What it will take to get Stotts fired?

[TBpup]

Would it have been more of a success if we lost to Denver in game 7 last year so we could say we won 2 of our last 5? Most teams that get eliminated in the playoffs lost either 3 or 4 of their last 5 games.

Most teams lost either 4 or 4 of their last five just isn't the same as EVERY SINGLE YEAR FOR THE LAST 7 SEASONS the Blazers have been swept out or gentleman swept out of the Playoffs.

 

[Minstrel]

We didn't really blast through the bubble. Pretty much every one of our games including the play-in game couple easily have gone the other way. In a number of those games, the opposing team was resting one or more of its top players.

I merely meant their record; not that they were dominant.

 

[OneSport3]

I remember hearing the same about Nate.

What’s your point? We moved on from Nate. Found Stotts. Gave him a chance and he turned out to be an average-below average coach as well.

 

[PCmor7]

I merely meant their record; not that they were dominant.

Ah. Understood.

 

[Minstrel]

And what talent does Nick Nurse have on the Raptors right now? He doesn’t have a top 30 player on his roster yet they’re winning at a higher clip this year than last year with Kawhi. I’d hazard to say Portland has more talent on their roster in their 1-7 than the Raptors do.

I'd hazard to disagree. The Raptors don't have superstars, so the Blazers are up 1-0 there, but they're deep in talented two-way players.

Besides, Nick Nurse is an example of an exceptional coach--there are five or six of those in the entire league, IMO. If you can get Nick Nurse, sure, get rid of Stotts. The chances of getting a Nick Nurse is extremely low.

 

[Tince]

For a guy that has stated he is indifferent to the retention or termination of Stotts, you sure do spend a lot of time defending him and positing for his retention.

Also, if you do believe that coaching is highly overrated, why so much resistance to getting rid of an average-below average coach? Should be a non-issue.

I don't think it's the problem. I won't shed a tear if he gets fired. I would rather the resources go towards improving the people on the court, not the people who sit in a chair all game.

The coaching change will just buy Olshey more time to say his roster needs more time to adjust to the new system.

 

[brooklynballer]

I'd hazard to disagree. The Raptors don't have superstars, so the Blazers are up 1-0 there, but they're deep in talented two-way players.

Besides, Nick Nurse is an example of an exceptional coach--there are five or six of those in the entire league, IMO. If you can get Nick Nurse, sure, get rid of Stotts. The chances of getting a Nick Nurse is extremely low.

Nick Nurse was an unknown prior to taking that job. Who knows how many Nick Nurse’s are out there? You’ll never know until you fire Stotts and start to recruit.

We all know what Stotts is. We know he’s not going to change. Tweaking the roster and expecting a different result while running the same asinine offensive and defensive system is the definition of insanity. Eight years is long enough.

 

[OneSport3]

If it were that simple, they would. Judging from coaching hires the NBA in general has made over my watching lifetime, I don't believe anyone has an ability to figure out who will be an impact coach ahead of time. Most of the notable ones came out of nowhere, for all the fanfare they got and for all the attention they got from other teams.

Impact coaches are exceptionally rare--getting one is like getting Tom Brady in the sixth round. The Patriots weren't brilliant, they were mostly lucky (with maybe slightly more vision than other teams). Were the Spurs brilliant in selecting a former CIA guy in Gregg Popovich to be their head coach? Were the Lakers brilliant in selecting a former announcer in Pat Riley? Were the Warriors brilliant in selecting a former announcer and GM in Steve Kerr? I doubt it--they deserve some credit, but they also got extremely lucky.

Of course it takes some luck. But if you don’t even try, there is zero chance of finding the next great coach. Stotts has had a long tenure with the team. He has proven to be an average-below average coach.

Why continue to languish in mediocrity when there is a chance to improve?

 

[Buffalo Custard]

And Cheeks (well maybe worse things were said about him), that Dunleavy can't get teams over the hump. PJ would provide the discipline that players coach Rick Adelman couldn't. The next coach is always going to be the one!

There is no guarantee that change will be for the better. There is a guarantee that you can't improve without change.

 

[Tince]

There is no guarantee that change will be for the better. There is a guarantee that you can't improve without change.

That's why I'm against bringing back the same roster year after year. Stotts won 33 games one year, 54 games the next year. So a team can improve (or get worse) by 20+ games w/out changing coaches. You don't see me sitting here saying "this roster is tailor made to win it all, we just need to sit on it for 2 more years." This roster is so flawed, that's the problem!

 

[PCmor7]

I'd hazard to disagree. The Raptors don't have superstars, so the Blazers are up 1-0 there, but they're deep in talented two-way players.

Besides, Nick Nurse is an example of an exceptional coach--there are five or six of those in the entire league, IMO. If you can get Nick Nurse, sure, get rid of Stotts. The chances of getting a Nick Nurse is extremely low.

Do you think the Raptors knew Nick Nurse was an exceptional coach when they hired him? Or Mike Budenholzer with the Hawks? Or Brad Stevens with the Celtics, considering the track record of college guys making the leap? Or Kerr? Or Pop?

