Fire Stotts

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
hoopsjock said:
Question for everyone (not directed at just you @Rastapopoulos):

If a team doesn't win a championship with a generational talent, was that player really a generational talent or is it the organization's fault (or is it a case by case basis)?
Click to expand...
What are we considering a generational talent?
 
hoopsjock said:
Well lets use Giannis and Doncic as our case studies since those two were brought up. If those guys don't win a championship for their current teams.
Click to expand...

* Jerry West didn't win a championship till his 12th season when Wilt was there
* Elvin Hayes was 32 and playing for his 3rd team in his 10th season before he won one
* Julius Erving didn't win one till his 12th season
* Shaq was a generational talent but he didn't win one in Orlando, however he departed early
* Lebron is a generational talent and he didn't win a championship for Cleveland before he signed in Miami, and it took him 9 years to win one
* Durant? he played 9 years for OKC without winning a title

Charles Barkely? Karl Malone? George Gervin? Oscar Robertson?

now, you could set a real restrictive definition of generational talent, and maybe it could be justified
 
brooklynballer said:
If true, and I’m not disputing that it isn’t, this is another reason why this franchise will never win a championship with this current group of players and management. It’s analogous to the old “lunatics running the asylum” expression. There’s a reason why players are paid to play, coaches are paid to coach and managers are paid to manage. If somehow this has been distorted and that power has now almost exclusively shifted to the players (who coaches them, how they’re coached, the offensive and defensive sets they run, the personnel they bring in, etc) then the entire management team (Olshey, assistant managers, Stotts, assistant coaches, etc) must go IMO.
Click to expand...

You forgot one there's a reason why fans are made to cheer and not make decisions. When it comes to decision making I will bet on the players over a fans opinion 10 out of 10 times.
 
hoopsjock said:
Well lets use Giannis and Doncic as our case studies since those two were brought up. If those guys don't win a championship for their current teams.
Click to expand...
Id say their are a few caveats, what teams did they go up against, there were some phenomenal players in the 90’s that never won because they played against the Bulls. Also length of time at a franchise matters a lot too, like Dallas took years and years to finally get Dirk a ring, but some guys dont stick to it that long.
 
hoopsjock said:
Well lets use Giannis and Doncic as our case studies since those two were brought up. If those guys don't win a championship for their current teams.
Click to expand...
Also got me thinking how many “generational talents”, have the Blazers had, Bill Walton (who was never healthy), and...?
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Also got me thinking how many “generational talents”, have the Blazers had, Bill Walton (who was never healthy), and...?
Click to expand...
Sabonis definitely was, but he never played here in his prime or before major injuries. I can't imagine what would've happened if he came to the NBA at 19 like Luka did.
 
TorturedBlazerFan said:
Also got me thinking how many “generational talents”, have the Blazers had, Bill Walton (who was never healthy), and...?
Click to expand...
Clyde was pretty special - he was just unlucky enough to coincide with Jordan. Who knows what Oden could've been like? Likewise pre-injury Sabonis. But probably Walton was the best.

But that's about it. I remember when Roy was at his peak somebody said he was the #7 best player in the league, and that seems about right.
 
CupWizier said:
You forgot one there's a reason why fans are made to cheer and not make decisions. When it comes to decision making I will bet on the players over a fans opinion 10 out of 10 times.
Click to expand...
Giannis wanted Kidd in Milwaukee but Bucks fans hated him.

They upgrade him to Budenholzer and that team goes from fringe playoff team to contender instantly.
 
You know who I think would be a good coach. I throw up a bit as I say this.....but Kobe Bryant.
 
KSF-ERIC said:
Well that didn't work.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif


A fun thread to reread... I like the 2016 Luke Walton suggestion among many others.
 
Last edited:
KSF-ERIC said:
Well that didn't work.
Click to expand...
Stotts did need to be fired. The fact is that he never dealt with an injury that caused a slump like Dame just came out of and he would have been well under .500 with Dame having that injure and this roster too. So at least with Chauncey there is a hope that he can get better as a coach. The real tragedy was that Olshey was allowed to fire Stotts. Olshey should have been fired first, then the team should have found their new GM and that GM could decide what to do at the head coach position. Undoubtedly after nine seasons and no wins past the second round, the new GM would have fired Stotts and hired a new head coach. If the new GM was looking for a fresh face, it very well could have been Chauncey.
 
blazerkor said:
Stotts did need to be fired. The fact is that he never dealt with an injury that caused a slump like Dame just came out of and he would have been well under .500 with Dame having that injure and this roster too. So at least with Chauncey there is a hope that he can get better as a coach. The real tragedy was that Olshey was allowed to fire Stotts. Olshey should have been fired first, then the team should have found their new GM and that GM could decide what to do at the head coach position. Undoubtedly after nine seasons and no wins past the second round, the new GM would have fired Stotts and hired a new head coach. If the new GM was looking for a fresh face, it very well could have been Chauncey.
Click to expand...
Part of Dame's slump was the new way Billups was using him. Stotts did not need to be fired. He had made the playoffs 8 straight seasons including a WCF and had one year left on his contract. They could've stuck with him but tried to improve the roster.
 
