Honest question for Stotts supporters

[kjironman1]

I didn't like it?

I'm also betting i could go to archives here on this site. You have to remember something. At that point i was in full Blazers Pregame mode. I wrote full article level pregames before every game and before the season. They were posted on O-Live daily. You guys can get me anytime now on current things from the daily in and outs. But trying me on what was happening 5-10 years ago is gonna be tough. Kerr took over a dream job. Everyone knew it at the time.

 

[kjironman1]

Im sorry for mentioning Kerr... So in terms of Stotts and the thread itself. Is he the answer long term?
Ive states my opinion on it, and Id love for him and the Blazers to prove me wrong, but the larger point seems to have been missed so that we could discuss Kerr and how good he is or isnt. Kerrs ability to coach or lack there of isnt really an argument for or against the Blazers coaching situation.

You don't have to feel sorry about anything. It's what we do here. We talk and discuss. Then we go after facts.
I posted my thoughts on Stotts also. He will need to win to stay. At this point he is locked in but he has also been here for a very long time by NBA standards.

 

[tlongII]

KJ, you brought up the draft and I used that Curry response as part of my rebuttal to that.

Nice to know that in your world, you bringing something up is me muddying the waters. Good grief.

What is good grief? Seems like an oxymoron to me.

 

[CupWizier]

Yes, but I prefer to swim in Jello with a beautiful lady..

fify.

 

[tester551]

Im sorry for mentioning Kerr... So in terms of Stotts and the thread itself. Is he the answer long term?
Ive states my opinion on it, and Id love for him and the Blazers to prove me wrong, but the larger point seems to have been missed so that we could discuss Kerr and how good he is or isnt. Kerrs ability to coach or lack there of isnt really an argument for or against the Blazers coaching situation.

Thanks for trying to turn the ship around.... That's going to be tough.

Stotts is an adequate head coach. Ideally, I think he's most suited being an assistant coach though. Stotts is great at the 'softer' skill sets of being a coach (like dealing with personalities, giving players lots of freedom, etc). He's adequate on the game plan and approach side of coaching. This makes Stotts a very good (not great) coach for the regular season.

However, I really don't think Stotts is the type of head coach that can lead a team to a championship. Granted, those type of coaches are rare and hard to find. I think Stotts is severely lacking on preaching the discipline and fine points of the game. There are just too many bad shots (30'+ shots with 10+ seconds on the clock), too many times players jump without having a pass in mind, too many inept fast breaks, moving screens, and failed defensive rotations night after night to make me think that these are major points of emphasis with Stotts.

I know this is a bit like whack-a-mole. You start coaching to address one issue, and something else falls apart. This is where great leaders (and coaches) shine.... They are able to keep a team focused on 7-8 key items instead of 1-2.

End of the day, I fully expect Stotts to be coaching this team for another 3-4 years. Portland will make the playoffs, but will be a 1st round exit type of team. Maybe we'll get lucky and be able to advance to the second round. I don't have any confidence that Blazers will become legitimate contenders as long as Stotts (or Olshey) is around.

 

[Stevenson]

Kerr is not that good. He had 5-6 allstars. Look at him now.

Well, that's like saying Phil Jackson was not that good. Getting Allstars to buy-in and play together and sacrifice is great coaching.

 

[royo]

It's strange to see adult people try to win an argument no matter what, like they were 12 years old girls fighting over some class contest. If you looking for answers, truth is most important, not who's better in mudding the waters and who's more beautiful.

First, KJ, you somehow found a minute to answer my "girlfriend" input, but you never answer to the first post I've quoted you, where I pointed, that your logic is wrong. My girlfriend used to do that - ignoring important arguments, like they don't exist and keep goin further into the jungle, so she could hide, she was wrong. It's just argument for sake of argument.

Secondly, in very first (if am not wrong) of your links of power rankings, if you go deeper than just #4 banner, you can actually read, that it says:

"An unimaginative playbook that didn't cater to the roster's strengths led to a mediocre 12th-ranked offense (a massive underachievement considering the backcourt of Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson, both of whom shot 42 percent from three). Yet, that was overshadowed by the conflict between head coach Mark Jackson and his coaching staff,"

and

"With new head coach Steve Kerr at the helm, the Warriors hope to unlock their stunted offensive potential" witch they, well, did. It says they wanted Kerr to solve it. There is a word "hope", what means that they weren't really sure contender I mean, I'm having fun here, but it's your link after all

BTW, should you really bring Draymond to this conversation as a part of GS Bi3? Look at 2013/14 stats. Why not Iggy or Barnes? Or maybe even Jarmain O'Neil. So yeah, Kerr changed few things in roster and in the playbook. Well, it seems he changed them for better.

