Terry Stotts has been extended

[Tince]

Among coaches today-- in a vacuum given the same roster-- where do you rank Terry? I think he's fairly average and we can find someone like him pretty easily. This season even, I'd probably put Nate ahead of him unfortunately.

In terms of franchises: Talent level, ownership, management, location, tax implications, etc. where do you think Portland ranks in the league in terms of desirability for coaches? My gut is that it is average, at best, maybe slightly below.

There's a group of people on here who haven't loved our head coach for almost 20 years and I'm not sure why they think the next one would all of a sudden be one they approve of. Especially considering that with the current roster make-up, we are unlikely to be making any deep playoff runs, regardless of who's in charge.

 

[SIeepwalker]

Among coaches today-- in a vacuum given the same roster-- where do you rank Terry? I think he's fairly average and we can find someone like him pretty easily. This season even, I'd probably put Nate ahead of him unfortunately.

Anyone who keeps playing Mario fucking Hezonja has some screws loose

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

In terms of franchises: Talent level, ownership, management, location, tax implications, etc. where do you think Portland ranks in the league in terms of desirability for coaches? My gut is that it is average, at best, maybe slightly below.

There's a group of people on here who haven't loved our head coach for almost 20 years and I'm not sure why they think the next one would all of a sudden be one they approve of. Especially considering that with the current roster make-up, we are unlikely to be making any deep playoff runs, regardless of who's in charge.

Yes, the Blazers might have "lower desirability" than other places, but it's still a job that a lot of people would LOVE to have. I've listed off people I'd like to see with the Job, not because I hate Stotts or whatever (though on defense I don't like his scheme), it's because I think we've seen what he can do. I think we've maxed out what he can do for us as a coach.
-Messina, Mark Few, Ime Udoka, Hammond - to list a few. However, if a professional franchise does a search they should come up with some good candidates (we probably haven't thought of), and very, very few would Turn them down just because it's "Portland".
Part of the reason people have been upset with the coaching for 20 years is that we haven't had very many great coaches during that time.

I don't really blame Stotts for this year, are there things he maybe could do better to get more out of these guys? I guess. I'm of the opinion that their summer last year turns out it wasn't very good, they're still paying for 2016's issues, and with the injuries (all those things) the team just isn't very talented. However, I also believe I've seen enough of Stotts in the playoffs to say I'm definitely down with trying someone new, I think their offense and defense has grown kind of stale too. Time to try some new philosophies in my opinion.

 

[brooklynballer]

Among coaches today-- in a vacuum given the same roster-- where do you rank Terry? I think he's fairly average and we can find someone like him pretty easily. This season even, I'd probably put Nate ahead of him unfortunately.

Agree with this. I think he’s a bottom 7-8 coach in this league. It would’ve been nice, as you say, to bring in a new coach a couple of seasons ago to determine if the coach (and, by extension, his system) was the problem or the backcourt tandem. Too bad that question has gone unanswered and, in the mean time, we’ve almost completely wasted Lillard’s prime. This off-season is key to make changes as the team has 1-2 more seasons of prime-Lillard before his athleticism starts to deteriorate. He’ll still be a useful player... just not all-NBA and unable to lead a team to a championship (he will still be a very good complimentary piece though).

 

[brooklynballer]

In terms of franchises: Talent level, ownership, management, location, tax implications, etc. where do you think Portland ranks in the league in terms of desirability for coaches? My gut is that it is average, at best, maybe slightly below.

There's a group of people on here who haven't loved our head coach for almost 20 years and I'm not sure why they think the next one would all of a sudden be one they approve of. Especially considering that with the current roster make-up, we are unlikely to be making any deep playoff runs, regardless of who's in charge.

Well then the ownership group needs to find a better GM that can assess a coach’s talent more effectively. Nobody knew who Brad Stevens or Nick Nurse were before they were hired but their teams have been rewarded for the risk they took in hiring relative unknowns. Stotts has demonstrated absolutely nothing but a penchant for mediocrity in his entire tenure in Portland (and Milwaukee and Atlanta previously). Not sure why so many in this forum support him so fervently.

