Mike Budenholzer, anyone?

Not me.

 

You're assuming we'd be playing the Lakers.

 

You’re right. Bud might not have got us through the seeding games and play-in to make the playoffs.

 

He would have played Dame 34 minutes a night, lol

 

Very possible. Equally possible, he doesn't let the team dig itself into such a deep hole to begin with.

 

no doubt about it he's a significant upgrade over Stotts.

 

Maybe. I suppose he might have figured out a way to not have Collins injure his shoulder, or Hood not blow his Achilles. Maybe he could have got Nurk back six months earlier. Maybe he could have gotten Olshey to trade for Ariza sooner. But most likely he would have gotten similar results from a thin patchwork roster.

 

And killed the Pelicans killed Portland during the regular season when they were healthy.

 

Risk v reward. My worthless opinion is that Bud is a somewhat better regular season coach, but just as weak in the play-offs. Bottom line, I can't get emotionally invested in defending either one.

 

Stotts will be here as long as olshey is here. The only way I see Stotts leaving is he just wants to move take another head coaching job some where else. As long this owner not getting involved in this s team and allow olshey runs basketball operation we will just a average team that's makes the playoffs.

 

Funny to me how you could have asked this very same question two weeks ago and people would have called you crazy for even suggesting there would be a question. That is exactly what people mean by "coaches get way too much credit for winning and even more credit for losing".

 

I try to look at it like which variables are likely to have the biggest impact on outcome. I’d say that the coach variable (Stotts vs Bud) is less of a factor on the Blazers record than the fact that the lineup at times had Anthony Tolliver at center and had to play Biggie Swanigan minutes in actual games.

 

I think Stotts actually runs the pick and roll more than he runs iso plays but I could be wrong. The pick and roll is the most effective play in the NBA. @BonesJones would point out that the action going on away from the pick and roll and having a variety of plays that you can go to besides the pick and roll would make our pick and roll better and he would be correct but to say that Stotts' offense is just iso ball would be very incorrect.

 

You're not wrong. You paid attention.

 

Losing happens......getting SWEPT by a lower seed.....hardly EVER happens.

 

This is correct. Off the top of my head, there are only a few I can think of:

Houston sweeping Orlando (Bob Hill) in the finals 94
Dallas sweeping the Lakers (Phil Jackson) on their way to the finals 2011?
Knicks (#8 seed) sweeping the Hawks (Lenny Wilkins) on their way to the finals in 99
Blazers sweeping Lakers (Jerry West) 1977
Boston sweeping Pacers (Rick Carslise) 2003

Just looked up that Red Auerbach Boston Celtics (#2 seed) got swept by the Knicks in 1951

So at least 4 of the coaches who got swept as the higher seed are HOF coaches. Apparently being swept as a higher seed is not an indicator of a bad coach.

Certainly there are a lot more that I'm not thinking of. Not to mention Popovich, George Karl, and Pat Riley have all lost as #1 seeds to the #8 seed.

 

I've always loved Bud but I've soured on him because he's starting to show some Stotts-ish tendencies.

 

I think it's just the easy way to say "basic and stagnant". His offense it's basic pick n roll and isolation, with some areas that utilize movement with basically zero options inside the arc, running towards the hoop, or with good interior positioning. Consistently bottom 5 in assists with solid offensive talent including Dame and a very good passing C... I hate his system.

 

If Bud is only marginally better than Stotts, does that mean Stotts is Bud Light?

 

Or does that mean that with Giannis Stotts is marginally better than Bud?