Anyway, when I look at GS 2013/14 roster and try to consider them as a contender I don't see any reason not to consider roster with Lillard, CJ and (let's say) Whiteside as a contender. So logic says, that changing coach for Kerr type could bring us dynasty starting next season.

Good Christmas man Have fun.

 

[CupWizier]

It's strange to see adult people try to win an argument no matter what, like they were 12 years old girls fighting over some class contest.

Welcome to S2 Blazer fan forum as that's been the norm in here for awhile

Anyway, when I look at GS 2013/14 roster and try to consider them as a contender I don't see any reason not to consider roster with Lillard, CJ and (let's say) Whiteside as a contender. So logic says, that changing coach for Kerr type could bring us dynasty starting next season.

Good Christmas man Have fun.

I recall many in this forum declaring the Blazers as contenders as well as many of the analysts this year, but injuries and having to let some players go due to luxury cap issues along with injuries depleted any depth we had and GS after Jackson not only was a maturing team, but they added some vets that gave them solid depth and then after some championships got the gift of Durant to help continue their dominance. Now they have injuries and their depth has been depleted with losing Durant and Iggy and Kerr hasn't come up with any answers. I think Kerr is a solid coach, but he is very fortunate to get the teams that he did.

Regarding Stotts, like Kjironman pointed out, the life of an NBA coach on average is very short and Stotts so far has been a survivor. He will likely make it through this year, but the off season will be a time of some big decisions as to what direction the team wants to go. We can definitely do a lot worse than Stotts so changing a coach offers no guarantee of better success and just like trading a player it can also backfire and make you a worse team. As always I will be a fan of the team that has Portland and/ or Blazers on their jerseys no matter what and will do my job as a fan cheering them on. Maybe Stotts will be here next year and maybe he won't but I have no say in the matter so I don't worry about it.

 

[Dougnsalem]

Me, from this thread.....



Lol

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Me, from this thread.....

View attachment 29160

Lol

Are you the plane or the pilot?

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I recall many in this forum declaring the Blazers as contenders as well as many of the analysts this year, but injuries and having to let some players go due to luxury cap issues along with injuries depleted any depth we had and GS after Jackson not only was a maturing team, but they added some vets that gave them solid depth and then after some championships got the gift of Durant to help continue their dominance. Now they have injuries and their depth has been depleted with losing Durant and Iggy and Kerr hasn't come up with any answers. I think Kerr is a solid coach, but he is very fortunate to get the teams that he did.

Regarding Stotts, like Kjironman pointed out, the life of an NBA coach on average is very short and Stotts so far has been a survivor. He will likely make it through this year, but the off season will be a time of some big decisions as to what direction the team wants to go. We can definitely do a lot worse than Stotts so changing a coach offers no guarantee of better success and just like trading a player it can also backfire and make you a worse team. As always I will be a fan of the team that has Portland and/ or Blazers on their jerseys no matter what and will do my job as a fan cheering them on. Maybe Stotts will be here next year and maybe he won't but I have no say in the matter so I don't worry about it.

I don't necessarily disagree I think were all fans though whether we think Stotts is a great coach or not, I think at least most of us would love to see them successful and cheer for them to win games (though I guess some are cheering to lose games now because they think it'll lead to winning games later...).

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

I think Rick Adelman's son David (currently an assistant with the Nuggets) will be a good head coach someday. Would like to see him here as an assistant and then take over for Stotts.

Thank you for trying to get the thread back on point.

 

[calvin natt]

Haven’t read through all these pages (after page 3), but as far as the warriors go, it was literally about 50/50 to keep Steph or Monta, they chose right and kept the better player. But his ankles were the reason they considered trading him. They also went after Chris Paul around that time but CP said he would not go to Oakland. Had CP wanted to go, it might have been Steph to Milwaukee. Draymond they love and value but has been on/off the trade block for years (fact). And i don’t remember anyone thinking Draymond was some huge steal of his draft. In fact I remember no one. I don’t think GS thought they got a steal. It’s called luck. I don’t care what anyone says in here - luck plays a major role in these later picks. If you pick late enough, you hit the jackpot occasionally and people call you a genius.

 

[Hoopguru]

Thanks for trying to turn the ship around.... That's going to be tough.

