Anyone miss Stotts?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
BassPlaya said:
Hey....anyone miss Kersey?
Anyone miss Williams?
Anyone miss Ramsay?

What is the point of pining about this?
Click to expand...
We could still hire Stotts and be better off than we are now... Probably can't get the other guys... Also, people who said "anybody" would be better than Stotts were very clearly wrong.
 
Phatguysrule said:
It was explained. He shouldn't have been fired. He should have been promoted.
Click to expand...

Stotts is a top offensive assistant coach. He is a bottomfeeder head coach because of promoting offense at the expense of defense. He has no experience in advising in talent evaluation, and would be a mediocre assistant GM.

As for the revisionist history:
Everyone was bored with the team struggling to keep its head above water for 20 years since the Oregonian had forced out Whitsitt. A few nervy ones like me wanted both/either Stotts/Olshey gone, and felt we couldn't control the order...just replace one and later we'll advocate to fire the other. The opposition (e.g. Tince) wanted no change, ever. For them, any Blazer job is a lifelong appointment.

When the writing was on the wall that a new coach would be hired, suddenly every poster claimed to have wanted a coaching change all along. Actually, they started waffling only when it was obvious that that was going to happen. (The no-change posters later claimed the same about themselves when Olshey was about to be fired.)

A new small faction (e.g. MediocreMan) said, don't hire a "retread." I disagreed and wanted an experienced head coach (admitting that the few available had losing records, but still would balance defense with offense, unlike Stotts). Olshey hired a guy who was as rookie as you can get. But in the storm from the competing message board over Billups's sexual past, most became busy defending him from that distraction, and couldn't criticize the choice for lack of experience.

History is a fucking mess to record, but that's what I did for a job, and still do daily in retirement. (I inherited a lot of paperwork, and damn it, it's going on spreadsheets before I die.)
 
jlprk said:
Stotts is a top offensive assistant coach. He is a bottomfeeder head coach because of promoting offense at the expense of defense. He has no experience in advising in talent evaluation, and would be a mediocre assistant GM.

As for the revisionist history:
Everyone was bored with the team struggling to keep its head above water for 20 years since the Oregonian had forced out Whitsitt. A few nervy ones like me wanted both/either Stotts/Olshey gone, and felt we couldn't control the order...just replace one and later we'll advocate to fire the other. The opposition (e.g. Tince) wanted no change, ever. For them, any Blazer job is a lifelong appointment.

When the writing was on the wall that a new coach would be hired, suddenly every poster claimed to have wanted a coaching change all along. Actually, they started waffling only when it was obvious that that was going to happen. (The no-change posters later claimed the same about themselves when Olshey was about to be fired.)

A new small faction (e.g. MediocreMan) said, don't hire a "retread." I disagreed and wanted an experienced head coach (admitting that the few available had losing records, but still would balance defense with offense, unlike Stotts). Olshey hired a guy who was as rookie as you can get. But in the storm from the competing message board over Billups's sexual past, most became busy defending him from that distraction, and couldn't criticize the choice for lack of experience.

History is a fucking mess to record, but that's what I did for a job, and still do daily in retirement. (I inherited a lot of paperwork, and damn it, it's going on spreadsheets before I die.)
Click to expand...
Singling out @Tince on this is just plain wrong. He as well as most opposition were steadfast in saying change for the sake of change is wrong. He specifically said find a better coach first and keep Stotts in the Blazer system because winning is what was important.
 
jlprk said:
Stotts is a top offensive assistant coach. He is a bottomfeeder head coach because of promoting offense at the expense of defense. He has no experience in advising in talent evaluation, and would be a mediocre assistant GM.

As for the revisionist history:
Everyone was bored with the team struggling to keep its head above water for 20 years since the Oregonian had forced out Whitsitt. A few nervy ones like me wanted both/either Stotts/Olshey gone, and felt we couldn't control the order...just replace one and later we'll advocate to fire the other. The opposition (e.g. Tince) wanted no change, ever. For them, any Blazer job is a lifelong appointment.

When the writing was on the wall that a new coach would be hired, suddenly every poster claimed to have wanted a coaching change all along. Actually, they started waffling only when it was obvious that that was going to happen. (The no-change posters later claimed the same about themselves when Olshey was about to be fired.)

A new small faction (e.g. MediocreMan) said, don't hire a "retread." I disagreed and wanted an experienced head coach (admitting that the few available had losing records, but still would balance defense with offense, unlike Stotts). Olshey hired a guy who was as rookie as you can get. But in the storm from the competing message board over Billups's sexual past, most became busy defending him from that distraction, and couldn't criticize the choice for lack of experience.

History is a fucking mess to record, but that's what I did for a job, and still do daily in retirement. (I inherited a lot of paperwork, and damn it, it's going on spreadsheets before I die.)
Click to expand...
Wouldn't have to be an assistant GM. Could have been on the business side.

There are plenty of places in the organization for a great ambassador like Stotts who also has an incredible offensive mind.

And when he was given defensive talent he had a top eight defensive team. So I'm not even really sure that the knock against his "defense" is all that legitimate.

After being here that long I would have expected a quality organization to retain the quality guy like that when they were ready to move on from him as coach.