I mean, I just don't know if I can accept the idea of keeping Stotts just because we MIGHT hire someone the same quality. He seems to have been exposed for having some very exploitable problems and he hasn't seemed to do anything to overcome them and he's had an awful lot of time to do that.

I'm like you. I don't think he's a horrible coach. I think he's an average coach. The odds are if you replace him, you are going to replace him with another average coach. So what, then? Are we that afraid to make big moves that are going to take us out of the championship picture? We're not in the championship picture. We're falling out of the playoff picture. And we have one of the 10 best players in the NBA.

 

[Tince]

Of course it takes some luck. But if you don’t even try, there is zero chance of finding the next great coach. Stotts has had a long tenure with the team. He has proven to be an average-below average coach.

Why continue to languish in mediocrity when there is a chance to improve?

How many below average coaches in the league have a 7 year playoff streak under their belt? If coaching was the end-all, be-all, wouldn't an average coach make the playoffs half the time?

 

[brooklynballer]

How many below average coaches in the league have a 7 year playoff streak under their belt? If coaching was the end-all, be-all, wouldn't an average coach make the playoffs half the time?

HE HAS A HOF PLAYER ON THE ROSTER FOR PETE’S SAKE. Take Dame off this team and I’m not sure Stotts has even a single playoff appearance.

 

[TBpup]

How many below average coaches in the league have a 7 year playoff streak under their belt? If coaching was the end-all, be-all, wouldn't an average coach make the playoffs half the time?

Would be interesting to see how many coaches have had a player of Dame's caliber for that long....and then compared Playoff success.

 

[PCmor7]

I just keep seeing a lot of the same things. First, it was that we couldn't sign decent free agents. Except there are examples of other less-visible markets finding ways to do that without overpaying.

But, OK, let's say that signing a free agent who moves the needle for the Blazers is a pipe dream. So how do you move the needle then? You either have to have a GM who is exceptionally shrewd in trades or drafting (or both) or you need a coach that finds ways to make role players move the needle, either via scheme or via motivational skill or both.

Yes, maybe that's an exceptional coach. But if I keep hearing all these reasons why the Blazers can't compete I'm starting to wonder why we're even in the NBA. Doesn't seem like some of our fans think there is any chance to be competitive. If I'm the owner reading this I'm wondering why I shouldn't just pay the absolute minimum to put a team with a slight pulse on the court in Portland because there aren't any expectations to actually do anything. And we're so petrified of taking a chance on being great that we've become overly comfortable being slightly above average every year and treading water.

 

[Tince]

HE HAS A HOF PLAYER ON THE ROSTER FOR PETE’S SAKE. Take Dame off this team and I’m not sure Stotts has even a single playoff appearance.

Talented players are far more important to team success than the coach. We can agree on that, right?

 

[Minstrel]

Of course it takes some luck. But if you don’t even try, there is zero chance of finding the next great coach. Stotts has had a long tenure with the team. He has proven to be an average-below average coach.

Why continue to languish in mediocrity when there is a chance to improve?

Of course it takes some luck. But if you don’t even try, there is zero chance of finding the next great coach. Stotts has had a long tenure with the team. He has proven to be an average-below average coach.

Why continue to languish in mediocrity when there is a chance to improve?

I don't particularly care if Stotts remains coach or not. I guess like Tince, I've seen that every time the Blazers fall short on talent, people talk about how the coach is substandard. And if I'm being brutally honest, it sounds a lot like sports radio call-ins. I know everyone here fancies themselves a basketball expert, but being a big basketball fan doesn't necessarily make you an expert. Coaches are just the easiest change to make, so that's what fans latch on to. The obvious issue is lack of talent, but you can't just change that with the snap of one's fingers. You can fire the coach just like that.

As I said, Stotts in no way was holding back the 2014-15 team that had a lot of talent and looked elite before injuries derailed them. And since then, he's had a pretty weak hand to play. I don't think Stotts is clearly a below average coach and I don't honestly think either of you are capable of making such a determination either, at least in a convincing manner.

I'm not going to mourn if Stotts is fired--and if the Blazers have a conviction about some unproven, intriguing coaching prospect, sure, they should pull the trigger. But for every Phil Jackson or Nick Nurse plucked from relative obscurity, there's a hundred Tim Floyds. I'm against firing Stotts just to "make a change." That's a terrible reason. You fire a coach because you've found someone you believe to be better.

 

[Tince]

Would be interesting to see how many coaches have had a player of Dame's caliber for that long....and then compared Playoff success.

How about this. Look at "Similar" players according to basketball reference. How many of these players won a title w/out another all-star as a teammate? How many never even made it to the finals?



Looks like a mixed bag to me. Most made it to the conference finals. I'd say half weren't even the best player on their team.

 

[brooklynballer]

Talented players are far more important to team success than the coach. We can agree on that, right?

Absolutely not. Yes you need talent (which Portland has - three current players in the Top 100) but you also need a good coach who can maximize the attributes and skills of the talent. Stotts doesn’t do that. Players have to fit Stotts’ system not the other way around. If a player is incapable of making a standstill three while his two guards fuck around with the ball, then this team loses, and loses bad. That’s on the coach, not the talent.