Stotts is an adequate head coach. Ideally, I think he's most suited being an assistant coach though. Stotts is great at the 'softer' skill sets of being a coach (like dealing with personalities, giving players lots of freedom, etc). He's adequate on the game plan and approach side of coaching. This makes Stotts a very good (not great) coach for the regular season.

However, I really don't think Stotts is the type of head coach that can lead a team to a championship. Granted, those type of coaches are rare and hard to find. I think Stotts is severely lacking on preaching the discipline and fine points of the game. There are just too many bad shots (30'+ shots with 10+ seconds on the clock), too many times players jump without having a pass in mind, too many inept fast breaks, moving screens, and failed defensive rotations night after night to make me think that these are major points of emphasis with Stotts.

I know this is a bit like whack-a-mole. You start coaching to address one issue, and something else falls apart. This is where great leaders (and coaches) shine.... They are able to keep a team focused on 7-8 key items instead of 1-2.

End of the day, I fully expect Stotts to be coaching this team for another 3-4 years. Portland will make the playoffs, but will be a 1st round exit type of team. Maybe we'll get lucky and be able to advance to the second round. I don't have any confidence that Blazers will become legitimate contenders as long as Stotts (or Olshey) is around.

Considering 5 years ago this team was blown up, and last year, when not many thought they would win mid 40's or more games, without their number two guy went to the WCF. I bet Minnie, NY and a few others would like to reload as quick as we had.

 

[kjironman1]

ignoring important arguments, like they don't exist and keep goin further into the jungle, so she could hide, she was wrong. It's just argument for sake of argument.

First off i didn't ignore anything. You simply said my logic was wrong. But in fact all i was doing was pointing out another persons logic was wrong as well as their statements. Would you like me to post them again or can you read the thread and figure it out?
In a nutshell we have

You're wrong man.

"Not one person thought GS had a championship level roster before the 2014 season when they hired Kerr. If you say they did you're lying"
Then he doubled down and went with-

Golden State was a nice story in 2012-13 when they upset Denver in the first round and then played the Spurs tough in the 2nd round. The following year they lost in the first round and fired Jackson. Not one person thought, "you know what? GS is going to be the #1 seed next year and win the title, they are that good!"

After i not only told him he was wrong but even told him i am going to have to agree to disagree he decided to go all bold face caps and fucking this and fucking that.

So i posted three links that not only proved what i said was right but another poster, I believe it was Platty? added two more links that even further confirmed that they were indeed considered contenders.

Hoops wants to start making this into something else because he knows now he is wrong. So he starts his new angle.

You're saying this while also saying it's contradictory to say that making the playoffs isn't contending. Do you realize how stupid these posts look?

Portland has accomplished way more than GS had when they fired Jackson. That's a fact.

Nobody anywhere said anything like this but is is now part of his record. Then he starts posting things like this.

Sorry but you have yourself completely confused and have no clue what you are even arguing.

But of course the three links are still there and valid but no that isn't what he wants to talk about. He wants to say i'm all over the place like this-

Your posts are so all over the place and don't make any sense. I'm sorry I really tried to give you the benefit of the doubt here but it's just mumbled thoughts accusing me of saying something I didn't.

But its all right there in black and white what got posted.

You're wrong man. Not one person thought GS had a championship level roster before the 2014 season when they hired Kerr. If you say they did you're lying.

Well i'm gonna have to agree to disagree with you.
Everyone knew Curry was the real deal. I also know everyone was calling Green a huge pickup for second rounder and most call it lucky. How many times have not only you but pretty much everyone on the board complained about missing him?
Meyers Leonard #11 pick they say... Could of had Draymond they say....

Golden State was a nice story in 2012-13 when they upset Denver in the first round and then played the Spurs tough in the 2nd round. The following year they lost in the first round and fired Jackson. Not one person thought, "you know what? GS is going to be the #1 seed next year and win the title, they are that good!"

Now i added the quote about Draymond because that is the other Muddy the waters move Hoops made. The conversation was about Draymond and his draft position not Curry's but low and behold somehow Curry wasn't all that thought of because he was drafted 7th. Well what we are talking about here is not when Curry was drafted. What we were talking about was when Kerr took over the team but here you go-

And if everyone knew Curry was the real deal why did he go 7th behind guys like Johnny Flynn and Ricky Rubio?

After all of this hoops decides to TRIPLE down on NOBODY THOUGHT THEY WERE TITLE CONTENDERS narrative.

