Fire Stotts

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Eh, it's not his fault we're missing 2 of our 5 starters.

He's basically always been saddled with an imbalanced back court. CJ should have been traded 3 seasons ago. That's not Stotts' fault.

The only guy we have who can guard anyone 6-6 to 6-10 is Nassir Little, a dude who barely registered on our Summer League squad. Is that Stotts' fault?

He's got a .561 record over 8 seasons, while dealing with the aftermath of Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Batum and Mathews all leaving the team without any compensation.

He runs a system that's made guys like Hood, Bazemore and Whiteside want to come here. It's become a destination for players looking to rehabilitate their careers.

It's also a system that allowed fringe picks, reserves and castoffs like Connaughton, Frazier, Crabbe, Aminu, and Harkless to become legit NBA players.

He somehow saw us through the disaster contracts of Turner and Leonard.

I listen to all the major podcasts and follow the NBA pretty closely. From everything I gather, the Blazers are widely regarded as one of the better-run organizations in the league.

Our team sucks right now, but I'm definitely not on board the train of dumping the coach.

I think we're just in for a lot of losing this season and there's not much we can do until CJ and Whiteside are eligible to trade. At that point I think the pressure should be placed squarely on the GM.

I don't think a new coach solves any of the problems I listed--it just creates new problems as we try to implement a new system.
 
Last edited:
mook said:
The only guy we have who can guard anyone 6-6 to 6-10 is Nassir Little, a dude who barely registered on our Summer League squad. Is that Stotts' fault?
Click to expand...

It's Stotts fault if he doesn't play him and let Siakam go 9/10

mook said:
He's got a .561 record over 8 seasons,
Click to expand...

Yeah. 8 seasons of Stotts helped us achieve this. Or 8 seasons of Dame, it's one or the other.
 
I know it is easy to bash Stotts after the game. Obiously, he had no idea things would go south after he benched Nasir. Should he?

I'm not basketball coach at any level, so I'm not going to argue about his abilities, but...

With "second best backourt in the league" in Dame in CJ, with no experience and no knowlege my plan would be exactly what Stotts do - play Dame and CJ ISO as much as possible. I could win above 50% of games on PS with my friends, but I wouldn't go far in the playoffs with experienced ones.
 
Last edited:
SIeepwalker said:
It's Stotts fault if he doesn't play him and let Siakam go 9/10
Click to expand...

Are you telling me you weren't kind of shocked to see Little in the starting lineup? I was. I'd have preferred he'd left Little out there, but I can kind of see why he didn't. It's a lot of pressure to put on a rookie, hoping he'll basically win the game by containing the other team's best player down the wire. We might have won the game if Little had come through, but maybe if Siakam had gone off we'd lose anyway and it might have set Little back. It's not all X's and O's. Psychology is at play too. It's not just about winning the game in front of you, but developing the player. I think history shows Stotts understands the player development side really well. Little finished the game on a high note with lots to build on. I'm happy for him.

Yeah. 8 seasons of Stotts helped us achieve this. Or 8 seasons of Dame, it's one or the other.
Click to expand...

Why not a little of column A, and a little of column B?

I lived through the Mo Cheeks and Assclown McScribbles years. That was 11 long years of complete coaching incompetence. Believe me, there's no way either of those guys does what Stotts has done even with Dame.

Even Dunleavy and Carlesimo were terrible fits for the talent they had. So there's another 7 seasons of below average coaching, before you finally find another coach as good as Stotts in Rick Adelman.

18 years of below average to shitty coaching before Stotts came along. I'm not saying Stotts is a genius or anything, but I'm telling you I've been on the other side of that fence. It was most decidedly NOT greener over there.

We might get lucky and find a coaching upgrade by firing Stotts. But I for one don't want to roll that dice. Too many bad memories.

If he's got a championship caliber roster, I think Stotts is a championship caliber coach. I think he had our team right in the running in his first season coaching (before Matthews blew his Achilles). He won't carry us, but he won't fuck it up like some of these other guys we've had would.

He's also proven to be a really good development coach, which looks to be where we are this year unless a miracle happens.
 