Again, this is just my desire for this to be a quality organization. The losing was going to happen no matter what once we had to trade Dame. I don't even hold the losing against Billups.
 
kjironman1 said:
Singling out @Tince on this is just plain wrong. He as well as most opposition were steadfast in saying change for the sake of change is wrong. .
Click to expand...

that looks a lot like a straw man...., there may have been a few saying 'change for change sake'....I'm skeptical there were more than a few

there were a lot of criticisms of Stotts and many were legitimate. The 2018 Pels series; his defensive issues; his over-reliance on hero-ball

now, there is no doubt that Olshey saddled Stotts with a lot of bad roster balance and a lack of length at critical positions. Olshey was a dumpster diver looking for hidden gems in the trash, but mostly, he just found trash and tried to pawn it off as bargain talent. And then tasked Stotts with fixing the roster dysfunction in-season while overcoming talent deficits
 
kjironman1 said:
Singling out @Tince on this is just plain wrong. He as well as most opposition were steadfast in saying change for the sake of change is wrong. He specifically said find a better coach first and keep Stotts in the Blazer system because winning is what was important.
Click to expand...

Each faction had a core of about 3 posters. When any posted, several softer faction members agreed, but not as strongly. I remember Tince (no changes) and MediocreMan (no retreads) as being at the head of each faction, but yes, when they posted, others would then agree.

kjironman1 said:
keep Stotts in the Blazer system because winning is what was important.
Click to expand...

We were no longer winning. Lillard heroball, not Stotts' anti-defense system, alternated us above/below .500 for a few years. After Olshey stupidly dumped our best defender Ed Davis, and defender Aminu passed his career peak, Olshey didn't have the talent to find forwards. So we stopped alternating above/below .500. We were no longer winning.

kjironman1 said:
He as well as most opposition were steadfast in saying change for the sake of change is wrong.
Click to expand...

I'm the one here who first said the phrase, change for change's sake. I said that it's good after a team goes in circles for many years. Climb from a rut, and you might be in a worse situation, but restarting allows you a new chance to figure out what to do. If you then fall into a new rut, climb out again repeatedly until you randomly choose a better direction. Then stop the change for change's sake.

So I said that in our situation, change for change's sake was good. This phrase is semantically repulsive to those who go by feeling instead of thinking. Yet most who feel repelled from that strategy have climbed aboard its corollary strategy, tanking for years.
 
Last edited:
jlprk said:
As for the revisionist history:
Everyone was bored with the team struggling to keep its head above water for 20 years since the Oregonian had forced out Whitsitt. A few nervy ones like me wanted both/either Stotts/Olshey gone, and felt we couldn't control the order...just replace one and later we'll advocate to fire the other. The opposition (e.g. Tince) wanted no change, ever. For them, any Blazer job is a lifelong appointment.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jlprk said:
Each faction had a core of about 3 posters. When any posted, several softer faction members agreed, but not as strongly. I remember Tince (no changes) and MediocreMan (no retreads) as being at the head of each faction, but yes, when they posted, others would then agree.
Click to expand...

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.
 
wizenheimer said:
that looks a lot like a straw man...., there may have been a few saying 'change for change sake'....I'm skeptical there were more than a few

there were a lot of criticisms of Stotts and many were legitimate. The 2018 Pels series; his defensive issues; his over-reliance on hero-ball

now, there is no doubt that Olshey saddled Stotts with a lot of bad roster balance and a lack of length at critical positions. Olshey was a dumpster diver looking for hidden gems in the trash, but mostly, he just found trash and tried to pawn it off as bargain talent. And then tasked Stotts with fixing the roster dysfunction in-season while overcoming talent deficits
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tince said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jlprk said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tince said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
kjironman1 said:
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!
Click to expand...

For sure. Olshey was always the obvious #1 addressable issue. Shame on ownership for not realizing that.
 
Tince said:
For those who are new here and unaware to what I was saying years ago, I will repeat it again:
Click to expand...

You sure are worried about what noobs think.

Tince said:
I did not say Stotts was a top 5 coach
Click to expand...

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.)

Tince said:
I did not say there weren't better coaches out there
Click to expand...

False. When you always said, "Name anyone available who would be better," you implied there was no one available who would be better.

Tince said:
I did not say Stotts should here forever.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jlprk said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Tince said:
I did ask what better coach we could get.
Click to expand...

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.

Tince said:
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.
Click to expand...

You never said that, and implied the opposite, that this was a good coach, so don't replace him.

Tince said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would make no sense. I never said such a thing and you know it.
 
jlprk said:
That would make no sense. I never said such a thing and you know it.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Tince said:
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!
Click to expand...

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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
Cliff Alexander to miss 'a couple weeks' with knee ailment
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
riverman
riverman
Draco
Coaching Advantage for Stotts
Replies
5
Views
447
PDXFonz
PDXFonz
Stevenson
In Defense of Joe Cronin
Replies
13
Views
934
Mediocre Man
Mediocre Man
Mediocre Man
Zombie Stotts interview
Replies
9
Views
967
TorturedBlazerFan
TorturedBlazerFan
TBpup
Stotts may want a high Draft pick
2
Replies
50
Views
3K
VanillaGorilla
VanillaGorilla

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top