Terry Stotts has been extended

[oldmangrouch]

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.

An important distinction. Contrary to many here, I felt Nate did a good job getting the team from bad to middle-of-the-pack. Where he failed was when asked to lift the team from decent to true contender.

 

[mook]

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.

I think this is by far the best argument I've read for changing coaches. I remember reading in Larry Bird's autobiography that he felt after 3 seasons players need new coaching just because of the staleness issue. New perspectives and fresh ideas are good for the team. It's why he only coached three seasons for Indy.

Pop and Phil Jackson both broke that rule and clearly succeeded, but Pop is well-known for bringing in a variety of assistants, and Phil was never stale as a coach.

Portland is especially getting stale when you consider we've had the same GM and the same coach for 7 seasons. When you have a superstar with so many playoff flameouts, there's normally a lot of pressure to turn things over because of the superstar getting impatient. Lillard's patience (and of course that supermax contract) is both a blessing and a curse.

 

[oldmangrouch]

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.

But are those guys really a bigger risk than Stotts was when he was hired? The guy had already crashed and burned in 2 different chances to be a head coach. How was a retread with no history of success not a huge risk?

 

[oldmangrouch]

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.

I can get the most (or close to it) out of my grandpa van. Doesn't mean I can get the most out of a high performance muscle car.

 

[BonesJones]

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.

He doesnt get the most out of his talent though. He develops players well and creates a good culture. Thats good for rebuilding teams, but not for getting teams over the top. That takes top-notch gameplanning, in-game adjustments, offensive and defensive schemes, and other things that arent relevant to a team trying to rebuild.

 

[kjironman1]

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.

Every player on the team and most every coach in the league says Stotts gets the most out of his players. It ain't just Quinn Snyder. We are talking about the very best basketball minds on the planet.

 

[mook]

He doesnt get the most out of his talent though. He develops players well and creates a good culture. Thats good for rebuilding teams, but not for getting teams over the top. That takes top-notch gameplanning, in-game adjustments, offensive and defensive schemes, and other things that arent relevant to a team trying to rebuild.

What players aside from the three I identified have been really held back by Stotts? I understand you disagree with his coaching because of playing style, schemes, etc. You feel no matter what kind of talent we have, we'd be limited.

But can you name Blazer players who actually did better elsewhere? I really can't come up with much of a list.

I think our teams just haven't been that talented, and whether he could or could not be a good playoff coach with a really talented roster is kind of hard to know. Maybe you know he'd fail because you just understand playoff basketball better than Stotts, but you can see why I'd have my doubts about that.

Anyway, like I said, I can get on board with the idea that Portland is probably overdue for coaching/GM shakeup. If they only pick one, I really, really hope they start with the GM.

Reasonable people can disagree as to whether Stotts is the right coach. But it's pretty hard for me to understand how we are 7 years into the failed Dame/CJ experiment, how we paid so much for Turner/Meyers/Hark, and how we started the season without any sort of player beyond Mario Hezonja who was 6-6 to 6-9 when the entire league is going that way.

 

[brooklynballer]

He doesnt get the most out of his talent though. He develops players well and creates a good culture. Thats good for rebuilding teams, but not for getting teams over the top. That takes top-notch gameplanning, in-game adjustments, offensive and defensive schemes, and other things that arent relevant to a team trying to rebuild.

This. 100% accurate.

 

[brooklynballer]

Every player on the team and most every coach in the league says Stotts gets the most out of his players. It ain't just Quinn Snyder. We are talking about the very best basketball minds on the planet.

Please provide examples of direct quotes supporting your claim. Why? Because all I hear on every national broadcast is how iso-heavy Portland’s offense is which, to me, does not imply a very complex playbook. The eye test confirms a “my turn, your turn” approach to offensive possessions.

 

[mook]

Please provide examples of direct quotes supporting your claim. Why? Because all I hear on every national broadcast is how iso-heavy Portland’s offense is which, to me, does not imply a very complex playbook. The eye test confirms a “my turn, your turn” approach to offensive possessions.

You can run an iso-heavy offense and still be a high scoring team. Houston is second in the league in scoring and are ridiculously iso-dependent. Portland is 9th, which given our talent is pretty good IMO. We're 10th place in offensive rating. Houston is again 2nd.

