Should Stotts be fired if the Blazers lose the series?

It boggles my mind that some people here are ready to leap to firing the coach and blowing up the team after one playoff game loss out of a seven game series. The Blazers go from being the 3rd seed in the West and favored to win their series to being a case for a total rebuild on the basis of one sub-par game? You can't even wait to see what adjustments Stotts makes and how the series plays out?

 

Point to me where I said all these comments. I asked a question.

Chill.

And I don't want to blow up. We literally can't do that with our payroll.

But thinking that we can do better in the playoffs with a different coach is a real possibility. Or is my opinion of that unwarranted either? Maybe I'm jumping too far ahead there too. Smh.

 

Eventually the fans are going to have to realize the only way this roster wins is if they move the team to someplace where Free Agents want to be. /s

 

We shouldn’t have been down 18 in Game 1. We shouldn’t have let NO go on a 12-0 run without a timeout in the middle. We shouldn’t have been so lackadaisical with our passing over and over. Stotts is a nice man but I watched Game 1 and thought about what a coach like a Pop would do in those situations and every time Stotts erred on the side of trust and letting it play out, it blew up in his face.

 

I was probably the only person swayed by Game 1. It was very very frustrating to watch, and I felt like the shortcomings were from a coach not reminding the players that this is the playoffs, not a January game.

 

Forum police will have none of it. Can't express any negative opinions without "boggling minds."

 

I'm trying my best to let his coaching decisions in the last 12 seconds go. Even Pop has done some stupid shit in the playoffs (like taking Duncan out in the final moments of a championship clinching game 6, letting Bosh get an offensive rebound that led to a series changing three by Ray Allen).

 

The last 12 seconds I don’t even count because we should have been up 7 at that point.

 

Are the assistant coaches adequate? Not living in Portland, I don't have a great sense of how much help he gets.

 

You can express any negative opinions you want; just as I can think it's amazingly short sighted to form a coherent opinion about the team's future on the basis of one game.

 

Okay then. There's a coherent take.

 

I can think of multiple examples of times where Pop has let his team play through a bad stretch without calling a timeout. Phil Jackson was famous for doing that. And Stotts did make the adjustments needed for the team to make a push that nearly won the game. Except for a couple of bad decisions by his players, we'd probably be talking about what a masterful job he did in out-coaching Gentry the second half of the game.

 

Despite my red-hot spicy take that Stotts failed the team so spectacularly that I’m now against him, I also think I’m definitely not entitled to having everyone agree with or even respect my opinion. Some of the dudes here really think people have to respect their shitty takes, but that’s just entitlement in action.

 

Two in a row.

 

Yes but let’s be real about Pop’s reputation: if the momentum is against his team and his team is not taking it seriously out there, he’s going to stop the game and let them know.

 

If I get four out of seven I get to stay yeah?

 

There's a cycle for head coaches in the NBA with fan opinion. The honeymoon phase after being hired. The "Okay, he needs time to put his system into action" phase. The, "He's probably not the guy for the job, but who else could we get" phase. And finally, the "We want his head on a platter" phase. Depending upon the level of success, the time required for those phases to cycle can go from a single year to 3 years or more. It's a testament to Terry that he's only reached the second to last phase after 6 years.

 

Sure, but lay off the forum police crap. Nobody gives a shit what I post.

 

I've been meaning to say some form of that but I was too lazy to form words