Chauncey and Terry

[andalusian]

Trying to identify the main problem isn't a hard thing to do. Olshey whether it's fair to judge him for it or not, let Aldridge walk for nothing, Olshey crippled the team with bad spending, if Stotts was a problem (which I think he was) Olshey kept that problem around way too long, and Olshey has never made the big trade or signing necessary to get Dame the help he needs. Olshey is the main problem and has been the main problem... even if Stotts was the biggest problem his employment was Olshey's responsibility so again Olshey can reasonably be considered the main problem.

That being said Stotts was so underwhelming in his nine year tenure here that you can disagree with but not completely negate the opinions of those that thought that firing Stotts was the first change that needed to be made.

You are contradicting yourself. If he was not the biggest problem - he clearly is not the first change that needed to be done.

He might have been the first change that could easily be done, but putting new oil (coach) into an engine that is leaking oil (the Blazers roster) is not going to do anything other than maybe postpone the inevitable (Dame wanting out).

I have said so above - after 9 years, it is fine with me to change Terry, but I do not believe for one second that the Blazers could have done much better given the sub-par roster (at times due to injuries) they had.

 

[andalusian]

no.

Good, so you agree it was not the reason they did not make the finals in his 9 years as head coach.

Now do I think they had the roster to make it past the first round in some of the years they didn't? Yeah.

Same, we agree again.

I think they underachieved with Stotts.

Some years, sure. Other - not at all. Overall, given his roster and injuries he had to deal with - I think he over-delivered over the 9 years. Does not mean he is the best coach in the world. Does not mean he can not be improved upon. But he certainly was not the biggest problem the Blazers had in these last 9 years.

 

[hoopsjock]

I can't help worrying that Chauncey's hire is going to turn out like when Steve Kerr (great coach - bad GM) hired our own Terry Porter to coach the Suns, after Kerr had also traded for Shaq. Terry tried to make it work, slow it down to take advantage of Shaq and all. Terry lasted 51 games, and Nash was miserable the whole time. Turns out, a great offense (putting the ball in Nash's hands and letting him loose) and mediocre defense was the best form of the Phoenix Suns. Trying to fix the "flaws" in D'Antoni's scheme ended up breaking the Suns.

The parallels with Chauncey: Kerr hired Terry because he knew him as a teammate and knew that he was an unbelievable guy and an unbelievable leader. Sadly, that didn't make him a great coach. (And it pains me to say that - Terry was my fave player on my fave version of the Blazers.)

Speaking of Steve Kerr, I could just as easily make this comparison to when he was hired as coach of the Warriors in 2014.

Back then there was also a full month of training camp with 8 preseason games. Billups had one week and 4 games.

No one knows if Billups will be a good coach or not, but I think it's pretty unfair to call it either way before giving him a fair chance.

 

[blazerkor]

You are contradicting yourself. If he was not the biggest problem - he clearly is not the first change that needed to be done.

He might have been the first change that could easily be done, but putting new oil (coach) into an engine that is leaking oil (the Blazers roster) is not going to do anything other than maybe postpone the inevitable (Dame wanting out).

I have said so above - after 9 years, it is fine with me to change Terry, but I do not believe for one second that the Blazers could have done much better given the sub-par roster (at times due to injuries) they had.

I'm not contradicting anything. First of all I said all spring that Olshey should be fired and the new GM should decide what to do with Stotts. Secondly, are you under some mistaken assumption that the biggest problem has to be the first to be solved? That's some binary thinking in a nuanced situation. Sometimes the biggest problem is so entrenched that it can't be gotten rid of all at once, so you have to solve the problems you can first, even if they're not the biggest of the problems.

Again I would have fired Olshey and hired a GM that would have presumably fired Stotts and made much bigger changes to the roster but obviously ownership (who may actually be the biggest problem and from our standpoint are completely inextricable) didn't share my vision.

 

[julius]

Correct. Do you believe the Blazers had the roster in any of the years TS was the head coach to make it to the finals?

He had rosters that should have made it out of the first round more often than it did.

