And on a side note, whether they fire Stotts or not, I'm neutral. I want what's best for this team and its success. I guess the only reason I'm even posting about this is that fact that I'm SO FUCKING TIRED or reading how HE is the reason we "suck"! It just gets so fucking old. And the fact that just because you fire this dude, we are all of a sudden a contender. Like I said, many factors involved.
What about Charlotte and their coach? I mean, I could go search for new coaches who have struggled like you did with the 2 who have succeeded. What are the coaches doing wrong? Clifford in Orlando, Ryan Saunders in Minny.......the list goes on and on. My opinion why those above have struggled, lack of talent.
Perhaps people don't think he's the reason that we suck, but just that his coaching doesn't actually bring anything positive to the team's performance. Essentially that Dame's presence would be sufficient for this team to win more than they lose, even if Stotts just stayed home every game. If people believe that to be the case, is it unreasonable for them to want a coach that elevates the talent he's given to work with?
I'll wait to see how he does Sunday. He kinda got carried in the NFC Championship Game, which is the complaint about Stotts.
I actually really like Borrego from Charlotte. He has their team close to top 10 on defense without any stoppers per se.
I feel like most people are, even if that's not how they explicitly think of it. Close to 100% of the team's problems are the players, but that's the hard thing to solve. The easy thing to do is to fire the coach. That's why almost every unhappy fanbase advocates firing the coach--because it's the quickest change you can make, whether or not it'll actually change much.
Getting off-topic, but Tampa wasn't crap last year. It's remarkable how often I've heard "Brady took one of the worst teams to the Super Bowl!" They had one of the best defenses, a solid offensive line (that they improved in the draft) and great skill position players. They were literally being sabotaged by their quarterback--Brady not only didn't sabotage the team, he was legitimately good. But he didn't single-handedly win with a trash team as people keep suggesting.
but you're not making neutral posts. Neutral doesn't incessantly push back against negative, which is what you've been doing I think I'm a lot more neutral on Stotts than you are. I think he's had 9 seasons of flawed rosters, and I spent several of those seasons, fairly ambivalent about retaining Stotts...or firing him. Mainly because I think Olshey should be the first firing. But I'm convinced the Blazers need major changes; and that the players, especially Dame, need to be taken out of the comfort zones they've developed under Stotts because those comfort zone have created bad habits and low accountability
Sure it does, if the tide you're pushing back against is way more negative than warranted. Then "neutral" means bringing things back to where they should be. Someone neutral on whether Stotts is good would disagree with the contention that Stotts is the worst coach in human history, for example. Not that anyone has said that, but the point is that you can be neutral and still push back on overly-negative analysis. And if you perceive a constant stream of overly-negative analysis, then that push back might be "incessant." Thanks for making me defend the HCP. I need to go post a highly anti-Melo sentiment to make up for this.
we're quibbling about the trivial here, but I disagree. Again, HCP has been all over this forum pushing hard, in thread after thread, against people criticizing Stotts. That's not neutral. Neutral wouldn't care about a majority position. How often have you seen me post in this thread? neutral wouldn't care if Stotts was fired
