Honest question for Stotts supporters

Sometimes you have to use your eyes and watch games to know if a team is getting wins because of the coach or in spite of the coach.

Stotts threw the last game of the season away last year, by dumb luck he stumbled into that seeding.
Lillard made the craziest buzzer beater i've ever seen to get rid of OKC, by dumb luck Stotts ran away with that series. He didnt drew some kind of an elaborate play to win it all lol.

Would you like to talk about a coach who got swept by a lower seed with HCA just the year before?

 

I'm assuming you think Olshey is an idiot as well because he doesn't use his eyes to watch games?

Stotts got totally out-coached against the NOP in that series, no question about it. I have to give him some credit if his 3rd tier team (by your definition) gets to the WCF's. It's hard to win best of seven-series by dumb luck. What measurable outcome could a Stotts coached team have where you would give him credit?

 

As great as that shot was by Dame, it was tied, the series was 3-1, they won 4-1. I have my issues with Stotts but the narrative that they win because of Dame and in spite of Stotts, and lose only because of Stotts just seems like a bunch of absolutes, where absolutes wont always hold course.

Stotts has definitely been out coached in the playoffs by Kerr and Gentry.

 

Well said!

I have a hard time saying if Stotts got out coached by Kerr because we're talking about a team with 3-4 all-stars beating a team with 1. The Warriors front office built a far superior team, so to get beat by them was zero surprise to me. The NOP series, that's a different story, and I thought Stotts got totally out-coached.

 

Superior team or not, the Blazers are something like 1-16 vs GS / Kerr, a great playoff coach would have figured out how to pull out a few of those. Doesnt mean great coaches dont get swept here or there, but thats pretty extreme...

 

We got swept in the Golden State series because of coaching. The horrible scheme in game 1, the lack of backside rotation afterwards due to us only running the scheme we ran in game 1, the lack of timeouts during a Golden State 18-2 run... etc. To the people thatre talking about "Well, GS had 3 or 4 all stars we had 1", just watch what happens on the floor.

 

They lost cause of rebounding and lack of getting back on defense how many times are they going to let a rebound lead to a fast break 3 or and one because half the team is jogging back... Maybe without Nurk and Kanter with one arm rebounding was a lost cause, but still they sprint back on defense and pick up the ball they win at least a couple of those games. Instead they made it look like Gs (especially Draymond) wanted it more, and while its on the Players to get back, my guess is most coaches wouldve been losing their minds over that and really laying into the team, but it didnt seem like Stotts ever did.

 

Yes, that on top of what I was talking about.

 

Do you think Golden St and Portland's talent levels were comparable?

 

Last year, somewhat....? I think GS was better, but they were down DMC, and KD, Blazers choked so hard...

 

You may disagree, but I think one team being superior talent wise to does matter. If I went around touting Stotts record vs the Lakers over the past 5 years, I don't think many people would say that proves much because for the most part, we were far more talented.

Kerr is proven he can have a ton of success with a roster of 3-4 all-stars and he deserves a ton of credit for that. How many series would you say he has won where his team had less talent?

 

Playoffs and Regular season are different beasts. Of course, Talent / Players matters and I probably wouldn't have favored the Blazers to win those series', but to win once in 16 shots when you have time to gameplan for your opponents and dissect everything they do. Last year, for instance, the Clippers who were worse than the Blazers beat them twice, and Houston who was about on par with the Blazers beat them twice.

 

I thought the Warriors still had 3 of the 4 best players in the series, but I totally respect what you're saying. Clearly Portland had the scheme/players to compete because they had double digit leads in 3 out of 4 games. Last year was BY FAR the closest they've been talent wise, the other years it was a total land-slide. You'd agree, right?

 

Obviously it matters. They went that much better though. We shouldnt have gotten swept.

Everytime I bring up specific issues with this team, I get hit with the generic "We're not good enough" type of narrative.

 

I'd be curious to see what % of the games Portland lead against Golden St vs Houston or the Clippers. Game-control is often a better representation in how competitive a series was. Another reason why the NOP sweep was SO bad!

 

I thought even with Nurk down last year the Blazers had a lot more depth than GS. I'd agree the other years GS was just better than them. I'm not sure if I said it in this threat or another one, but my my biggest "problems" with playoff Stotts / Blazers were the New Orleans series and the WCF's last year. Game one they looked like they didn't know Steph could shoot, games 2-4 they would build leads then forget that oh the games 48 minutes long...

 

CJ is better than Draymond. Draymonds so overrated. The "They had 3 all-stars, we had 1" is misleading, because it equates Draymond with Dame, and doesnt count CJ. But when I bring up specific things that happened on the court, that's what I hear in response.

 

I think both sides of the arguement bring up specifics and both sides make a case using general statements. I greatly appreciate that you give reasons for why you think Stotts isn't good enough vs. just saying "watch the game" or "eye test".

 

Would love to see you rankings for the following players 1-8:

Dame, CJ, Aminu, Harkless (feel free to substitute any Blazers in you'd like) vs Steph, Klay, Green, Iggy.

 

I always try to go in-depth on things! It gets hard because it's a lot to type sometimes.