Never disagreed with that. the point is Kerr inherited a very good team. That is and was always the point. You are trying to say he didn't.

What? I said that no one considered them title contenders (which is 100% true). They were obviously good enough to make the playoffs (much like Portland) but not a contender (much like you are claiming with Portland).

I have posted three separate links from major outlets calling this team out as top 5 or better in the Wild Wild West in 2014. One of which said they were Number #1. Then another poster added two more. That makes 5 national media outlets that have them contending.

Now I think that about covers it. No this is not hard to follow and no it's not even a question. Many many people considered them title contenders. Multiple preseason polls had them in the running. Kerr inherited a team that every coach in the entire NBA would have loved to have. That is and has always been the subject and the point at hand. Now here is the subject matter to the thread! Trying to compare Stotts situation to Steve Kerr is wrong. Stotts has never had that kind of roster.
Even more so you brought up Iggy who was also considered a great player. He even got a Finals MVP award right?

BTW, should you really bring Draymond to this conversation as a part of GS Bi3? Look at 2013/14 stats. Why not Iggy or Barnes? Or maybe even Jarmain O'Neil. So yeah, Kerr changed few things in roster and in the playbook. Well, it seems he changed them for better.

Thanks for making my point again.....
We should also bring up not only Iggy and Barnes but Andrew Bogut and David Lee. However the one that made the even bigger impact was Shaun Livingston. Again Steve Kerr inherited quite possibly the best situation any coach could have asked for. That doesn't make him a bad coach. But again trying to compare him to Stotts in a Stotts thread just is not even the slightest bit fair.

 

[kjironman1]

And i don’t remember anyone thinking Draymond was some huge steal of his draft.

They didn't at all. but by 2014 when Kerr took over he was regarded as a huge steal.

 

[kjironman1]

That was work.
@hoopsjock i apologize if there was any ill or hard feelings. Never was my intent.
Bottom line we disagree on the way things happened for Kerr.
I am a Stotts fan. I feel he has done an admirable job. You have a different view. I can accept that.

 

[hoopsjock]

First off i didn't ignore anything. You simply said my logic was wrong. But in fact all i was doing was pointing out another persons logic was wrong as well as their statements. Would you like me to post them again or can you read the thread and figure it out?
In a nutshell we have

"Not one person thought GS had a championship level roster before the 2014 season when they hired Kerr. If you say they did you're lying"
Then he doubled down and went with-


After i not only told him he was wrong but even told him i am going to have to agree to disagree he decided to go all bold face caps and fucking this and fucking that.

So i posted three links that not only proved what i said was right but another poster, I believe it was Platty? added two more links that even further confirmed that they were indeed considered contenders.

Hoops wants to start making this into something else because he knows now he is wrong. So he starts his new angle.


Nobody anywhere said anything like this but is is now part of his record. Then he starts posting things like this.


But of course the three links are still there and valid but no that isn't what he wants to talk about. He wants to say i'm all over the place like this-

But its all right there in black and white what got posted.






Now i added the quote about Draymond because that is the other Muddy the waters move Hoops made. The conversation was about Draymond and his draft position not Curry's but low and behold somehow Curry wasn't all that thought of because he was drafted 7th. Well what we are talking about here is not when Curry was drafted. What we were talking about was when Kerr took over the team but here you go-

After all of this hoops decides to TRIPLE down on NOBODY THOUGHT THEY WERE TITLE CONTENDERS narrative.



I have posted three separate links from major outlets calling this team out as top 5 or better in the Wild Wild West in 2014. One of which said they were Number #1. Then another poster added two more. That makes 5 national media outlets that have them contending.

Now I think that about covers it. No this is not hard to follow and no it's not even a question. Many many people considered them title contenders. Multiple preseason polls had them in the running. Kerr inherited a team that every coach in the entire NBA would have loved to have. That is and has always been the subject and the point at hand. Now here is the subject matter to the thread! Trying to compare Stotts situation to Steve Kerr is wrong. Stotts has never had that kind of roster.
Even more so you brought up Iggy who was also considered a great player. He even got a Finals MVP award right?
Thanks for making my point again.....
We should also bring up not only Iggy and Barnes but Andrew Bogut and David Lee. However the one that made the even bigger impact was Shaun Livingston. Again Steve Kerr inherited quite possibly the best situation any coach could have asked for. That doesn't make him a bad coach. But again trying to compare him to Stotts in a Stotts thread just is not even the slightest bit fair.