 

[Jade Falcon]

Well then the ownership group needs to find a better GM that can assess a coach’s talent more effectively. Nobody knew who Brad Stevens or Nick Nurse were before they were hired but their teams have been rewarded for the risk they took in hiring relative unknowns. Stotts has demonstrated absolutely nothing but a penchant for mediocrity in his entire tenure in Portland (and Milwaukee and Atlanta previously). Not sure why so many in this forum support him so fervently.

This. And he ALWAYS gets an excuse.....this year it's "injuries". It never ends with these people.....they would follow him into the sun.

 

[e_blazer]

This. And he ALWAYS gets an excuse.....this year it's "injuries". It never ends with these people.....they would follow him into the sun.

As one of “these people” my response would be it never ends with the fire Stotts crowd. If the Blazers make the playoffs with a young roster that nobody expected to be anything but a lottery team, it’s “yeah, but they got swept in the first round, it’s Terry’s fault”. Never mind the loss was to the eventual champs who steamrolled everyone. If the team goes to the WCF, again totally unexpectedly, it’s just lucky breaks and, besides, the Warriors swept them again. Never mind the injuries to Nurk, Kanter, and Dame. Stupid Terry. If the team is decimated by injuries and underachieving expectations, there’s always some magic that another coach could pull out of his backside that would turn things around.

I’m not a Stotts booster, but I have the same reaction I always get when someone insists that CJ has to be traded. Find a reasonable replacement who is available, would come here, and would have the support of the players the way Terry does and then we can talk. Believe me, as a 50 year fan I know that change isn’t always a good thing. We’ve had coaches who have been far worse than Terry Stotts.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

As one of “these people” my response would be it never ends with the fire Stotts crowd. If the Blazers make the playoffs with a young roster that nobody expected to be anything but a lottery team, it’s “yeah, but they got swept in the first round, it’s Terry’s fault”. Never mind the loss was to the eventual champs who steamrolled everyone. If the team goes to the WCF, again totally unexpectedly, it’s just lucky breaks and, besides, the Warriors swept them again. Never mind the injuries to Nurk, Kanter, and Dame. Stupid Terry. If the team is decimated by injuries and underachieving expectations, there’s always some magic that another coach could pull out of his backside that would turn things around.

I’m not a Stotts booster, but I have the same reaction I always get when someone insists that CJ has to be traded. Find a reasonable replacement who is available, would come here, and would have the support of the players the way Terry does and then we can talk. Believe me, as a 50 year fan I know that change isn’t always a good thing. We’ve had coaches who have been far worse than Terry Stotts.

Pss, you say you’re not a Stotts Booster. I say its a trap! Lol.
Honestly opinions vary on Coaches, GM’s, and players and its totally fine to have your opinion.
For the record the people saying they just lucked into the WCF’s last year I disagree with them but eh its just opinions.

 

[brooklynballer]

Pss, you say you’re not a Stotts Booster. I say its a trap! Lol.
Honestly opinions vary on Coaches, GM’s, and players and its totally fine to have your opinion.
For the record the people saying they just lucked into the WCF’s last year I disagree with them but eh its just opinions.

Had the Blazers lost the last game to SAC last season we would be talking about another first round loss in the playoffs right now. No, I can’t guarantee that but you’d be hard pressed to find any expert who would have picked the Blazers to beat the Jazz let alone the Warriors in the second round. So, yeah, they lucked their way into the WCFs by being in the weaker bracket... no thanks to the coach who went out of his way to lose that ultimate game vs SAC.

