Rumor Report: Owner Paul Allen investigating whether Trail Blazers’ problem is roster or coaching

[rotary111]

Walton was also raised around the league. He has done IMO a fantastic job with the Lakers. Walton appears to be a players coach with enough edge to keep the players in check just like Kerr......which I think we need.

 

[Cippy91]

I disagree with your premise. If Pop were out for a couple months, I don't think the Spurs would suffer greatly, because his greatness isn't in-game coaching, but in the culture and system he has created and maintained in San Antonio. Even without him on the sidelines for a stretch, the culture and system would remain, and whatever assistant is holding down the fort would still be successful.

I believe that the same is the case with Kerr and GSW. The jump they made when he took over from Jackson, without a major personnel change, suggests that it was his contributions that brought that team from good to great. Walton being able to maintain the excellence is just a testament to foundation Kerr had already laid, which still existed in his absence.

Kerr took over when again? 2015 right? The season where curry had one of the greatest offensive seasons in nba history. All I recall when Kerr came in Klay and green came to and started playing out of their minds. All three. I don’t know, it’s just my opinion. Take Kerr and make him the coach of this team instead of stotts I don’t think much changes. Any team actually. It’s talent carrying his team

 

[rasheedfan2005]

Seattle trail blazers

 

[rotary111]

Kerr took over when again? 2015 right? The season where curry had one of the greatest offensive seasons in nba history. All I recall when Kerr came in Klay and green came to and started playing out of their minds. All three. I don’t know, it’s just my opinion. Take Kerr and make him the coach of this team instead of stotts I don’t think much changes. Any team actually. It’s talent carrying his team

Yes, Please!

 

[BigGameDamian]

 

[Cippy91]

Exactly and this is why you gotta trade cj and not pay too god damn much this summer for nurk because we know olshey is gonna pay him, just how much?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Kerr took over when again? 2015 right? The season where curry had one of the greatest offensive seasons in nba history. All I recall when Kerr came in Klay and green came to and started playing out of their minds. All three. I don’t know, it’s just my opinion. Take Kerr and make him the coach of this team instead of stotts I don’t think much changes. Any team actually. It’s talent carrying his team

Agreed--it's just opinion on both sides, and honestly, either one of us can realistically and reasonably argue how the facts at hand support his position.

As for Kerr and Curry--Kerr's first year there was 2014-15, and Curry's stats actually didn't take a huge jump that first year. It was his second year (when Walton subbed in for the first 1/3 of the year) that Curry had his amazing offensive season.



Really, looking at the change in GSW's performance from under Jackson to Kerr, the biggest change appears to be in assists. They were averaging ~23/game, and jumped that up to 28, 29, then 30+. To me, that's primarily attributable to Kerr's system.

 

[H.C.]

My biggest issue with the staff/fo is the roster. IT has been since Aldridge left.
I admit Aminu has proven to be better offensively in particularly from three than I expected.

However Vonleh, Davis, Harkless, Henderson, Layman, Turner, & Plumlee are not players who fit Stotts' system.
The system Portland was said to implement when he became the HC.
These players are one dimensional and the defense begs them to shoot the shots Stotts' system demand they take.

Now should Stotts adjust to the players he has? Yes, all the best coaches have.
But Stotts came in here and it was touted he's going to start a culture, put in a system that can just plug in players like the Spurs do.
Only to have the FO not give him the players he needs for this system, seems counter productive.

I have my own issues with Stotts, but the roster is so broken I don't think any coach would be consistently successful with it.

 

[Cippy91]

Agreed--it's just opinion on both sides, and honestly, either one of us can realistically and reasonably argue how the facts at hand support his position.

As for Kerr and Curry--Kerr's first year there was 2014-15, and Curry's stats actually didn't take a huge jump that first year. It was his second year (when Walton subbed in for the first 1/3 of the year) that Curry had his amazing offensive season.

View attachment 17645

Really, looking at the change in GSW's performance from under Jackson to Kerr, the biggest change appears to be in assists. They were averaging ~23/game, and jumped that up to 28, 29, then 30+. To me, that's primarily attributable to Kerr's system.

I see what you’re saying and I get where people can see that, I just believe he has an extreme level of talent on his teams and talent like that doesn’t really need to be coached, they can thrive in any system.

 

[Nikolokolus]

I see what you’re saying and I get where people can see that, I just believe he has an extreme level of talent on his teams and talent like that doesn’t really need to be coached, they can thrive in any system.

Except that we got to see what the Warriors looked like as an "uncoached" team under Mark Jackson. They weren't championship caliber until Kerr got there.

 

[handiman]

I see what you’re saying and I get where people can see that, I just believe he has an extreme level of talent on his teams and talent like that doesn’t really need to be coached, they can thrive in any system.

And yet they didn't thrive under Mark Jackson. You could argue that Jackson's crew was too young to produce, but they sure matured quick under Kerr.

Also, aside from adding Durant and all the ring-chasers the past two years, they were largely built through good value drafting. "Extreme level of talent" is fitting now, but not really appropriate to where they drafted that talent. They've done a helluva job identifying and developing it. Kerr can't be separated from the latter.