This is absolutely disgusting how you changed the order of what happened to play the victim here. You came at me first saying making the playoffs and not being a contender is contradictory (it still isn't) but I'm glad you had the time to waste on a holiday.

Not once did I bash Stotts in this thread, nor have I much lately. You came in here with some weird narrative and it was bullshit that you used that narrative to misinterpret what I said.

Kerr was hired in May a couple weeks after the Warriors lost in the first round. You posted links from 5 months later after a whole off season of moves after that.

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Thanks for trying to turn the ship around.... That's going to be tough.

Stotts is an adequate head coach. Ideally, I think he's most suited being an assistant coach though. Stotts is great at the 'softer' skill sets of being a coach (like dealing with personalities, giving players lots of freedom, etc). He's adequate on the game plan and approach side of coaching. This makes Stotts a very good (not great) coach for the regular season.

However, I really don't think Stotts is the type of head coach that can lead a team to a championship. Granted, those type of coaches are rare and hard to find. I think Stotts is severely lacking on preaching the discipline and fine points of the game. There are just too many bad shots (30'+ shots with 10+ seconds on the clock), too many times players jump without having a pass in mind, too many inept fast breaks, moving screens, and failed defensive rotations night after night to make me think that these are major points of emphasis with Stotts.

I know this is a bit like whack-a-mole. You start coaching to address one issue, and something else falls apart. This is where great leaders (and coaches) shine.... They are able to keep a team focused on 7-8 key items instead of 1-2.

End of the day, I fully expect Stotts to be coaching this team for another 3-4 years. Portland will make the playoffs, but will be a 1st round exit type of team. Maybe we'll get lucky and be able to advance to the second round. I don't have any confidence that Blazers will become legitimate contenders as long as Stotts (or Olshey) is around.

I agree with the last few paragraphs at the end of your post.

Blazers most likely won't contend with Stotts and or Neil running the team.

They also most likely wont contend with Damian Lillard.

They most likely wont contend no matter what decision they make the next few years.

Very few teams contend in the NBA, that the nature of the league.

Replacing Lillard, Neil, Stotts isnt some magic solution.

The Raptors won because Kawhi was the best player in the league.

The Warriors won because they drafted 3 allstars late in the draft then signed an MVP as a free agent.

Hundreds of coaches and GMs fail with those chances, and that's most likely what the Blazers will ultimately do, fail.

Replacing Stotts doesn't change that.

 

[Tince]

This is a honest question for Stotts supporters. This is his 12th season as a head coach and 8th season for the Blazers. He’s been a career .500 regular season coach and below.500 playoff coach.

Full disclosure, I am not a supporter of Stotts and have wanted to part ways with him for quite some time now. My question is how much longer do you give Stotts as head coach and what would it take to move on from him?

This is a great question.

1) Consecutive seasons where he's underachieved based off the talent on the roster.
2) Dame no longer supports/believes in him. I'd remove this condition after Dame is no longer the clear leader of the team.
3) Confidence we can get someone better. Firing Adleman and Dunleavy for PJ and Mo Cheeks are great examples of this.

I will be very surprised if Stotts isn't the head coach for a minimum of the next 3 seasons.

 

[BonesJones]

C'mon. He had problems with his ankles in 2011-12 and it did hold him back but look at the numbers for the rookie season. They knew exactly what they had.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/curryst01.html

His second year is 18+ and 6 with 94% from FT?
Dude was an all star level talent and they knew it.

Is Devonte Graham a future MVP then?

 

[BonesJones]

My 2 cents on Kerr - He had a huge impact in that team, and you could tell if you watched the way they played. With Jackson, they were stagnant and played a lot like we do now. When they brought in Kerr, all of a sudden they started moving the ball at an extremely high level and it jelped them get hgeat looks consistently. Kerr definitely turned that team into a contender with his coaching.

That's what we need.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

My 2 cents on Kerr - He had a huge impact in that team, and you could tell if you watched the way they played. With Jackson, they were stagnant and played a lot like we do now. When they brought in Kerr, all of a sudden they started moving the ball at an extremely high level and it jelped them get hgeat looks consistently. Kerr definitely turned that team into a contender with his coaching.

That's what we need.

I also think Kerr got them to buy into defense. Dont take this the wrong way, Im not saying you dont look at or know defense too, but it seems like you talk about the offense a lot more than me when it comes to coaching. That team was pretty bad defensively until Bogut, Green and Iggy were unleashed, but also and maybe more importantly Klay and Steph bought into it.