 

[andalusian]

I'm not contradicting anything. First of all I said all spring that Olshey should be fired and the new GM should decide what to do with Stotts. Secondly, are you under some mistaken assumption that the biggest problem has to be the first to be solved? That's some binary thinking in a nuanced situation. Sometimes the biggest problem is so entrenched that it can't be gotten rid of all at once, so you have to solve the problems you can first, even if they're not the biggest of the problems.

Again I would have fired Olshey and hired a GM that would have presumably fired Stotts and made much bigger changes to the roster but obviously ownership (who may actually be the biggest problem and from our standpoint are completely inextricable) didn't share my vision.

From an efficiency POV, you always start with the biggest problem, eliminate it for the biggest improvement. Obviously, in the real world, it is often the easiest problem (or perceived problem) that is first to be "fixed" and with the person in charge of the fix being the biggest problem and the roster being bound by the CBA, it is was obvious that the easiest problem (or, perceived problem) was going to be solved first.

It is easy to look for the coin under the light... sometimes tho, that's not where you lost it.

 

[andalusian]

He had rosters that should have made it out of the first round more often than it did.

See post #62 above.

 

[THE HCP]

30 games. How magnanimous of you.

I assume this is aimed at @THE HCP . I need to google that word, standby.......

 

[THE HCP]

That's the first time anybody has called me that.

 

[julius]

That's the first time anybody has called me that.

Wear it as a badge of honor.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Maybe we could Brundlefly them into Thauncey Brotts.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

No, try something else first. Ideally, trading for an all star.

I bet Olshey wishes he'd thought of trading for an all-star.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

I assume this is aimed at @THE HCP . I need to google that word, standby.......
View attachment 41054

 

[Phatguysrule]

I bet Olshey wishes he'd thought of trading for an all-star.

I would hope so... If Milwaukie can do it you would think Portland could...

 

[Rastapopoulos]

He had rosters that should have made it out of the first round more often than it did.

I thought that was true of the Brandon Roy years but not the Dame years. Conversely, I was genuinely shocked that we beat the Rockets (with Aldridge) and then the Thunder and then the Nuggets.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Speaking of Steve Kerr, I could just as easily make this comparison to when he was hired as coach of the Warriors in 2014.

Back then there was also a full month of training camp with 8 preseason games. Billups had one week and 4 games.

No one knows if Billups will be a good coach or not, but I think it's pretty unfair to call it either way before giving him a fair chance.

Not claiming knowledge. I do think we've had enough time to worry.

Note: I never wanted, and am still glad we did not hire, Jason Kidd, but it's painful to compare the scorelines of the Kidd-coached Mavs and the Chauncey-coached Blazers last night.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Not claiming knowledge. I do think we've had enough time to worry.

Note: I never wanted, and am still glad we did not hire, Jason Kidd, but it's painful to compare the scorelines of the Kidd-coached Mavs and the Chauncey-coached Blazers last night.

Yeah, I much prefered Billups over Kidd.

 

[FlashWad]

I think its safe to say the Chauncey experiment failed. Its time to move on and cut our losses. He has has more than enough opportunity to improve us into a championship contender. Maybe we can beg Mike Dantoni to give us a second chance?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I think its safe to say the Chauncey experiment failed. Its time to move on and cut our losses. He has has more than enough opportunity to improve us into a championship contender. Maybe we can beg Mike Dantoni to give us a second chance?

3 preseason games.

 

[Minstrel]

Stotts wasn't a great coach, but the roster is 90-95% of team success (except for edge cases where you have one of the all-time great and innovative coaches). Sure, the Blazers "changed something," but they changed the thing least likely to alter the franchise's path.

Honestly, I think getting Nance is likely to make a much bigger difference to the team's success than the coaching change. Nance can actually be a pretty impactful player for this team.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

Speaking of Steve Kerr, I could just as easily make this comparison to when he was hired as coach of the Warriors in 2014.

Ummm. No you can't. Not at all.
Kerr was gifted quite possibly the best roster a new head coach has ever seen.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

Yeah, I much prefered Billups over Kidd.

Totally Agree.

 

[hoopsjock]

Ummm. No you can't. Not at all.
Kerr was gifted quite possibly the best roster a new head coach has ever seen.

