While I semi-agree with you, you could say that each shot Frye took last year was at the expense of Nash (42%), Hill (44%), Dudley (46%), Dragic (40%) and Richardson (39%). They seemed to be able to rebound well enough.
Me, too. I don't want to seem to be arguing that Nate has been bad, that he should be fired, or that we could just plug anyone in there and see the same results (or better). To me, it comes down to: 1. Is Nate a flexible coach? (I would argue no.) 2. Has Nate's approach been a recipe for success in the NBA in the 10 seasons he's coached? (I would argue "kind of".) 3. Is Nate's approach capable of being successful in the future? 4. Would a failure to succeed in the next year or two be excused based on past success? I think that the answer to 3 is "yes" but the answer to 4 is "no". Sloan and Pop are No/Yes/Yes/Yes for me. Ed O.