 

[Tince]

My 2 cents on Kerr - He had a huge impact in that team, and you could tell if you watched the way they played. With Jackson, they were stagnant and played a lot like we do now. When they brought in Kerr, all of a sudden they started moving the ball at an extremely high level and it jelped them get hgeat looks consistently. Kerr definitely turned that team into a contender with his coaching.

That's what we need.

In my opinion, those GS teams played the most enjoyable brand of basketball to watch, it was a thing a beauty. Steve Kerr deserves credit for being much better than Mark Jackson. I don't think Portland has had a roster that comes close to the level the Warriors have had. I also don't buy into the notion that more ball movement is always the best for every roster.

As great of a coach as Kerr is, he currently has 2 players who are still in the prime of their career (or improving) and have been an all-star in one of the past 2 seasons. With 2 all-stars at his disposal, they're 7-24. Do I give him a pass because of injuries? Of course! However, when a team with 2-3 weak pieces on floor moves the ball a lot, those weak pieces often end up with a much higher usage than you'd want, and the results can be poor.

Having said that, Kerr is a GREAT coach. If we could trade him for Stotts I'd do it in two seconds.

 

[BonesJones]

In my opinion, those GS teams played the most enjoyable brand of basketball to watch, it was a thing a beauty. Steve Kerr deserves credit for being much better than Mark Jackson. I don't think Portland has had a roster that comes close to the level the Warriors have had. I also don't buy into the notion that more ball movement is always the best for every roster.

As great of a coach as Kerr is, he currently has 2 players who are still in the prime of their career (or improving) and have been an all-star in one of the past 2 seasons. With 2 all-stars at his disposal, they're 7-24. Do I give him a pass because of injuries? Of course! However, when a team with 2-3 weak pieces on floor moves the ball a lot, those weak pieces often end up with a much higher usage than you'd want, and the results can be poor.

Having said that, Kerr is a GREAT coach. If we could trade him for Stotts I'd do it in two seconds.

Draymond isnt good without having multiple stars around him. He's declined mightily too. On this team, he's an average starter.

Russell is solid but its arguable just how much he contributed to winning basketball. He's also not a fit in Kerr's system. Kerr's system is also hard to learn, and most of his players are new.

Its funny how people refuse to give him credit and instead, freak out over this season.

 

[stampedehero]

We, As The fan base are not dis illusioned. Rather, we are Really Disappointed. When the team cannot adjust for long range shots, cannot stop basic give & go plays then loses close games, I then pin that disappointment towards the head coach. Losing to the Pelicans really proves my point.

 

[BonesJones]

I agree with the last few paragraphs at the end of your post.

Blazers most likely won't contend with Stotts and or Neil running the team.

They also most likely wont contend with Damian Lillard.

They most likely wont contend no matter what decision they make the next few years.

Very few teams contend in the NBA, that the nature of the league.

Replacing Lillard, Neil, Stotts isnt some magic solution.

The Raptors won because Kawhi was the best player in the league.

The Warriors won because they drafted 3 allstars late in the draft then signed an MVP as a free agent.

Hundreds of coaches and GMs fail with those chances, and that's most likely what the Blazers will ultimately do, fail.

Replacing Stotts doesn't change that.

Replacing Stotts would definitely increase the likeliehood of Dame winning a championship

 

[SharpesTriumph]

Replacing Stotts would definitely increase the likeliehood of Dame winning a championship

If we got Popovich or Kerr I agree.

If we get Donovan or one of the many below average coaches I disagree.

 

[Blazers Roy]

If we got Popovich or Kerr I agree.

If we get Donovan or one of the many below average coaches I disagree.

I'm really not a fan of Donovan, but he made a nice adjustment in that GS series a few years ago.
It's true that he lost the series, but i think Stotts would have made NO adjustment and he would have lost 4-0 if put in that position.

 

[Tince]

Draymond isnt good without having multiple stars around him. He's declined mightily too. On this team, he's an average starter.

Russell is solid but its arguable just how much he contributed to winning basketball. He's also not a fit in Kerr's system. Kerr's system is also hard to learn, and most of his players are new.

Its funny how people refuse to give him credit and instead, freak out over this season.

I agree with all three points.

I think it's very common for people to dismiss fit, the impact of injuries, or the changes in personnel had on other players ability to be productive. Much easier to just say Kerr (or insert coach) is doing a bad job.