This is so incredibly hindsight biased. The Warriors were coming off losing in the first round and had lost in the second round the year prior. Before that they had been to the playoffs once in 18 years, so we're talking Minnesota level futility.

 

[hoopsjock]

Stotts wasn't a great coach, but the roster is 90-95% of team success (except for edge cases where you have one of the all-time great and innovative coaches). Sure, the Blazers "changed something," but they changed the thing least likely to alter the franchise's path.

Honestly, I think getting Nance is likely to make a much bigger difference to the team's success than the coaching change. Nance can actually be a pretty impactful player for this team.

Roster is very important, but I think when it comes to coaching you're not giving them enough credit. Look at Thibs and McMillan from just this past season as examples to the contrary. Both had basically the same roster as the coach before them.

 

[Fairly-Hard]

This is so incredibly hindsight biased. The Warriors were coming off losing in the first round and had lost in the second round the year prior. Before that they had been to the playoffs once in 18 years, so we're talking Minnesota level futility.

Well let me rephrase that. Kerr was given a better roster than what Billups or Porter were given in my opinion.
If you want to call it hindsight then so be it but most agree Kerr was given a good situation. Nash as well could do very well. Nash great player but might not be the greatest coach even though he has a pretty darn good roster. It ain't hindsight to say the Nets will do well this year.

 

[JDC]

Roster is very important, but I think when it comes to coaching you're not giving them enough credit. Look at Thibs and McMillan from just this past season as examples to the contrary. Both had basically the same roster as the coach before them.

There's definitely exceptions.

Hawks got healthy pretty much right when Nate took over which gets overlooked, but the players definitely liked him more though (especially Trae) and I think he gave them more structure offensively and demanded a bit more from them defensively.

Thibs was interesting, the conversation around him was that the league had passed him by, but no doubt did some great things. Simplified things defensively for them. Got more conservative with the big and zoned up more on the weakside.

Alot of shooting luck involved in their defensive improvement though. Gave up one of the worst shot profiles in the league. Got career years out of a lot of guys. Interested to see how year 2 goes for them. Really like the Kemba addition for them. Not so much Fournier. Was truly awful defensively last year.

 

[BonesJones]

You are contradicting yourself. If he was not the biggest problem - he clearly is not the first change that needed to be done.

He might have been the first change that could easily be done, but putting new oil (coach) into an engine that is leaking oil (the Blazers roster) is not going to do anything other than maybe postpone the inevitable (Dame wanting out).

I have said so above - after 9 years, it is fine with me to change Terry, but I do not believe for one second that the Blazers could have done much better given the sub-par roster (at times due to injuries) they had.

The organization is not a car.

Might as well just say the GM is oil and the engine is the coach.

 

[andalusian]

Might as well just say the GM is oil and the engine is the coach.

How about we say the GM is a snake oil salesman and call it a day?

 

[BonesJones]

Stotts wasn't a great coach, but the roster is 90-95% of team success (except for edge cases where you have one of the all-time great and innovative coaches). Sure, the Blazers "changed something," but they changed the thing least likely to alter the franchise's path.

Honestly, I think getting Nance is likely to make a much bigger difference to the team's success than the coaching change. Nance can actually be a pretty impactful player for this team.

I don't understand why people act like the roster and coaching aren't intertwined. Coaches develop players. Coaches lead players. Players will look better or worse depending on if they're utilized correctly or not by the coach.

If a player isn't utilized properly, they'll look bad and people will blame the GM for it. Putting percentages on the importance of the roster verse the coaching is strange to me considering how much player skillsets, development, and play-style are impacted by the coach.

 

[julius]

I don't understand why people act like the roster and coaching aren't intertwined. Coaches develop players. Coaches lead players. Players will look better or worse depending on if they're utilized correctly or not by the coach.

If a player isn't utilized properly, they'll look bad and people will blame the GM for it. Putting percentages on the importance of the roster verse the coaching is strange to me considering how much player skillsets, development, and play-style are impacted by the coach.

If we can give Stotts 9 years, we can give Billups more than 3 games.