I guess I should have expected this sort of response. A lot of fans have an emotial attachment to the guy from his days in a Blazers' uni. I guess I would like to hear more about what specific strengths he brings to the staff. I've heard and read numerous praises of Demopoulos, Prunty, Canales, and Williams ... even Bayno when he was here. Don't you think we'd see or hear at least ONE story about Luc's presence on the staff? Seems to me that would be a great feature piece, seeing as how he's the only former Blazer on the staff. Although you would have to present some evidence that he's adding something - toughening up Oden and Aldridge, or helping them work on their post moves, etc. I have nothing against Lucas. I just want to see us maximize our big men, since that seems to be the key to us winning championships in the near future. -Pop
Not me. I wasn't a Blazers fan until 2000, not having grown up in Portland. I have no emotional connection to Lucas whatsoever. I simply don't see that you've provided any evidence that Lucas is a poor/unnecessary coach. In the absence of that, the default to me is that McMillan and Pritchard continue to employ him because they believe he has value to the team.
I'll grant you my evidence isn't very compelling. It's merely the fact that no evidence he's a good/necessary coach exists either, despite the fact that evidence exists for each of his colleagues on the staff. I don't necessarily agree with this. Very rarely do you see an assistant get fired unless the head coach gets canned. Coaches are very loyal to each other. The fact they haven't replaced him doesn't necessarily mean he's considered irreplacable. -Pop
I would say that his continued employment is "evidence" (not proof). "Irreplaceable" is a very different standard. No one on the Blazers except perhaps Oden is irreplacable. The question is whether Lucas has value / is a good coach, which I don't think we have the information to evaluate. And perhaps assistants aren't fired by the GM unless the head coach is fired...that still doesn't explain why McMillan employed him and continues to.
Ratliff, Magloire, Przybilla, Randolph, Aldridge, Frye and Oden all seemed to play to their current capabilitiy. (You could argue about Ratliff, I suppose. But the guy just seemed to give up. How do you coach around that?) None of those players have done better after leaving this team. Not conclusive evidence, I'll concede. But probably the best evidence I can see from our limited perspective on either side of the argument.