Just take a look at this list. Given our talent this year, with the right coach how much higher up do you think we'd be? Honestly, I kind of doubt it gets much better no matter what you do.

And really, I kind of think Portland plays iso-heavy because that's what Dame and CJ want. Dame is really, really good at running the pick and roll, and CJ's single best asset is his handle.

I don't think this team does a lot better by putting the ball in the hands of Ariza, Whiteside and Melo more. I mean it feels kind of comical to even say that Dame and CJ need to pass the ball more so those guys can get theirs. Those guys just aren't very good at doing much more than we ask them to.

It's a predictable offense because a lot of our guys just aren't that great at offense. It's a talent thing. *shrug*

 

[kjironman1]

Please provide examples of direct quotes supporting your claim. Why? Because all I hear on every national broadcast is how iso-heavy Portland’s offense is which, to me, does not imply a very complex playbook. The eye test confirms a “my turn, your turn” approach to offensive possessions.

2016-

Terry Stotts, Trail Blazers: Much has been made of Stotts putting the Blazers in position to make the playoffs despite losing four of his five starters in trades or free-agent moves. The thing is, it shouldn’t be that surprising. Stotts did the same thing in Milwaukee in 2005-06, when he took over a Bucks team that had won 30 games, changed four starters (all except Michael Redd) and made the playoffs. “The No. 1 overachiever, far and away, when you talk to anyone out there,” one coaching industry source said. And my pick right now for COY.
2017-18
Stotts has the Blazers at 44-26 — third in the crowded, ultra-competitive Western Conference. And they’ve won 13 games in a row — already one of the longest win streaks in franchise history.

Oh yeah — and the players love him.

As The Portland Tribune’s Kerry Eggers reports, Lillard especially appreciates Stotts.

“Every guy who has come through here, they play under him and they have career years because of the freedom he allows you to have,” Lillard said. “The level of comfort he gives guys to be themselves is a great trait to have as a coach.”

The Competition
My guess is that Stotts’ competition for the Red Auerbach Trophy are Houston’s Mike D’Antoni and the Toronto Raptors’ Dwane Casey. And if I had any money, it would be on Casey to win the award. Other contenders for Coach of the Year: Boston’s Brad Stevens and Indiana’s Nate McMillan.

Do i really need to continue this charade? Every year the guy is in the running for COY. Exactly how many more quotes would you like to read?
Maybe you should just look them up yourself?

 

[BonesJones]

Please provide examples of direct quotes supporting your claim. Why? Because all I hear on every national broadcast is how iso-heavy Portland’s offense is which, to me, does not imply a very complex playbook. The eye test confirms a “my turn, your turn” approach to offensive possessions.

Exactly. Ive heard so many shots at our style of play this year.

 

[BonesJones]

2016-

Terry Stotts, Trail Blazers: Much has been made of Stotts putting the Blazers in position to make the playoffs despite losing four of his five starters in trades or free-agent moves. The thing is, it shouldn’t be that surprising. Stotts did the same thing in Milwaukee in 2005-06, when he took over a Bucks team that had won 30 games, changed four starters (all except Michael Redd) and made the playoffs. “The No. 1 overachiever, far and away, when you talk to anyone out there,” one coaching industry source said. And my pick right now for COY.
2017-18
Stotts has the Blazers at 44-26 — third in the crowded, ultra-competitive Western Conference. And they’ve won 13 games in a row — already one of the longest win streaks in franchise history.

Oh yeah — and the players love him.

As The Portland Tribune’s Kerry Eggers reports, Lillard especially appreciates Stotts.

“Every guy who has come through here, they play under him and they have career years because of the freedom he allows you to have,” Lillard said. “The level of comfort he gives guys to be themselves is a great trait to have as a coach.”

The Competition
My guess is that Stotts’ competition for the Red Auerbach Trophy are Houston’s Mike D’Antoni and the Toronto Raptors’ Dwane Casey. And if I had any money, it would be on Casey to win the award. Other contenders for Coach of the Year: Boston’s Brad Stevens and Indiana’s Nate McMillan.

Do i really need to continue this charade? Every year the guy is in the running for COY. Exactly how many more quotes would you like to read?
Maybe you should just look them up yourself?

You can find good things said about every head coach in the NBA, that doesnt mean theyre all good NBA coaches.

And this is inline with the point I made before. Now were talking about a few quotes instead of whats happening out there on the court.