KSF-ERIC said:
Part of Dame's slump was the new way Billups was using him. Stotts did not need to be fired. He had made the playoffs 8 straight seasons including a WCF and had one year left on his contract. They could've stuck with him but tried to improve the roster.
Click to expand...
First of all, it was Dame's injury that is as plain as day now. As far as Stotts goes, nine years without a win past the second round is unprecedented for a head coach in this league, so giving him a tenth year with that little of success would send a message that all we want is to make the playoffs and that's good enough. I realize Stotts may have been handicapped by Olshey more so than the other way around but Olshey had to go and there was no way the new GM was keeping Terry for yet another run of mediocrity.

Stotts was gone no matter what. It was bullshit that there was a news conference held laying all of the Blazers shortcomings at his feet because he was not solely to blame. That being said Terry did say that he didn't believe in accountability and that it was a catch phrase, last season as the team was dragging ass and no longer really responding to him. It had run its course. Like I said no one had ever been given that many chances to get a win at the conference championship level and failed. I know you think we should be cool and jumping for joy that we make the playoffs every season but that is not the precedence for excellence that has been set for NBA head coaches. Did you want our team to settle for less from their head coach than every other team in league history?

This is the last I'll ever respond to someone who makes the ridiculous claim that Terry Stotts should still be coaching our team... it's just too absurd of an argument.
 
Billups is beginning to look like a clown. Way over his head. Too bad Portland has to be the place he will get fired from his first coaching gig. He'll learn the ropes here, get fired , and then become a better coach at his next job.
 
blazerkor said:
First of all, it was Dame's injury that is as plain as day now. As far as Stotts goes, nine years without a win past the second round is unprecedented for a head coach in this league, so giving him a tenth year with that little of success would send a message that all we want is to make the playoffs and that's good enough. I realize Stotts may have been handicapped by Olshey more so than the other way around but Olshey had to go and there was no way the new GM was keeping Terry for yet another run of mediocrity.

Stotts was gone no matter what. It was bullshit that there was a news conference held laying all of the Blazers shortcomings at his feet because he was not solely to blame. That being said Terry did say that he didn't believe in accountability and that it was a catch phrase, last season as the team was dragging ass and no longer really responding to him. It had run its course. Like I said no one had ever been given that many chances to get a win at the conference championship level and failed. I know you think we should be cool and jumping for joy that we make the playoffs every season but that is not the precedence for excellence that has been set for NBA head coaches. Did you want our team to settle for less from their head coach than every other team in league history?

This is the last I'll ever respond to someone who makes the ridiculous claim that Terry Stotts should still be coaching our team... it's just too absurd of an argument.
Click to expand...
Stotts had a year left on his contract. Why not let it run it’s course and then make a decision about his future with the team? Should all coaches be fired if they don’t reach the Finals? What is this precedent you speak of? Stotts was a better coach for this team than Billups is. The proof is in the pudding.
 
Fairly-Hard said:
Billups is beginning to look like a clown. Way over his head. Too bad Portland has to be the place he will get fired from his first coaching gig. He'll learn the ropes here, get fired , and then become a better coach at his next job.
Click to expand...
That's what first year coaches do.
 
KSF-ERIC said:
Stotts had a year left on his contract. Why not let it run it’s course and then make a decision about his future with the team? Should all coaches be fired if they don’t reach the Finals? What is this precedent you speak of? Stotts was a better coach for this team than Billups is. The proof is in the pudding.
Click to expand...
One last time. Nine years with no wins past the second round of the playoffs. His tenure was already unprecedented and he looked like he had lost the team. How Stotts compares to Chauncey has no bearing whatsoever. He was here three seasons too long the way it was. It is lunacy that you say a coach who had never won a game past the second round should have been given a tenth year to try and do better. You are making the argument that we not only should have settled for a history making ninth season with that low of performance but you wanted a tenth season for the guy. We should not be the team with the lowest standards in the history of the game for our head coach but we were and we definitely shouldn't have doubled down on that with another season.
 
blazerkor said:
One last time. Nine years with no wins past the second round of the playoffs. His tenure was already unprecedented and he looked like he had lost the team. How Stotts compares to Chauncey has no bearing whatsoever. He was here three seasons too long the way it was. It is lunacy that you say a coach who had never won a game past the second round should have been given a tenth year to try and do better. You are making the argument that we not only should have settled for a history making ninth season with that low of performance but you wanted a tenth season for the guy. We should not be the team with the lowest standards in the history of the game for our head coach but we were and we definitely shouldn't have doubled down on that with another season.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why Olshey should have been fired and his replacement should have been allowed to choose what to do with the coach.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Which is exactly why Olshey should have been fired and his replacement should have been allowed to choose what to do with the coach.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree with you more. It was a horrible shame it went down the way it did. I guarantee if a new GM would have replaced coach Stotts he would have said nice things about Terry when announcing his departure and definitely wouldn't have put the failures of last season squarely on him. That was despicable. I'm so glad we're rid of Olshey.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Which is exactly why Olshey should have been fired and his replacement should have been allowed to choose what to do with the coach.
Click to expand...

1000%

How ownership and people here could see the flawed logic behind seeing if it was a coaching issue first is such a head-sratcher to me.

I don't think Billups is awful, but giving a guy with 1 year assistant coaching experience a 5 year deal when your best players are in their prime should've been ownerships second red flag. Though I might've been wrong when I said a didn't think a new coach would make a significant difference; this is starting to feel significant.
 
BonesJones said:
Giannis wanted Kidd in Milwaukee but Bucks fans hated him.

They upgrade him to Budenholzer and that team goes from fringe playoff team to contender instantly.
Click to expand...

Man, I was screaming to get Bud when he was available but we kept sticking with Stotts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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