What it will take to get Stotts fired?

It might be a Lillard thing. But that is his job as a coach. To implement a system and have his players buy into it. Shaq and Kobe were initially resistant to implementing the triangle. Instead he's just too chummy with his players and would rather be a "players coach." The Warriors clearly had a system.

After all these years of getting blasted on high aggressive double teams, I doubt Dame would say, "no, I don't want to do that. I'd rather keep getting stopped by aggressive doubles." You really think that if Stotts told Dame I have a solution to make it easier for you to break traps, Dame would say no?

And if it is a Lillard thing, then there are way bigger issues with this franchise. Would be time to blow it all up, including trading Lillard.

 

I don't think Lillard is just going to say no, but that doesn't mean the change will take. I've seen many stories of coaches trying to get a player to play a certain way and that player struggling to buy in or just not wanting to. I mean, we saw it to an extent in Aldridge, who refused to upsize to center even though it made more sense with the changing times. I don't think Lillard is necessarily going to big-time Stotts and refuse, but if a player's heart isn't into a change or if he struggles with doing it, it won't happen. Brett Brown has been trying for several years to get Ben Simmons to shoot more threes in games and I think it's a similar thing--not rebelliousness, just not having his heart into a change to how he's always played and not necessarily feeling confident in doing it.

 

If that is the case, then this franchise has bigger issues, including trading Lillard. Just like Philly will have to do with Embid or Simmons.

And how is that Philly can fire Brett Brown when he's actually gone extended periods without either Embid or Simmons due to injury the last couple of years? His two franchise players. Yet Stotts has pretty much had Dame and CJ healthy but people keep saying Stotts needs a totally healthy roster to see what he can really do.

 

We live in a baskeball era of superstar player agency and that's not just about where they want to play--they also hold a lot of power in how the team is run and what they're going to do. Kerr and Curry were a perfect duo--a combination of a coaching philosophy that meshed extremely well with the player. That's rare and hard to duplicate. Again, I'm okay with replacing Stotts--if the team already has someone (or someones) in mind that they think is likely to do a better job and that Lillard will sign off on. What I'm against is firing Stotts just because the team isn't great and hey, why not. I don't think Stotts is so bad that anyone you hire is bound to be better and he already has an existing relationship with the franchise player. An upset Lillard sets the franchise back far more than potentially keeping on a coach who doesn't move the needle on his own.

If the Blazers think Hammond or Messina or Jay Wright or whomever has a chance to be special, then sure, take a shot. I just dislike the philosophy of "fire the coach and then see what happens." To me, that's an irrational and chaotic way to run a franchise.

 

Ok. I'll go through and look at a few players (>700 mins/ season). I'll only look at WS/48 so it accounts for defense & is equalized for playing time.

Positives
* Nurk = 0.144 vs career of 0.113 (big improvement - but a lot of it is opportunity & maturity)
* Aminu = 0.090 vs career of 0.076 (big improvement - however his second best season was in Dallas in a similar role.)
* Harkless = 0.103 vs career of 0.085 (big improvement)
* Lopez = 0.166 vs career of 0.115 (big improvement)
* Mathews = 0.122 vs career of 0.097 (much better - but career numbers significantly hampered by injury)


Positives, but does it really matter?
* Meyers = 0.106 in Portland vs 0.096 in Miami (slightly better)
* Mario = 0.043 (highest of his career - but does it matter??? Hes not an NBA talent)
* Layman = Had 1 year of 0.111, but the rest of his career he has been almost unplayable.
* Thomas Robinson = 0.080 vs career of 0.053 (better)


