Blazers Coaching History

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Who was most recent "good" coach for the Blazers?

  • Billups

  • Stotts

  • McMillan

  • Cheeks

  • Dunleavy

  • Carlesimo

  • I'm never happy with the head coach


Results are only viewable after voting.

Users who are viewing this thread

Tince

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2008
Messages
15,514
Likes
15,078
Points
113
Select the most recent coach the Blazers had you felt was a "good" NBA coach.

If you select "I'm never happy with the head coach", please explain why your standards are as high as they are.
 
I cut it off after 30 years. Should be more than long enough for a reasonable person to think a coach was good.
I don't disagree, he just really is sadly our best last coach. Dunleavy is the choice out of the options, imo. Adelman just was a step above him.
 
It's really painful to realize he was fired over 30 years ago yet it doesn't feel like it.
100%... those teams were such a joy in so many ways!

Would also be unfair for Adelman to be the standard for what we should expect out of a coach. He was elite, and even then, fans complained about him.
 
I don't disagree, he just really is sadly our best last coach. Dunleavy is the choice out of the optional imo. Adelman just was a step above him.

I liked Dunleavy, and I also understand what he push back for not winning it all. Dunleavy had BY FAR the most talent to work with of the 6 coaches, so it's tricky to compare him to a coach who only had one or two all-stars during their entire tenure.

Adelman was two steps above anyone since his firing (in my opinion).
 
I liked Dunleavy, and I also understand what he push back for not winning it all. Dunleavy had BY FAR the most talent to work with of the 6 coaches, so it's tricky to compare him to a coach who only had one or two all-stars during their entire tenure.

Adelman was two steps above anyone since his firing (in my opinion).
I hear you on Dunleavy but that roster was a mess of personalities at times. The fact he had us that close to the Finals gets bonus points, even with the talent.

Don't disagree in Adelman being two steps above. Dude is a legend.
 
The only coach to like is when they win a championship.

No one else matters.
 
Got to catch up with both Terry and Nate this weekend. Such good dudes both of them. Coach Nate today said he loved what Chauncey did this year with this roster!
 
Got to catch up with both Terry and Nate this weekend. Such good dudes both of them. Coach Nate today said he loved what Chauncey did this year with this roster!
Were you able to tell Mr. Sonic to go fuck himself for me?
 
I think Stotts did more with less

In the entire time that Stotts was the coach here, the only time he had "less" was the minute after he was fired.

He had a ROY, and an all star in his 1st and 2nd years as coach.

Every other year he had Damian Fucking Lillard, who was better than anyone on this team currently. Also had LaMarcus for 3 years, better than anyone on this team.
 
If your standard is that a coach must get a team to contention to be "good", then your standards are ridiculous. It's pretty inarguable that Stotts was universally respected around the league, and continually brought deficient rosters to the playoffs. He wasn't elite, but he was definitely good.
 
Dr Jack
Adelman
- - - - - - - - -
Dunleavy
Stotts
Wilkins (didn't get enough of a shot)
 
If your standard is that a coach must get a team to contention to be "good", then your standards are ridiculous.
I agree. To omit the talent a coach had at their disposal would make little to no sense.

Dunleavy couldn't find minutes for a young Jermaine O'Neal, who would've been a top 3-4 player on the roster 5 years ago.
 
I agree. To omit the talent a coach had at their disposal would make little to no sense.

Dunleavy couldn't find minutes for a young Jermaine O'Neal, who would've been a top 3-4 player on the roster 5 years ago.
On the other hand, Dunleavy had a mess of personalities and Stott's had one of the best leaders in the league.

I don't dislike Stotts like some folks. But, I would rank him below Dunleavy.
 
I agree. To omit the talent a coach had at their disposal would make little to no sense.

Dunleavy couldn't find minutes for a young Jermaine O'Neal, who would've been a top 3-4 player on the roster 5 years ago.
Wasn't he the coach during that 4th qtr choke against the Lakers?
 
Wasn't he the coach during that 4th qtr choke against the Lakers?
Dunleavy was also the Lakers Coach and outcoached Adelman in that playoff loss.

I still think Adelman is a better Coach. But Mike got him in that series.

*Edit* I picked Stotts. I'm really not sure if Billups is good or not. I have concerns, for sure.
 
Last edited:
Shit, I would have won 55 games a year coaching with the roster Dunleavy inherited.
I know, but he did have to deal with some rough personalities between the players and the press at the time.

I gave him the edge over Stotts there and because he did outcoach Adelman in that one series.
 
I think Stotts did more with less
Agreed. That team that he took to the WCF (and which led in every game against the Warriors in the second half (I think)) featured at least 3 players who would be out of the league within 3 seasons, despite still being young.

I never liked the style that Stotts favored (glacial pace, poor defense) but it sure as hell maximized our "two undersized no-defense guards" lineup.
 
On the other hand, Dunleavy had a mess of personalities and Stott's had one of the best leaders in the league.

I don't dislike Stotts like some folks. But, I would rank him below Dunleavy.

If only personalities won games, I might have NBA potential!
 
Back
Top