 

[brooklynballer]

As one of “these people” my response would be it never ends with the fire Stotts crowd. If the Blazers make the playoffs with a young roster that nobody expected to be anything but a lottery team, it’s “yeah, but they got swept in the first round, it’s Terry’s fault”. Never mind the loss was to the eventual champs who steamrolled everyone. If the team goes to the WCF, again totally unexpectedly, it’s just lucky breaks and, besides, the Warriors swept them again. Never mind the injuries to Nurk, Kanter, and Dame. Stupid Terry. If the team is decimated by injuries and underachieving expectations, there’s always some magic that another coach could pull out of his backside that would turn things around.

I’m not a Stotts booster, but I have the same reaction I always get when someone insists that CJ has to be traded. Find a reasonable replacement who is available, would come here, and would have the support of the players the way Terry does and then we can talk. Believe me, as a 50 year fan I know that change isn’t always a good thing. We’ve had coaches who have been far worse than Terry Stotts.

I will continue to bash Stotts until the day he is fired. At this point, after 7-8 years of the same boring offence and zero defence I’m ready to move on from this “coach” (and I use that term loosely). If it was a roster composed of younger players I wouldn’t care as much but they’re wasting the prime of arguably the best player in franchise history on a coach who couldn’t coach his way out of a paper bag.

 

[Jade Falcon]

I’m not a Stotts booster, but I have the same reaction I always get when someone insists that CJ has to be traded. Find a reasonable replacement who is available, would come here, and would have the support of the players the way Terry does and then we can talk. Believe me, as a 50 year fan I know that change isn’t always a good thing. We’ve had coaches who have been far worse than Terry Stotts.

Ah yes, and of course the answer is always followed by yet ANOTHER excuse. Unbelievable. I hate to break it to you E, but just because we've had shittier coaches in the past does not excuse Terry Stott's fuck ups, which seem to be routine with him....everything from horrible rotations, non-existent defense, lack of time outs, blowing leads, third-quarter collapses, stupid fouls, that stupid "I'm going to piss my pants" look on his face when he should be looking confident, failure to hold players accountable for poor plays and performances (I mean really, how many "slumps" does a fucking player have to go through before we get it?), and half-assed disinterested answers after a loss during press conferences. You cannot possibly tell me that you are happy with this shit.

The man is barely.....barely.....over .500 in his ENTIRE CAREER as a coach. We've been SWEPT 3 times in the past 7 years, and would have been cleanly swept by the Clippers if their entire starting lineup hadn't gotten injured at the last minute, and even then it took us 6 games....SIX....to beat those fucking assholes. Lost in 5 games to the Grizzlies, and lost in 5 games to the Spurs.

How much more mediocrity are you willing to put up with? How many more EXCUSES does this OVERRATED has-been with his outdated 2001 playbook get? When is the moment you throw in the towel?

There is a reason why he was fired after 2 season with Atlanta. Get a clue, people! He survives on Damian Lillard (God bless that man), not his coaching.

You want a coach who is buddy-buddy with his players? I want a fucking coach who is better than .513. I want a coach who doesn't get SWEPT by teams like New Orleans, or out-coached by decimated teams with better coaches who instill grit instead of feelings into their players. I give a fuck all if the players like it; they should be grateful that management actually gives a shit and TRIES, which is something that Neil Olshey isn't doing. Any one of them who is happy with this mediocrity bullshit shouldn't be playing basketball. Because we can most certainly do better. And if the players don't like the change, then they can sit on the bench and pout while Dame does the work, as usual.

But you and I both know that Dame isn't going anywhere. So let him pout if he has a problem with his buddy coach getting canned, and go get a new coach, and a better one at that. We need a coach, not a friend. This isn't little-league basketball; they'll get over it.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Had the Blazers lost the last game to SAC last season we would be talking about another first round loss in the playoffs right now. No, I can’t guarantee that but you’d be hard pressed to find any expert who would have picked the Blazers to beat the Jazz let alone the Warriors in the second round. So, yeah, they lucked their way into the WCFs by being in the weaker bracket... no thanks to the coach who went out of his way to lose that ultimate game vs SAC.