 

[Boob-No-More]

I see what you’re saying and I get where people can see that, I just believe he has an extreme level of talent on his teams and talent like that doesn’t really need to be coached, they can thrive in any system.

But that exact same talent didn't "thrive" under Jackson. They were first round fodder. Kerr came in and took them to 67 wins and an NBA title in his first season - same talent, different coach and system.

Jackson was forcing Curry to play like a conventional point guard. That meant he was both their #1 scoring option and their #1 distributor. That wore Curry down, but it also made the Warriors much easier to defend. Swarm Curry defensively and you shut down not just their best scorer, but also their whole offense.

Kerr's brilliance was taking the ball out of Curry's hands and making Green a distributor. That took the burden of running the offense off of Curry and freed him up to become the most prolific 3-point shooter in the history of the game. It also kept him fresher and reduced his injuries.

Mark Jackson would have never figured this out in a million years. He was a conventional PG and tried to make Curry into one, too.

BNM

 

[Boob-No-More]

Except that we got to see what the Warriors looked like as an "uncoached" team under Mark Jackson. They weren't championship caliber until Kerr got there.

Yep, went from 51 wins and a first round exit to 67 wins and an NBA title. The pieces were there, the coach and system weren't. Mark Jackson was an old school, uncreative coach. Kerr was an innovator.

BNM

 

[Cippy91]

But that exact same talent didn't "thrive" under Jackson. They were first round fodder. Kerr came in and took them to 67 wins and an NBA title in his first season - same talent, different coach and system.

Jackson was forcing Curry to play like a conventional point guard. That meant he was both their #1 scoring option and their #1 distributor. That wore Curry down, but it also made the Warriors much easier to defend. Swarm Curry defensively and you shut down not just their best scorer, but also their whole offense.

Kerr's brilliance was taking the ball out of Curry's hands and making Green a distributor. That took the burden of running the offense off of Curry and freed him up to become the most prolific 3-point shooter in the history of the game. It also kept him fresher and reduced his injuries.

Mark Jackson would have never figured this out in a million years. He was a conventional PG and tried to make Curry into one, too.

BNM

I believe Kerr is a good coach. The question is how good? Does he really deserve that top coaches of all time list at the end of his career? That’s what I struggle with when it comes to Kerr. It’s hard to tell

 

[Mr. Robot]

fire Terry Stotts, then tell Neil Olshey to do something with the roster and if he cant, fire him too
enough is enough, theres coaches and GM all around the world

 

[SlyPokerDog]

We should trade Meyers for Kerr.

 

[tester551]

One thing. Many could argue that Kerr isn’t that great of a coach at all. He inherited a team and the talent was already set up for historic seasons. Then they added Durant. Can’t argue with pop though, one of the greatest coaches of all time

Many could argue that.... but they would be wrong.

 

[tester551]

Bill Laimbeer was my first choice but I believe he's now the Adam Silver of WNBA....cushy commissioner job might be tough for Bill to give up to be a big man coach these days....I think Sheed would be a good choice....Hakeem is on the Rockets bench...McHale can barely walk these days.

Karl Malone

 

[tester551]

Walton was also raised around the league. He has done IMO a fantastic job with the Lakers. Walton appears to be a players coach with enough edge to keep the players in check just like Kerr......which I think we need.

Walton is underrated as a coach too. He needs 1 or 2 more years to develop the roster though

 

[Boob-No-More]

I believe Kerr is a good coach. The question is how good? Does he really deserve that top coaches of all time list at the end of his career? That’s what I struggle with when it comes to Kerr. It’s hard to tell

Too soon to label him an all time great. He's only been a head coach for a little over 3 seasons, but has won two rings and his teams have won 84% of their regular season games. He's certainly one of the best current coaches.

In terms of all time greats, Phil had Jordan and Pippen, followed by Shaq and Kobe - all in their primes. Red had had Russell and his teams were so deep he had multiple future Hall of Famers coming off the bench.

Sure, winning takes talent, but you also need to figure out how to use that talent. Mark Jackson couldn't get the Warriors within spitting distance of a title with the same talent Kerr took to 67 wins and a championship in his very first season. The Bulls, under Doug Collins couldn't get past the Celtics and Pistons. Shaq and Kobe couldn't win it all under Del Harris.

Coaching can, and does, make a difference. The hardest thing for a coach to do is take a team from good to great. Few have done it. Kerr is one of the few, and he did it in his very first year. That's a pretty impressive accomplishment.

BNM

 

[Nate]

You hated Whitsitt even while he was GM. You see the consequences since he left. If he was so bad, why did the team immediately sink into a pit and never recover? The Blazers should have entered a golden, sunny time, if he was so bad. History has proven you absolutely wrong. An ordinary person would climb under a wet rock and hide with the Oregonian worms, but you continue to spew doctrine about how bad the team was under Whitsitt, contrary to history.

What happened to your comrade-in-arms ProudBFan, who worked in the same room as you, if I recall correctly. He led the war on the ESPN board to purge the team, and you were a lieutenant. So were crandc and about 5 others. An equal number, including Maris and me, led the side of virtue against you evil-doers.

This sounds like a mission from god.