Last edited:
mook said:
It's not just about winning the game in front of you, but developing the player. I think history shows Stotts understands the player development side really well. Little finished the game on a high note with lots to build on. I'm happy for him.
Click to expand...

Why you think benching Little after he was doing good and letting him watch his team losing the game will make him happy? It was proven - by stats and by L - that it wasn't good decision. If Nasir would win us this game with his D on Siakam I could agree that he has "lots to build on". Instead, he was probably more frustated siting on the bench thinking he could hadle it (as most players do).
 
royo said:
Why you think benching Little after he was doing good and letting him watch his team losing the game will make him happy? It was proven - by stats and by L - that it wasn't good decision. If Nasir would win us this game with his D on Siakam I could agree that he has "lots to build on". Instead, he was probably more frustated siting on the bench thinking he could hadle it (as most players do).
Click to expand...

If I let my employees do everything that made them happy or kept them from being frustrated, I'd be a pretty shitty business owner. If I did everything possible to maximize sales at all costs (my version of winning) I'd equally fail.

Sometimes being a good leader is looking out for the best interest of the people and the organization, even when they disagree or it doesn't align with short-term goals.

We gave Zach Randolph, Bonzi Wells and Darius Miles all the minutes they could handle, and it was pretty clearly a mistake. (However, it wasn't with Dame or CJ.)

I'm not sure about Stotts' rationale in this game, but he's earned the benefit of the doubt in my book. Bringing along a young player isn't always easy. Orlando, for example, has been fucking it up for years and years.
 
mook said:
Are you telling me you weren't kind of shocked to see Little in the starting lineup?
Click to expand...

I was advocating it for a few games, but yes I was surprised that Stotts actually made a good decision. Thankfully he was back to good old Stotts benching him in the 4th

mook said:
It's a lot of pressure to put on a rookie, hoping he'll basically win the game by containing the other team's best player
Click to expand...

Like he did the rest of the game while nobody else could ?

mook said:
but maybe if Siakam had gone off we'd lose anyway and it might have set Little back.
Click to expand...

mook said:
It's not just about winning the game in front of you, but developing the player.
Click to expand...

You convinced me, I'm glad we developed Little more by sitting his ass on the bench.

mook said:
If I let my employees do everything that made them happy or kept them from being frustrated, I'd be a pretty shitty business owner. If I did everything possible to maximize sales at all costs (my version of winning) I'd equally fail.
Click to expand...

So you would do neither like Stotts ?
 
mook said:
If I let my employees do everything that made them happy or kept them from being frustrated, I'd be a pretty shitty business owner. If I did everything possible to maximize sales at all costs (my version of winning) I'd equally fail.

Sometimes being a good leader is looking out for the best interest of the people and the organization, even when they disagree or it doesn't align with short-term goals.

We gave Zach Randolph, Bonzi Wells and Darius Miles all the minutes they could handle, and it was pretty clearly a mistake. (However, it wasn't with Dame or CJ.)

I'm not sure about Stotts' rationale in this game, but he's earned the benefit of the doubt in my book. Bringing along a young player isn't always easy. Orlando, for example, has been fucking it up for years and years.
Click to expand...

We clearly have deifferent opinion about same exact thing;) That' ok. Good day bro.
 
Oh shut up already about this pressure bullshit, did Little look nervous? Does he look like a guy with a weak mentality? Failure is essential to growth anyway. There’s no justification to Little not playing in the fourth outside of an injury.
 
The numbers speak for themselves. This is a sufficient sample size to conclude that Stotts is an average/mediocre coach. Yet, there are those that want to give him more chances to improve. That's called hoping. After 11 seasons, he is what he is.

Career: .511
Career Playoff: .357

POR: .561
POR Playoff: .373
 
SIeepwalker said:
Yeah. 8 seasons of Stotts helped us achieve this. Or 8 seasons of Dame, it's one or the other.
Click to expand...

mook said:
Why not a little of column A, and a little of column B?
Click to expand...