 

[BonesJones]

You can run an iso-heavy offense and still be a high scoring team. Houston is second in the league in scoring and are ridiculously iso-dependent. Portland is 9th, which given our talent is pretty good IMO. We're 10th place in offensive rating. Houston is again 2nd.

Just take a look at this list. Given our talent this year, with the right coach how much higher up do you think we'd be? Honestly, I kind of doubt it gets much better no matter what you do.

And really, I kind of think Portland plays iso-heavy because that's what Dame and CJ want. Dame is really, really good at running the pick and roll, and CJ's single best asset is his handle.

I don't think this team does a lot better by putting the ball in the hands of Ariza, Whiteside and Melo more. I mean it feels kind of comical to even say that Dame and CJ need to pass the ball more so those guys can get theirs. Those guys just aren't very good at doing much more than we ask them to.

It's a predictable offense because a lot of our guys just aren't that great at offense. It's a talent thing. *shrug*

But if were going to run an iso-heavy offense which is by far the easiest offense to run, then lets hire a coach who actually makes a positive contribution on the defensive side of the ball.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

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.

When they Hired Terry was that a big swing? He had basically flamed out as an NBA Head coach. Any coach they bring in is a risk, keeping Stotts is a risk. Risk is just part of the business. I am not saying they have to go for one of those, just that those are names I think of as people I would like to see get a shot or an interview if I was hiring. Keeping Stotts can backfire too.
This year, in particular, I don't know if they could get anything out of the roster (at least the roster available) that's much better then they have. My issue is I think his plays are growing stale with this team, the defensive schemes and philosophy has grown stale and I think they need new, I absolutely agree with you new isn't always better, but still, I think there is a lot of value in fresh new ideas. This is an ultra-competitive sport at the highest level and while there have been some years they have done well, I just don't know what he's really done that garnered him keeping the position so long. He's basically been Dwayne Casey or Mark Jackson - That's not to say the Blazers will get someone like Nick Nurse or Kerr it's just that a tough decision to go for someone else doesn't mean Stotts is an epic failure of a human it just means that you're striving for greatness and willing to take risks that you might be uncomfortable with.
I think you can make an argument Casey and Jackson were also "good" coaches, that just didn't seem to have what it took to get their teams to the next level.

 

[SIeepwalker]

because of the freedom he allows you to have

Except if you're Little, Gabriel, Vonleh, Layman, Skal etc. Then you can go fuck yourself

 

[tester551]

When they Hired Terry was that a big swing? He had basically flamed out as an NBA Head coach. Any coach they bring in is a risk, keeping Stotts is a risk. Risk is just part of the business. I am not saying they have to go for one of those, just that those are names I think of as people I would like to see get a shot or an interview if I was hiring. Keeping Stotts can backfire too.
This year, in particular, I don't know if they could get anything out of the roster (at least the roster available) that's much better then they have. My issue is I think his plays are growing stale with this team, the defensive schemes and philosophy has grown stale and I think they need new, I absolutely agree with you new isn't always better, but still, I think there is a lot of value in fresh new ideas. This is an ultra-competitive sport at the highest level and while there have been some years they have done well, I just don't know what he's really done that garnered him keeping the position so long. He's basically been Dwayne Casey or Mark Jackson - That's not to say the Blazers will get someone like Nick Nurse or Kerr it's just that a tough decision to go for someone else doesn't mean Stotts is an epic failure of a human it just means that you're striving for greatness and willing to take risks that you might be uncomfortable with.
I think you can make an argument Casey and Jackson were also "good" coaches, that just didn't seem to have what it took to get their teams to the next level.

Beautiful post.... +1

 

[CupWizier]

Except if you're Little, Gabriel, Vonleh, Layman, Skal etc. Then you can go fuck yourself

Of those players and even others that have left which ones have excelled and/or showed grerat improvement after Stotts or at their previous team? Little I will give a pass to as he is a young first year player.

 

[Tince]

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.

I guess this is the interesting point on the debate:

What additional context matters and how to evaluate it can be so subjective that either side can take past result and spin them into positives or negatives. I don't have the golden gun, but I'd love to set the context or metrics ahead of time, apply it to a set of future events and see what the result is, that would be way more interesting. Wish I was smart enough to come up with something like that, but so far I have not been able to.

