we'd be one of the best teams in the leauge once we got rid of Stotts.
In a typical exchange, you would dismiss the idea of replacing Stotts, and conclude with a rhetorical (that means not really sincerely inquiring) question on just who the poster would replace him with. You never said that, and implied the opposite, that this was a good coach, so don't replace him. That would make no sense. I never said such a thing and you know it.
Oh, we know you never said it, I just wanted to attribute that take to you for dramatic effect. Get some warm milk and calm down!
I was going to wait till game time, but with your permission, I'll start drinking my "warm milk" right now! This means you can write anything about me you want for the night. Hmm, 30 seconds in the microwave will make this interesting...If it's a blowout, I miss nothing if I turn off the game in the late 3rd quarter anyway...