* 2013-14: Blazers 54 wins, 5th seed...Dame 9.6 winshares...without Dame, 45 wins = 11th seed; lottery

* 2014-15: Blazers 51 wins, 4th seed...Dame 10.6 winshares...without Dame, 41 wins = 11th seed; lottery

* 2015-16: Blazers 44 wins, 5th seed...Dame 9.2 winshares...without Dame, 35 wins = 10th seed; lottery

* 2016-17: Blazers 41 wins, 8th seed...Dame 10.4 winshares...without Dame, 31 wins = 13th seed, lottery

* 2017-18: Blazers 49 wins, 3rd seed...Dame 12.6 winshares...without Dame, 36 wins = 11th seed, lottery

* 2018-19: Blazers 43 wins, 3rd seed...Dame 12.1 winshares...without Dame, 41 wins = 9th seed, lottery

* 2019-20: Blazers 4 wins, 13th seed...Dame 2.6 winshares...without Dame, 1 win = worse record in NBA

now obviously, there are many other factors involved, not the least of which is that 7 years in the lottery would have given Portland the opportunity to draft some talent. But the point is that without Dame, the Blazers only have lottery-level talent. A lot of coaches could have replaced Stotts, but a top-10 level player is very rare
 
mook said:
Eh, it's not his fault we're missing 2 of our 5 starters.

He's basically always been saddled with an imbalanced back court. CJ should have been traded 3 seasons ago. That's not Stotts' fault.

The only guy we have who can guard anyone 6-6 to 6-10 is Nassir Little, a dude who barely registered on our Summer League squad. Is that Stotts' fault?

He's got a .561 record over 8 seasons, while dealing with the aftermath of Roy, Oden, Aldridge, Batum and Mathews all leaving the team without any compensation.

He runs a system that's made guys like Hood, Bazemore and Whiteside want to come here. It's become a destination for players looking to rehabilitate their careers.

It's also a system that allowed fringe picks, reserves and castoffs like Connaughton, Frazier, Crabbe, Aminu, and Harkless to become legit NBA players.

He somehow saw us through the disaster contracts of Turner and Leonard.

I listen to all the major podcasts and follow the NBA pretty closely. From everything I gather, the Blazers are widely regarded as one of the better-run organizations in the league.

Our team sucks right now, but I'm definitely not on board the train of dumping the coach.

I think we're just in for a lot of losing this season and there's not much we can do until CJ and Whiteside are eligible to trade. At that point I think the pressure should be placed squarely on the GM.

I don't think a new coach solves any of the problems I listed--it just creates new problems as we try to implement a new system.
Click to expand...

LMAO. Where's the green font?
 
For those that think the new team, injuries, or the loss of Vanterpool are the reasons for this team struggling:

2015-16 the Blazers started out 11-20. Even though they finished 44-38, their defensive rating was 20th.

2016-17 the Blazers were 24-35 at one point with a historically bad defense. Nurk Fever happened pushing them to 24th in defensive rating otherwise it would've been much worse.

2017-18 the Blazers never fell below .500 but were just 22-21 at one point in the season. They actually finished 8th in defensive rating that year. Were they turning the corner until getting blown out of the playoffs? Is Nurk that good of a defensive player that he can single-handedly make up for Stotts' defense?

2018-19 the Blazers were just 15-13 at one point and went on to win 53 games. The defensive rating was 16th, even with decent defensive personnel and Vanterpool.

2019-20 the Blazers are 4-8 and the defensive rating is 19th.

So even without Nurk, without Vanterpool, without Harkless, without Aminu, and without Turner the defense isn't really any different than it has been minus one season it was actually good (thanks to Nurk).

The defensive scheme is the problem, not the injuries or personnel. It's Stotts.
 
hoopsjock said:
For those that think the new team, injuries, or the loss of Vanterpool are the reasons for this team struggling:

2015-16 the Blazers started out 11-20. Even though they finished 44-38, their defensive rating was 20th.

2016-17 the Blazers were 24-35 at one point with a historically bad defense. Nurk Fever happened pushing them to 24th in defensive rating otherwise it would've been much worse.

2017-18 the Blazers never fell below .500 but were just 22-21 at one point in the season. They actually finished 8th in defensive rating that year. Were they turning the corner until getting blown out of the playoffs? Is Nurk that good of a defensive player that he can single-handedly make up for Stotts' defense?

2018-19 the Blazers were just 15-13 at one point and went on to win 53 games. The defensive rating was 16th, even with decent defensive personnel and Vanterpool.