 

[BonesJones]

I guess this is the interesting point on the debate:

What additional context matters and how to evaluate it can be so subjective that either side can take past result and spin them into positives or negatives. I don't have the golden gun, but I'd love to set the context or metrics ahead of time, apply it to a set of future events and see what the result is, that would be way more interesting. Wish I was smart enough to come up with something like that, but so far I have not been able to.

I like you Tince, you're very respectful in your disagreement and you're right, it is subjective. I enjoy our discussions on this matter.

 

[Tince]

But are those guys really a bigger risk than Stotts was when he was hired? The guy had already crashed and burned in 2 different chances to be a head coach. How was a retread with no history of success not a huge risk?

I think retreads by definition are the lowest risk and it's why you see so many retread in professional sports.

Someone who has experience being a head coach in the NBA has a track record of how they handle many situation only head coaches get the opportunity to do. Someone who has never lead a group, just been an asssistant or someone who has coached 18 year olds, not 35 year olds has a much steeper learning curve.

Don't get me wrong, I think that retreads are the lowest risk, but usually have lower ceilings as well. If someone wants us to hire the #1 coach in the NBA, it is unlikely to be a retread. I just also know how poorly non-retreads can go to: See the last 2 we've had in Portland.

 

[Tince]

I like you Tince, you're very respectful in your disagreement and you're right, it is subjective. I enjoy our discussions on this matter.

Likewise my friend! People with opposite points of views (such as yourself) challenge my way of thinking and help me see things in a different light.

We'll probably never fully agree on this Stotts thing, but that's ok too, because I know you and I, like many others on here just want that parade in June for our Blazers!

 

[Tince]

Please provide examples of direct quotes supporting your claim. Why? Because all I hear on every national broadcast is how iso-heavy Portland’s offense is which, to me, does not imply a very complex playbook. The eye test confirms a “my turn, your turn” approach to offensive possessions.

I think I can get you a couple audio files that support this.

I'm curious, what players or coaches are out there who have said anything along the lines that Stotts in inept offensive mind?

 

[BonesJones]

I think retreads by definition are the lowest risk and it's why you see so many retread in professional sports.

Someone who has experience being a head coach in the NBA has a track record of how they handle many situation only head coaches get the opportunity to do. Someone who has never lead a group, just been an asssistant or someone who has coached 18 year olds, not 35 year olds has a much steeper learning curve.

Don't get me wrong, I think that retreads are the lowest risk, but usually have lower ceilings as well. If someone wants us to hire the #1 coach in the NBA, it is unlikely to be a retread. I just also know how poorly non-retreads can go to: See the last 2 we've had in Portland.

The top 4 coaches in the league (IMO) are on their first gig, or were successful in their first gig. Pop, Stevens, Nurse, Budenholzer.

I'd say the reward for first time coaches is greater, because any retread thats available likely has proven to have a ceiling lower than those guys.

In our position, I think we need to take risks to win a championship, one of those being the coach (even though I think there isnt much downside going from Stotts to most other NBA-caliber head coaches).

 

[mook]

But if were going to run an iso-heavy offense which is by far the easiest offense to run, then lets hire a coach who actually makes a positive contribution on the defensive side of the ball.

That's moving the goal post a bit, isn't it? People say he's a bad coach because we flame out in the playoffs. I point out Stotts gets the most of his guys, but we just don't win a lot because of the talent.
Nobody really presents much of a contrary argument, but now his big flaw is he runs an ISO heavy offense. So I point out his offense is surprisingly good, we just don't win a lot becuase of the talent.
So because his team doesn't need much coaching skill as an ISO team, and our defense sucks, we should get a new coach.
I'm happy to address this one too, but I just want to point out people are moving the goal post.

So let's address his ability to coach defense.

He basically plays the same defensive scheme that Utah does for the same reason Utah does. Because of the talent. (See a pattern here?)

Let's back up a little and consider an oft-overlooked aspect of the Blazers' talent strategy. Portland has traditionally had a hard time attracting good free agents. As the league has shifted toward swing men and three point shooters, traditional centers have become kind of a commodity nobody wants. So whereas a decade ago a Nurkic, Kanter or Whiteside would be a premium "get," they're kind of in the bargain bin of the NBA. Olshey lives in that bargain bin, because the only really good talent he has to trade are Dame (untradeable) and CJ (who for reasons that baffle me is also untradeable.) He also drafts 7 footers like Collins and Leonard (and big slow guys like Swannigan) because again, the really good 6'8 guys are basically gone by the time he gets to pick.