Most people were picking OKC over Portland last year too.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Ah yes, and of course the answer is always followed by yet ANOTHER excuse. Unbelievable. I hate to break it to you E, but just because we've had shittier coaches in the past does not excuse Terry Stott's fuck ups, which seem to be routine with him....everything from horrible rotations, non-existent defense, lack of time outs, blowing leads, third-quarter collapses, stupid fouls, that stupid "I'm going to piss my pants" look on his face when he should be looking confident, failure to hold players accountable for poor plays and performances (I mean really, how many "slumps" does a fucking player have to go through before we get it?), and half-assed disinterested answers after a loss during press conferences. You cannot possibly tell me that you are happy with this shit.

The man is barely.....barely.....over .500 in his ENTIRE CAREER as a coach. We've been SWEPT 3 times in the past 7 years, and would have been cleanly swept by the Clippers if their entire starting lineup hadn't gotten injured at the last minute, and even then it took us 6 games....SIX....to beat those fucking assholes. Lost in 5 games to the Grizzlies, and lost in 5 games to the Spurs.

How much more mediocrity are you willing to put up with? How many more EXCUSES does this OVERRATED has-been with his outdated 2001 playbook get? When is the moment you throw in the towel?

There is a reason why he was fired after 2 season with Atlanta. Get a clue, people! He survives on Damian Lillard (God bless that man), not his coaching.

You want a coach who is buddy-buddy with his players? I want a fucking coach who is better than .513. I want a coach who doesn't get SWEPT by teams like New Orleans, or out-coached by decimated teams with better coaches who instill grit instead of feelings into their players. I give a fuck all if the players like it; they should be grateful that management actually gives a shit and TRIES, which is something that Neil Olshey isn't doing. Any one of them who is happy with this mediocrity bullshit shouldn't be playing basketball. Because we can most certainly do better. And if the players don't like the change, then they can sit on the bench and pout while Dame does the work, as usual.

But you and I both know that Dame isn't going anywhere. So let him pout if he has a problem with his buddy coach getting canned, and go get a new coach, and a better one at that. We need a coach, not a friend. This isn't little-league basketball; they'll get over it.

Im good with getting a new coach. But NBA coaches have to make sure their stars are happy, the idea well if Dame doesnt like it he can sit around and pout is just not realistic. If they piss him off he could force a trade pretty easily. You’re right its not little Baseball its NBA Superstars and they have a LOT of power.

 

[Jade Falcon]

Im good with getting a new coach. But NBA coaches have to make sure their stars are happy, the idea well if Dame doesnt like it he can sit around and pout is just not realistic. If they piss him off he could force a trade pretty easily. You’re right its not little Baseball its NBA Superstars and they have a LOT of power.

Oh I'm willing to bet when he gets a coach who knows what he's doing, with a modern game plan, he'll never complain again. Dame is not so petty that he wouldn't give a new coach a chance first.

And by all means, if the new coach doesn't work, then find one that does. But Terry Stotts is NOT the answer.

 

[Tince]

Well then the ownership group needs to find a better GM that can assess a coach’s talent more effectively. Nobody knew who Brad Stevens or Nick Nurse were before they were hired but their teams have been rewarded for the risk they took in hiring relative unknowns. Stotts has demonstrated absolutely nothing but a penchant for mediocrity in his entire tenure in Portland (and Milwaukee and Atlanta previously). Not sure why so many in this forum support him so fervently.

The basketball community certainly knew Nurse and Stevens before they got their first NBA jobs.

Stotts certainly isn't the best coach, but I don't know how you could say last year was mediocre job by Stotts. Look at how the rotational players who left are doing this year. Almost all of them have been marginal at best and the majority had a better year under Stotts than under their current coach.

I haven't seen anyone on here say Stotts is a top 3 coach, but many on here act as if he's one of the worst; that is truly head scratching.