2019-20 the Blazers are 4-8 and the defensive rating is 19th.

So even without Nurk, without Vanterpool, without Harkless, without Aminu, and without Turner the defense isn't really any different than it has been minus one season it was actually good (thanks to Nurk).

The defensive scheme is the problem, not the injuries or personnel. It's Stotts.
Click to expand...

Dame said last night that he's never seen so much box and 1 in his life. The raptors have been incredibly successful this season employing the box and 1 against star players and turning them into passers. Did it to Kawhi and LeBron as well. All three had more assists but couldn't get their own scoring going.

But does Nick Nurse play the box and 1 against every one? Hell no, he adapts and changes his defensive schemes based no the opposing personnel. The fact is under Stotts we have never seen an inkling of defensive versatility or adjustments. We play one scheme and stick to it for better or worse (usually worse).
 
B-Roy said:
Dame said last night that he's never seen so much box and 1 in his life. The raptors have been incredibly successful this season employing the box and 1 against star players and turning them into passers. Did it to Kawhi and LeBron as well. All three had more assists but couldn't get their own scoring going.

But does Nick Nurse play the box and 1 against every one? Hell no, he adapts and changes his defensive schemes based no the opposing personnel. The fact is under Stotts we have never seen an inkling of defensive versatility or adjustments. We play one scheme and stick to it for better or worse (usually worse).
Click to expand...

you can probably say that about Stotts’ offense as well. It hasn’t evolved since that first year without Aldridge.
 
B-Roy said:
Dame said last night that he's never seen so much box and 1 in his life. The raptors have been incredibly successful this season employing the box and 1 against star players and turning them into passers. Did it to Kawhi and LeBron as well. All three had more assists but couldn't get their own scoring going.

But does Nick Nurse play the box and 1 against every one? Hell no, he adapts and changes his defensive schemes based no the opposing personnel. The fact is under Stotts we have never seen an inkling of defensive versatility or adjustments. We play one scheme and stick to it for better or worse (usually worse).
Click to expand...
Exactly, you need to curtail your defense both for specific teams and situationally throughout each game. For the most part we have one strategy no matter the opponent.
 
hoopsjock said:
Exactly, you need to curtail your defense both for specific teams and situationally throughout each game. For the most part we have one strategy no matter the opponent.
Click to expand...

Nah brah, this is a players league. The coaches don't need to do anything.
 
B-Roy said:
Dame said last night that he's never seen so much box and 1 in his life. The raptors have been incredibly successful this season employing the box and 1 against star players and turning them into passers. Did it to Kawhi and LeBron as well. All three had more assists but couldn't get their own scoring going.

But does Nick Nurse play the box and 1 against every one? Hell no, he adapts and changes his defensive schemes based no the opposing personnel. The fact is under Stotts we have never seen an inkling of defensive versatility or adjustments. We play one scheme and stick to it for better or worse (usually worse).
Click to expand...

Changing your defensive schemes depending on what team you're facing ?

Now that would just be cheating !
 
As a lot of you probably know (I didn't) Portland is by far averaging the fewest assists per game. If this isn't dictated by coaching/offensive mentality then I don't know what is. I think CJ et al are doing what Stott's wants them to do: a lot of iso/dribbling then gunning up a three or driving for a floater.
It's clear that Stott's offense (assuming it's being carried out to his "design") is meant to be hero ball.
 
wizenheimer said:
* 2013-14: Blazers 54 wins, 5th seed...Dame 9.6 winshares...without Dame, 45 wins = 11th seed; lottery

* 2014-15: Blazers 51 wins, 4th seed...Dame 10.6 winshares...without Dame, 41 wins = 11th seed; lottery

* 2015-16: Blazers 44 wins, 5th seed...Dame 9.2 winshares...without Dame, 35 wins = 10th seed; lottery

* 2016-17: Blazers 41 wins, 8th seed...Dame 10.4 winshares...without Dame, 31 wins = 13th seed, lottery

* 2017-18: Blazers 49 wins, 3rd seed...Dame 12.6 winshares...without Dame, 36 wins = 11th seed, lottery