 

[TBpup]

@Tince....I agree about Dame not having an all-star running mate. But then why do so many people get so worked up about moving some of our players for the opportunity to upgrade and combine Dame with an all-star?

 

[Minstrel]

Do you think the Raptors knew Nick Nurse was an exceptional coach when they hired him? Or Mike Budenholzer with the Hawks? Or Brad Stevens with the Celtics, considering the track record of college guys making the leap? Or Kerr? Or Pop?

No, but they probably had some kind of conviction about those guys when they made the decision. I doubt their process was "Our coach isn't brilliant, so let's just fire him and then see what happens."

As I said, I'm perfectly fine with the Blazers firing Stotts and hiring someone else if they find someone they see something special in. Or, as I put it before, have a conviction about. That's great and healthy. I've largely been against the viewpoint I see a lot (not imputing this to you, specifically) of "I'm upset that my team isn't great, let's fire the coach because whatever we're doing now isn't working."

 

[Tince]

Absolutely not. Yes you need talent (which Portland has - three current players in the Top 100) but you also need a good coach who can maximize the attributes and skills of the talent. Stotts doesn’t do that. Players have to fit Stotts’ system not the other way around. If a player is incapable of making a standstill three while his two guards fuck around with the ball, then this team loses, and loses bad. That’s on the coach, not the talent.

3 in the Top 100? There are 30 teams in the league, so that means more teams than not should have 3, top 100 players. You're basically pointing out there Portland has below average talent, but had made the playoffs 7 years in a row.

 

[Tince]

@Tince....I agree about Dame not having an all-star running mate. But then why do so many people get so worked up about moving some of our players for the opportunity to upgrade and combine Dame with an all-star?

I think this is a FANTASTIC point! We saw most people did not want to trade CJ for Luka because CJ was a known commodity.

 

[PCmor7]

You fire a coach because you've found someone you believe to be better.

That almost never happens.

You fire a coach because you don't like the direction the team is going in. You do a search and find a candidate you think has the chance to do best. Or you fire a coach because your superstar player can't co-exist with the current coach.

Very rarely is a somewhat successful coach fired because the GM or owner finds an intriguing assistant on a rival and thinks they're the next Red Auerbach.

 

[Tince]

That almost never happens.

You fire a coach because you don't like the direction the team is going in. You do a search and find a candidate you think has the chance to do best. Or you fire a coach because your superstar player can't co-exist with the current coach.

Very rarely is a somewhat successful coach fired because the GM or owner finds an intriguing assistant on a rival and thinks they're the next Red Auerbach.

This is also a great point.

I do think in the case of Toronto, they probably knew Nurse was something special and didn't want to lose him. The Oregon Ducks kindly asked the most successful football coach in the history of the univeristy to step aside because they thought Chip Kelly was special. If we have some mad genius in our organization that nobody knows about, I would hope we would make the move.

 

[Minstrel]

Very rarely is a somewhat successful coach fired because the GM or owner finds an intriguing assistant on a rival and thinks they're the next Red Auerbach.

I agree that teams rarely think that an assistant they could hire is the next Red Auerbach.

 

[PCmor7]

No, but they probably had some kind of conviction about those guys when they made the decision. I doubt their process was "Our coach isn't brilliant, so let's just fire him and then see what happens."

As I said, I'm perfectly fine with the Blazers firing Stotts and hiring someone else if they find someone they see something special in. Or, as I put it before, have a conviction about. That's great and healthy. I've largely been against the viewpoint I see a lot (not imputing this to you, specifically) of "I'm upset that my team isn't great, let's fire the coach because whatever we're doing now isn't working."

Nurse might be a rarity in that he actually had been a Raptors assistant for five years before he was hired. The vast majority of these coaching changes don't work that way.

 

[Tince]

How about this. Look at "Similar" players according to basketball reference. How many of these players won a title w/out another all-star as a teammate? How many never even made it to the finals?

View attachment 33147

Looks like a mixed bag to me. Most made it to the conference finals. I'd say half weren't even the best player on their team.

It also looks to me that Magic is the only person on this list you would say was the best player on a championship team. But you could easily argue Kareem was their best player and they had another All-Star (Worthy) on the team as well. These "similar" players couldn't do it on their own.

 

[Buffalo Custard]

3 in the Top 100? There are 30 teams in the league, so that means more teams than not should have 3, top 100 players. You're basically pointing out there Portland has below average talent, but had made the playoffs 7 years in a row.

Does that mean you are unimpressed with our GM?

Why does this have to be an either/or question? If someone wants to make a case against Olshey, surely there are better ways to do it than to over-inflate the value of Stotts?

 

[PCmor7]

I agree that teams rarely think that an assistant they could hire is the next Red Auerbach.

Except that's not what I wrote, Minstrel. I was addressing your contention that coaches are being fired because GMs already see someone elsewhere they have in mind to put into place.

The vast majority of coaching changes are done -- rightly or wrongly -- because the GM or owner or star player aren't happy with that coach.