I feel like you should judge coaches by the style of basketball and schemes seen on the court.
So if he moved Dame and CJ to the bench, but they played the style of basketball and schemes you prefer, he'd be a good coach?
If Dame demanded he was fired for incompetence, but they played the style of basketball and schemes you prefer, he'd be a good coach?
If we played our guys 42mpg in the preseason, but they played the style of basketball and schemes you prefer, he'd be a good coach?
Your criteria is ridiculously simplistic.
Your criteria is also subject to extreme bias--who gets to decide what's a good style of basketball or a good scheme? You, I presume?
You are essentially saying, "Your 6 criteria is biased while my 2 criteria isn't, because I see the truth, whereas you are biased."
1. Talent is subjective to bias and opinion. Expectations are biased, especially in national media. People always doubt Portland, no matter what. Using that to say the coach is good is a reach and a half.
What part of any of your posts, my posts, or anyones aren't subject to bias and opinion? This is a meaningless statement.
2. Plumlee isnt any worse in DEN. Plumlee went from a starting center to a guy getting 15mpg in the playoffs. Matthews isnt a fair comparison because he left right after an achilles tear.Curry, Hood, and Kanter all showed what they did in Portland earlier in their careers. Why were they available for pennies on the dollar? Think they'll make more money post-Terry than they did signing with us? Are you really arguing Portland had nothing to do with rehabbing these guys' careers?
3. A coaches ability to reach players, get them to not fight, accept roles, and have good chemistry? Thats as much on the GM in regards to the character of players he brings in, and kn Dame for being a leader able to develop chemistry. Our chemistry and locker room wouldve been the same, regardless of the coach. A coach doesnt really affect the dynamic between players, or how willing a player is to accept a role. Man, that statement is nuts. A coach has nothing to do with a locker room? Getting people to accept roles? Really? At this point I kind of feel like I'm wasting my time if that's really what you think. Yikes.
4. We dont run a pace-and-space scheme. Were one of the slowest paced teams in the leauge. Our offense is basically simple handoffs, pick n roll, and isolation. That's true--maybe pace and space is the wrong term. Perhaps 3-point/guard-heavy? Regardless how you describe it, the point is teams are using perimeter players to put a lot of points on the board. Portland used their guards to be 5th in the league in scoring. It's hard to argue Portland's problems stem from outdated scoring strategies when we outscore all but 4 teams.
5. 2-for-1s are extremely basic, and shouldnt be used to credit an NBA coach. Rec league teams go for 2-for-1s. Yes they do. But watching the league I honestly think Portland does it better than any other team. A lot of that is on Dame and CJ, but really I never feel like our guys are unaware of the clock.
6. Coaches arent looking for a destination franchise. Mike Budenholzer (the guy I advocated firing Stotts for last summer) went to Milwaukee. Budenholzer also went to a team with the guy who will probably be the league MVP.
Because we had poor former coaches doesnt make Stotts good. Theres no correlation. The grass isn't always greener is my point. In fact, history since 2002 shows it's harder to get a good coach here than many appreciate.