* 2018-19: Blazers 43 wins, 3rd seed...Dame 12.1 winshares...without Dame, 41 wins = 9th seed, lottery

* 2019-20: Blazers 4 wins, 13th seed...Dame 2.6 winshares...without Dame, 1 win = worse record in NBA

now obviously, there are many other factors involved, not the least of which is that 7 years in the lottery would have given Portland the opportunity to draft some talent. But the point is that without Dame, the Blazers only have lottery-level talent. A lot of coaches could have replaced Stotts, but a top-10 level player is very rare
Click to expand...
You can't just remove Dame and say "lottery". You know better than that. Someone would have been playing the position. That person would have a "win share". Obviously there is also the fact that the more wins the team gets the more win shares there are to be allotted.
 
kjironman1 said:
You can't just remove Dame and say "lottery". You know better than that. Someone would have been playing the position. That person would have a "win share". Obviously there is also the fact that the more wins the team gets the more win shares there are to be allotted.
Click to expand...

did you read what I said after the list? it's right there at the bottom of my post

and yes, someone would be playing PG. Maybe they could have brought back Nolan Smith, Mr winshare himself
 
Cugel said:
As a lot of you probably know (I didn't) Portland is by far averaging the fewest assists per game. If this isn't dictated by coaching/offensive mentality then I don't know what is. I think CJ et al are doing what Stott's wants them to do: a lot of iso/dribbling then gunning up a three or driving for a floater.
It's clear that Stott's offense (assuming it's being carried out to his "design") is meant to be hero ball.
Click to expand...

This is from basketball-datascience.com:

"Assists and assists percentage alone are not good indicators of win-loss records because there are many other factors that can contribute to wins other than good movement." Citing assists as a measure of good/bad coaching is a lazy argument and the data backs that up.

Under Stotts, Portland's adjusted offensive efficiency has been up near the top. Having said that, Stotts should get the majority of credit/blame for the success of the team. What's different from last year and this year? It's not our best player, it's not our coach, it's injuries and the supporting cast. If you want to blame the injuries on the trainer, go ahead (but that would be unfounded). If you want to blame someone for the roster, I think you know where to look.
 
Tince said:
This is from basketball-datascience.com:

"Assists and assists percentage alone are not good indicators of win-loss records because there are many other factors that can contribute to wins other than good movement." Citing assists as a measure of good/bad coaching is a lazy argument and the data backs that up.

Under Stotts, Portland's adjusted offensive efficiency has been up near the top. Having said that, Stotts should get the majority of credit/blame for the success of the team. What's different from last year and this year? It's not our best player, it's not our coach, it's injuries and the supporting cast. If you want to blame the injuries on the trainer, go ahead (but that would be unfounded). If you want to blame someone for the roster, I think you know where to look.
Click to expand...
My problem with Stotts (if that's the guy were going to blame), is his defensive schemes. Their defense is so bad at times and it was last year too. He basically requires a big who can do just about everything, gives up a lot of easy looks, lets guys get going. The thing about NBA players is if they get rolling it's gonna be a long night. The offense sure at times I don't like it, but they normally score enough to win, it's when they can't get a stop, it's when they keep trying the same defense over and over and over. It's when a player is getting just absolutely LIT up and they keep getting put in that position. Some of my favorite memories as a Blazer fan is GS coming down every play in the playoffs, getting a screen and Ed Davis our CENTER getting stuck on STEPH FREAKING CURRY and giving up like 14 points to the guy. Or Steph coming off a screen and the big sagging about 5-10 feet off every play and literally stepping into a 3 point shot.

I probably sound like an angsty teenager right now, I'm not that mad, I just feel like Portlands been a mediocre (at best) defensive team, and Stotts has to know this and seems to do very little about it other than saying they need to play good defense. Defense IMO is the one thing in basketball that is almost all team-oriented, it's people being on the same page, it's knowing your assignments, it's playing on a string, I could go on, but it boils down to the coach implementing a plan that works and the team executing it. Either his plans don't work defensively, or his team can't execute it. If they can't execute it, IE when they don't have a guy like RLopez, or Nurkic WITH a lengthy PF, it's his job to implement something they can execute. Not expect a bunch of guys who aren't capable of playing that style to play that style.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

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