 

[BonesJones]

As one of “these people” my response would be it never ends with the fire Stotts crowd. If the Blazers make the playoffs with a young roster that nobody expected to be anything but a lottery team, it’s “yeah, but they got swept in the first round, it’s Terry’s fault”. Never mind the loss was to the eventual champs who steamrolled everyone. If the team goes to the WCF, again totally unexpectedly, it’s just lucky breaks and, besides, the Warriors swept them again. Never mind the injuries to Nurk, Kanter, and Dame. Stupid Terry. If the team is decimated by injuries and underachieving expectations, there’s always some magic that another coach could pull out of his backside that would turn things around.

I’m not a Stotts booster, but I have the same reaction I always get when someone insists that CJ has to be traded. Find a reasonable replacement who is available, would come here, and would have the support of the players the way Terry does and then we can talk. Believe me, as a 50 year fan I know that change isn’t always a good thing. We’ve had coaches who have been far worse than Terry Stotts.

But the thing is, a good portion of the fire Stotts crowd is made up of people who really know basketball. I'm not saying that Stotts supporters dont, I'm simply saying that the vast majority of ex-college (D1, D2, etc) and ex-HS players that I know dont think Stotts is a good head coach. The fact that many people who support Stotts downplay or mock the knowledge of anyone who criticizes him is comical to me, for that reason.

And think about this, fans are more likely to have a positive bais towards their coach, no a negative one. We all want Stotts to do well, and I dont think those who are critical of Stotts are rooting against him. So if you think Stotts criticizers are wrong, why do you think that is? Because theyre biased against him? Because they lack knowledge? I'd think itd have to be one of those two things, but Ive already explained why neither of those makes reasons make sense for claiming Stotts criticizes are wrong...

When people criticize the coaching, a lot of the reasoning I see is very detailed and insightful, with evaluations based on what they're seeing on the floor, going beyond sinply looking at a result. Your post is simply looking at results and other variables (injuries) instead of what is actually happening on the court. Of course, injuries do affect what's happening on the court, but most of those who are critical of Stotts do take that into account but don't use it to give him a free pass, so they still spend time purposefully analyzing what is happening out there on the hardwood.

 

[BonesJones]

The basketball community certainly knew Nurse and Stevens before they got their first NBA jobs.

Stotts certainly isn't the best coach, but I don't know how you could say last year was mediocre job by Stotts. Look at how the rotational players who left are doing this year. Almost all of them have been marginal at best and the majority had a better year under Stotts than under their current coach.

I haven't seen anyone on here say Stotts is a top 3 coach, but many on here act as if he's one of the worst; that is truly head scratching.

Meh, if we want to lool at results, lets take the last 2 years into account. Thats the problem, you can cherry-pick results. Nobody has said that you cant make a WCF with Stotts, we have Damian Lillard and C.J. McCollum for crying out loud.

 

[Tince]

Yes, the Blazers might have "lower desirability" than other places, but it's still a job that a lot of people would LOVE to have. I've listed off people I'd like to see with the Job, not because I hate Stotts or whatever (though on defense I don't like his scheme), it's because I think we've seen what he can do. I think we've maxed out what he can do for us as a coach.
-Messina, Mark Few, Ime Udoka, Hammond - to list a few.

I think the list above are some high high risk names. I'd be so scared any of those names could run this franchise into the ground and combining that with a new owner could have some awful consequences. Maybe because of our market, we have to take some big swings, but IMO that is more likely to backfire.

 

[Tince]

Meh, if we want to lool at results, lets take the last 2 years into account. Thats the problem, you can cherry-pick results. Nobody has said that you cant make a WCF with Stotts, we have Damian Lillard and C.J. McCollum for crying out loud.

Very few teams get to the WCF with 1 all-star.

 

[BonesJones]

I will continue to bash Stotts until the day he is fired. At this point, after 7-8 years of the same boring offence and zero defence I’m ready to move on from this “coach” (and I use that term loosely). If it was a roster composed of younger players I wouldn’t care as much but they’re wasting the prime of arguably the best player in franchise history on a coach who couldn’t coach his way out of a paper bag.