So Stotts is handed plodding 7 footer after plodding 7 footer and is told to make it work. He looks at Utah and sees how they make their plodding center work, and we do the same. Sag the center on the pick and roll and hope our guards and wings fight over screens. In this dropping scheme, the center protects the paint, and only comes out to the perimeter in specific situations (late shot clock, Steph Curry will be left open, etc). It's not ideal, obviously, because the best defensive teams in the modern NBA don't do it. The list I link to is lead by squads with lanky 6'8 guys and switching is the name of the game. Even Utah, a traditionally excellent defensive team, is ranked only 13th. Beefy centers are not the future, but they are what we can get. At least under the current strategy.

So why is Utah ranked 13th on that list while we are fucking 27th? Well, it *could* be that their coach is a lot better. Or it *could* be that they don't start two guards with terrible defensive reputations. It could also be that half their team isn't injured. It could also be they don't play Mario Hezonja or Carmelo Anthony. (Sorry, Melo, I love ya but you were never a stopper, and it's getting worse.)

If you fire Stotts and get another coach without changing our GM, that coach will also probably be stuck with bigger slower centers, and we'll be forced to play a dropping center scheme. And our defense will continue to be mediocre at best. Because if Olshey has proven two things in his tenure, it's that he likes his slow 7 footers and he ain't trading CJ for anything, including somebody who can play defense.

 

[Tince]

The top 4 coaches in the league (IMO) are on their first gig, or were successful in their first gig. Pop, Stevens, Nurse, Budenholzer.

I'd say the reward for first time coaches is greater, because any retread thats available likely has proven to have a ceiling lower than those guys.

In our position, I think we need to take risks to win a championship, one of those being the coach (even though I think there isnt much downside going from Stotts to most other NBA-caliber head coaches).

I totally agree with this. Retreads have a lower ceiling. We're highly highly unlikely to be able to get on of the top 3 coaches to leave their siutation to coach us; so if you're an all-or-none type guy who wants the #1 coach, retreads are a BAD option.

On the flipside, coaches with no NBA head coaching experience can absolutely bury a franchise into the ground. I guess I'm paranoid based off our last 2 hires of coaches with no NBA head coaching experience. Also, I can't say I trust Olshey to find the rare coach with no NBA experience who is ready to be a top 3 coach. He strikes me as a guy who is going to hire people within his agency to further his career, etc.

 

[BonesJones]

That's moving the goal post a bit, isn't it? People say he's a bad coach because we flame out in the playoffs. I point out Stotts gets the most of his guys, but we just don't win a lot because of the talent.
Nobody really presents much of a contrary argument, but now his big flaw is he runs an ISO heavy offense. So I point out his offense is surprisingly good, we just don't win a lot becuase of the talent.
So because his team doesn't need much coaching skill as an ISO team, and our defense sucks, we should get a new coach.
I'm happy to address this one too, but I just want to point out people are moving the goal post.

So let's address his ability to coach defense.

He basically plays the same defensive scheme that Utah does for the same reason Utah does. Because of the talent. (See a pattern here?)

Let's back up a little and consider an oft-overlooked aspect of the Blazers' talent strategy. Portland has traditionally had a hard time attracting good free agents. As the league has shifted toward swing men and three point shooters, traditional centers have become kind of a commodity nobody wants. So whereas a decade ago a Nurkic, Kanter or Whiteside would be a premium "get," they're kind of in the bargain bin of the NBA. Olshey lives in that bargain bin, because the only really good talent he has to trade are Dame (untradeable) and CJ (who for reasons that baffle me is also untradeable.) He also drafts 7 footers like Collins and Leonard (and big slow guys like Swannigan) because again, the really good 6'8 guys are basically gone by the time he gets to pick.

So Stotts is handed plodding 7 footer after plodding 7 footer and is told to make it work. He looks at Utah and sees how they make their plodding center work, and we do the same. Sag the center on the pick and roll and hope our guards and wings fight over screens. In this dropping scheme, the center protects the paint, and only comes out to the perimeter in specific situations (late shot clock, Steph Curry will be left open, etc). It's not ideal, obviously, because the best defensive teams in the modern NBA don't do it. The list I link to is lead by squads with lanky 6'8 guys and switching is the name of the game. Utah, a traditionally excellent defensive team, is ranked 13th. Beefy centers are not the future, but they are what we can get. At least under the current strategy.