I’m in.

 

[Boob-No-More]

You hated Whitsitt even while he was GM. You see the consequences since he left. If he was so bad, why did the team immediately sink into a pit and never recover? The Blazers should have entered a golden, sunny time, if he was so bad. History has proven you absolutely wrong. An ordinary person would climb under a wet rock and hide with the Oregonian worms, but you continue to spew doctrine about how bad the team was under Whitsitt, contrary to history.

What happened to your comrade-in-arms ProudBFan, who worked in the same room as you, if I recall correctly. He led the war on the ESPN board to purge the team, and you were a lieutenant. So were crandc and about 5 others. An equal number, including Maris and me, led the side of virtue against you evil-doers.

Right....

Golden sunny time? Three first round exits in a row his last three years in Portland. That's your idea of a sunny time? Well hell old man, you should be bowing down and kissing Neil Olshey's feet. His roster has made it past the first round in two of the last four years. If Whitsitt is your God, what's that make Olshey?

You act like the Whitsitt built some kind of dynasty in Portland, when the truth is quite different. Here's a couple facts:

In the nine seasons Bob Whitsitt was the GM, the Blazers teams won > 50 games one time (twice, if you prorate the lock out shortened 1998-99 season). In those same 9 seasons, Whitsitt's teams made it past the 1st round twice.

He wasn't some God. He was a guy who had an owner willing to spend over 2.5x the salary cap at a time when there were fewer restrictions and no luxury tax. Whitsitt's last season in Portland, the team Payroll was $105 million at a time when salary cap was $40 million and the second highest paid team had a payroll of $83 million - all for a team that won 50 games and lost in the first round for the third straight season.

Them's the facts. Feel free to continue making up fake news and alternative facts.

BNM

 

[Orion Bailey]

Ironic since Portland is usually very medioce.

Question.

If we trade Mediocre man to another forum in another city, will the Blazers no longer be mediocre?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Question.

If we trade Mediocre man to another forum in another city, will the Blazers no longer be mediocre?

The Blazers will remain mediocre, but @Mediocre Man's adjective will adapt to his new fandom. Trade him to warriorsworld.com and he'll be Dynasty Man. Trade him to kingsfans.com and he'll be Doormat Man.

All about location.

 

[Chris Craig]

It seems to me that NO tried to build a version of the Warriors with the rejects and [perceived] undervalued, but paid some as though they were neither.

He is trying to build a Nordstrom team with Wal -Mart talent. Change is needed.

Lay-away?

 

[Chris Craig]

Thank Christ Sherlock Fucking Holmes is on the case...

 

[julius]

Right....

Golden sunny time? Three first round exits in a row his last three years in Portland. That's your idea of a sunny time? Well hell old man, you should be bowing down and kissing Neil Olshey's feet. His roster has made it past the first round in two of the last four years. If Whitsitt is your God, what's that make Olshey?

You act like the Whitsitt built some kind of dynasty in Portland, when the truth is quite different. Here's a couple facts:

In the nine seasons Bob Whitsitt was the GM, the Blazers teams won > 50 games one time (twice, if you prorate the lock out shortened 1998-99 season). In those same 9 seasons, Whitsitt's teams made it past the 1st round twice.

He wasn't some God. He was a guy who had an owner willing to spend over 2.5x the salary cap at a time when there were fewer restrictions and no luxury tax. Whitsitt's last season in Portland, the team Payroll was $105 million at a time when salary cap was $40 million and the second highest paid team had a payroll of $83 million - all for a team that won 50 games and lost in the first round for the third straight season.

Them's the facts. Feel free to continue making up fake news and alternative facts.

BNM

I believe they won 50 games twice (00, 01).

 

[blue9]

Ummmmm, both? (In response to the thread title/article.)

The roster isn't as bad as people make it out to be. They THINK it is because they THINK there are just a ton of capable SFs growing on trees, when in reality there are very few capable SFs in the league, and the few that exist aren't available. A new GM isn't going to change that fact.

This team is much more talented than they've shown themselves to be this season. Our W/L record doesn't properly reflect how poorly we've played. We're too good to have more BAD losses (6+) than GOOD wins (0).

Get a new coach after the first of the year. There's literally nothing to lose and everything to gain - either we play better (+), or we do worse and improve our draft position (+). There are no positives to Terry Stotts.

 

[Chris Craig]

Seattle trail blazers

Aaaahhhhhhh! Oh, it was just a nightmare

 

[handiman]

He wasn't some God. He was a guy who had an owner willing to spend over 2.5x the salary cap at a time when there were fewer restrictions and no luxury tax. Whitsitt's last season in Portland, the team Payroll was $105 million at a time when salary cap was $40 million and the second highest paid team had a payroll of $83 million - all for a team that won 50 games and lost in the first round for the third straight season.

While factually correct (I assume), it misses part of the story. The Blazers were one of the most profitable franchises at the time, so it was a successful business model until things imploded.

As I recall, Whitsitt took a few years to hit his stride, had a nearly great peak with home run moves, and then fell from grace rapidly. Not all too dissimilar from Dennis Erickson... Must have been something funny in the Oregon water during those years.