The fact that I can easily say he hasnt contributed a thing to one half of the game (defense) in his time here is sad. And he could go out and get a defensive minded coach to cover his weaknesses, but he doesn't. Even if we're did, who knows if Stotts would be willing to give them enough power

 

[BonesJones]

Very few teams get to the WCF with 1 all-star.

Except we beat a team with 1 all-star (who's worse than ours) in the WCSF, and our 2nd best player was the best player in the series and played like a superstar, primarily through isolation and freelance...

When people criticize the coaching, a lot of the reasoning I see is very detailed and insightful, with evaluations based on what they're seeing on the floor, going beyond sinply looking at a result.

So you're basing your evaluations of a coach based on the result of one single season and all-star voting returns?

 

[BonesJones]

I think the list above are some high high risk names. I'd be so scared any of those names could run this franchise into the ground and combining that with a new owner could have some awful consequences. Maybe because of our market, we have to take some big swings, but IMO that is more likely to backfire.

High risk? Its not hard to run an isolation heavy offense and a bottom-5 defense that rarely runs a 2nd scheme.

Honestly, it seems like you want to view them as risky because theyve been brought up as alternatives to Stotts.

 

[Tince]

But the thing is, a good portion of the fire Stotts crowd is made up of people who really know basketball. I'm not saying that Stotts supporters dont, I'm simply saying that the vast majority of ex-college (D1, D2, etc) and ex-HS players that I know dont think Stotts is a good head coach. The fact that many people who support Stotts downplay or mock the knowledge of anyone who criticizes him is comical to me, for that reason.

I don't question you played basketball at a high level, have tools to evaluate players and coaches, and that your opinion has value. You certainly have been called names for constantly banging on Stotts, but there is name calling for those who provide a counter argument, this isn't a tactic only used by one side. Ultimately, I think the name calling comes up when people feel attacked; and it's not right.

 

[Tince]

High risk? Its not hard to run an isolation heavy offense and a bottom-5 defense that rarely runs a 2nd scheme.

Honestly, it seems like you want to view them as risky because theyve been brought up as alternatives to Stotts.

I'm not sure what the correlation between Portland's offense and the risk factor of those coaches is.

I 100% disagree with your last statement as I'd be thrilled to have a better coach. The last two coaches we fired a year after they made the WCF's landed us PJ Carlismo and Mo Cheeks, both were major setbacks. I'm not sure we can afford a setback of that level with Jodi at the helm.

 

[Tince]

Except we beat a team with 1 all-star (who's worse than ours) in the WCSF, and our 2nd best player was the best player in the series and played like a superstar, primarily through isolation and freelance...

We beat 2 all-stars in the 1st round and a deep team with HCA in the second round. Again, you don't see many examples of teams making it to the WCF's with one all-star.

I think you greatly over state the amount of isolation offense Portland runs. Just yesterday on the radio they were talking about how we have over 100 plays and those plays have multiple variations of them. I think they played a clip of Quin Synder saying Stotts gets the most out of his personnel out of anyone and his offensive knowledge was elite. Personally, I thought Synder's comments were over the top, but he knows a lot more about basketball than I do.

 

[BonesJones]

I don't question you played basketball at a high level, have tools to evaluate players and coaches, and that your opinion has value. You certainly have been called names for constantly banging on Stotts, but there is name calling for those who provide a counter argument, this isn't a tactic only used by one side. Ultimately, I think the name calling comes up when people feel attacked; and it's not right.

You dont mock people, that wasnt directed at you.

 

[BonesJones]

We beat 2 all-stars in the 1st round and a deep team with HCA in the second round. Again, you don't see many examples of teams making it to the WCF's with one all-star.

I think you greatly over state the amount of isolation offense Portland runs. Just yesterday on the radio they were talking about how we have over 100 plays and those plays have multiple variations of them. I think they played a clip of Quin Synder saying Stotts gets the most out of his personnel out of anyone and his offensive knowledge was elite. Personally, I thought Synder's comments were over the top, but he knows a lot more about basketball than I do.