So why is Utah ranked 13th on that list while we are fucking 27th? Well, it *could* be that their coach is a lot better. Or it *could* be that they don't start two 6'3 guards with terrible defensive reputations. It could also be that half their team isn't injured. It could also be they don't play Mario Hezonja or Carmelo Anthony. (Sorry, Melo, I love ya but you were never a stopper, and it's getting worse.)

If you fire Stotts and get another coach without changing our GM, that coach will also probably be stuck with bigger slower centers, and we'll be forced to play a dropping center scheme. And our defense will continue to be mediocre at best. Because if Olshey has proven two things in his tenure, it's that he likes his slow 7 footers and he ain't trading CJ for anything, including somebody who can play defense.

Utah should be much better than 13th with that roster. Sounds like an indictment of the scheme.

Also, I've seen Whiteside hedge and do a great job. Ive seen similar centers effectively hedge, trap, and ice screens effectively. The "our centers arent mobile enough to do anything but sag" narrative is false and seems like just another excuse for Stotts to not switch things up.

But beyond that, our players take horrible angles through screens and dont go under on players they should. Also, our team has always been a much worse in defensive transition than they should be. Maybe somebodh has stats that show differently, but it seems to me weve always struggled defending in transition.

Also, Stotts has better defenders available, but still chooses Hezonja. Makes you wonder what he truly values...

I could go into much more detail on this but I dont have the time to type it all out. You should tune in for our live postgame show and I'd be glad to have a more in-depth conversation.

 

[Minstrel]

Stotts isn't particularly innovative, but it's hard to say he's underperformed given the level of talent he's had to coach. When he had a balanced, talented team (with Aldridge, Lillard, Matthews, etc), they looked like a power until injuries ravaged the team. Since then, he's had some okay rosters and some pretty poor ones--getting to the WCF, even if they got a more fortunate draw, was definite overperformance. I definitely believe they knocked off a superior team in the Nuggets. And while the Thunder were overrated (especially on this forum), the Blazers played them pretty perfectly from a scheme standpoint.

Nothing in the results suggests to me that Stotts is below average as an NBA coach. It's more fun to have a coach that seems like a genius through exciting and novel schemes and strategies, but that's hardly necessary. Popovich has rarely innovated--in fact, he's actively resisted some of the innovation in the pace-and-space era. He's succeeded through being a rock-solid coach who has always put his players in the best position to succeed. Stotts isn't Popovich, but the point is that you don't judge a coach by how clever or new his schemes are, but by the results he coaxes out of the talent he has. Stotts, IMO, has been no worse than average at that and arguably above average at it.

 

[mook]

Utah should be much better than 13th with that roster. Sounds like an indictment of the scheme.

I think it kind of is, to be honest. Teams are just jacking up so many three pointers now that honestly, I don't know that even a defender like Gobert will have a place in the playoffs anymore. I know that when Portland plays Utah I really don't worry about Gobert. I know Dame is going to hunt him out and light him up with three pointers, or drive right by him if he comes out. I think a lot of teams maybe don't have a guy like Dame, but they have guys that are good enough.

Also, Stotts has better defenders available, but still chooses Hezonja. Makes you wonder what he truly values...

Ugh. I can't stand Hezonja. But I also can't stand that the options coming off the bench for 6'8 guys is basically him or d-leaguers. I'd rather roll the dice on just playing Little, even if he is under-sized. But maybe Stotts doesn't want to put too much pressure on him or something.

 

[Terry Stotts]

Set aside my record, and my accomplishments, and my accolades. Pretend I am an unknown with no history to gauge me on. Just watch how my team plays, with no concern for wins and losses. What do you see? Do you see 5 guys working together to create ball movement and misdirection? Or do you see one guy with the ball and 4 other guys mostly standing around the perimeter, or maybe swapping positions around the perimeter?

I'll be honest with you guys. I really don't have a clue how to use more than one guy at a time. I'm really lucky to be able to give the ball to Dame and tell everyone else to just get out of the way and shoot if the ball gets passed to them. Basketball if a pretty simple sport when you have a guy like Dame!