And? Youre acting as if its some rare thing to get to the WCF with only one an all-star as if our roster wasnt that good, but then you have to apply that logic to the Nuggets considering they only had one-star as well. Let alone the fact that they werent experienced. So I don't see how one can use that logic as some sort of accomplishment considering itd apply in a counteracting way towards our opponent.

That's why I'd rather just base it off of what happens on the floor, because thats what determines the result. Thing is, the coaching is responsible for some of the things that happen on the court, but not everything. Simply focusing on results without additional context to evaluate a coach implies that the coach was responsible for everything that happened on the court, and therefore additional context isnt needed.

 

[mook]

Among coaches today-- in a vacuum given the same roster-- where do you rank Terry? I think he's fairly average and we can find someone like him pretty easily. This season even, I'd probably put Nate ahead of him unfortunately.

I think he's in the upper third. He does a good job of developing young guards, he's resurrected careers with guys like Melo, Whiteside, Nurkic, Ariza, Kanter and Hood, and he did what he could with mentally volatile guys like Leonard and Harkless.

Other than Bazemore and Connaughton, I can't think of a lot of guys who left the Blazers and played better elsewhere. This is a much better key, IMO, in evaluating the quality of coach. Certainly better than win/loss record and probably better than playoff record. A coach can only work with the players he's got. If players consistently do better with your coach than they've done in other places, well, maybe you've got a good coach.

I suppose Aldridge played a little better his first couple years in San Antonio, but that kind of proves my point. Pop is a much better coach. For that matter, the Bucks have better coaching so it's not a shock that Connaughton got better there. (He also just got older and more experienced.) I think Bazemore looks better now because he's playing more at the guard position, which is where he fits. You could argue Stotts fucked up by not playing him more there, but it's not like he had much choice.

I suppose the counter-argument is that Dame is such a great leader that he drags up Stotts' mediocrity. Personally, I don't buy it. Dame has his hands full being a superstar. He's a great leader, but he's not a miracle worker. He's not the guy developing young players or assigning minutes or roles or game strategies.

History has shown that in recent years Portland tends to extract about as much out of their talent as they can. That's a sign of good coaching.

I think when we look back on these years, we'll criticize our decisions with talent much more than our coaching.

 

[BonesJones]

I think he's in the upper third. He does a good job of developing young guards, he's resurrected careers with guys like Melo, Whiteside, Nurkic, Ariza and Hood, and he did what he could with mentally volatile guys like Leonard and Harkless.

Other than Bazemore and Connaughton, I can't think of a lot of guys who left the Blazers and played better elsewhere. This is a much better key, IMO, in evaluating the quality of coach. Certainly better than win/loss record and probably better than playoff record. A coach can only work with the players he's got. If players consistently do better with your coach than they've done in other places, well, maybe you've got a good coach.

I suppose Aldridge played a little better his first couple years in San Antonio, but that kind of proves my point. Pop is a much better coach. For that matter, the Bucks have better coaching so it's not a shock that Connaughton got better there. (He also just got older and more experienced.) I think Bazemore looks better now because he's playing more at the guard position, which is where he fits. You could argue Stotts fucked up by not playing him more there, but it's not like he had much choice.

I suppose the counter-argument is that Dame is such a great leader that he drags up Stotts' mediocrity. Personally, I don't buy it. Dame has his hands full being a superstar. He's a great leader, but he's not a miracle worker. He's not the guy developing young players or assigning minutes or roles or game strategies.

Hed be a top third coach for a rebuilding team for all the reasons you gave. For a team trying to win and contend? Bottom third.

 

[mook]

Hed be a top third coach for a rebuilding team for all the reasons you gave. For a team trying to win and contend? Bottom third.

You seem to be saying that a coach who can get the most out of his talent is good for rebuilding teams, but not for contending teams? That seems kind of weird.