Negatives
* Aldridge = 3 years in Portland under Stotts averaged 0.144 vs 0.175 in San Antonio (much worse). 3 of his best 4 years were under Pop (while the 4th was under McMillan)
* Batum = 3 years in Portland under Stotts averaged 0.110 vs 0.140 in Portland (pre-Stotts).
* Connaugton = 0.070 in Portland vs 0.139 in Milwaukee (much worse)
* Barton = 0.003 in Portland vs 0.094 in Denver (much worse)
* Curry = 0.082 vs career of 0.106 (much worse)
* Melo = 0.033 (lowest of his career) vs career of 0.123
* Bazemore = -0.008 (lowest of his career) vs career of 0.048
* Tolliver = 0.029 vs career of 0.088 (much worse)
* Babbitt = 0.047 vs career of 0.065 (worse)
* Mo Williams = 0.056 vs career of 0.080 (worse)

Neutrals
* Whiteside = 0.204 vs career of 0.199 (very slightly better)
* Ariza = 0.098 vs career of 0.095 (no difference)
* Hood = 0.080 vs career of 0.088 (slightly worse)
* Turner = 0.053 vs career of 0.051 (no difference)
* Shabazz = 0.091 in Portland vs 0.98 in Brooklyn (minimal difference)
* Ed Davis = Best two years in Portland (0.164 & 0.192) are almost identical to his best two years outside of Portland (0.164 & 0.191)
* Plumlee = 0.143 vs career of 0.144 (no difference)
* Henderson = 0.068 vs career of 0.063 (very slightly better)
* Kaman = Best year in Portland (0.112) is almost identical to his best year for Clippers (0.114). His second year in Portland was very poor relative to his career.
* Wright = Best two years in Portland (0.128 & 0.091) are his 3rd and 6th best years in his career


OK - After going through this excersize, here is what my take aways are.
1) We've had a lot of mediocre players come through Portland.
2) Both Aldridge & Batum played noticeably worse under Stotts than under other coaches (McMillan & Pop)
3) The shining examples of Stotts "helping players play to their strengths" are limited to Nurk, Aminu, Harkless, and Lopez. A strong argument can be made that Nurk's improvement was more directly related to situation than to coaching.

Stotts is adequate - but by no means is he anywhere near a 'top tier' coach.

 

In any of those quotes did he say he wouldn’t support a coaching change? I’ll wait while you find me that quote.

As I said, Dame’s a loyal guy and wants his coach and his teammates to do well. That doesn’t mean he wouldn’t support having better teammates if it improves his chances of winning a championship. Doubly so if changing the coach means he would be closer to winning a championship.

I don’t know what Dame’s relationship is with Stotts. Maybe he sees him as a father figure, maybe not. Either way, players don’t decide who their coach is, ownership does. If Stotts is canned and Dame gets upset, oh well. I’m confident that because Dame is a professional he would get over the decision fairly quickly and would understand that it’s not personal but rather a business decision that’s in the best interests of the team.

 

The beautiful thing about a Contract is he has to play even if he's unhappy.

 

Maybe not, but that’s not Dame’s decision to make. Look, Dame’s my favourite Blazer of all time. I consider him to be a HOF lock. And if I were Jody I would certainly loop Dame into any conversation about a coaching change or a trade, especially of CJ. If Dame’s unwilling to accept changes that are made for the betterment of the team, then perhaps the team needs to consider trading him. I’m not saying he wouldn’t but if he didn’t then a trade of Dame should be on the table too. After all, you don’t let the lunatics run the asylum... why would you let the players dictate purely business decisions?

 

Dame's position will be, lets keep it together unless we can acquire a super wing. Next season is when we evaluate just how close we are once we get Hood, Zack, Ariza, back.

 

This is excellent stuff. These are the 'little things' that make a big difference. These 'little things' generally only show up when they are coached through repetition and practice.

 

@BonesJones and all....
I have never been a "fire the coach" guy. It is NEVER that simple. In any sport.
This year, I have begun to question Stotts, and, I honestly can respect some of the criticism he receives.
But.............
Last night, when I see a coach, who's team is up 30, get a technical, then that had me questioning the head coaches "heart".
Frank Vogel, emotionally involved, getting a "T"....while polite tear-bear actually looked confused as his team is just getting smoked.
The switching on EVERYTHING defensively is embarrassing.
I like Terry Stotts. I think his critics like him. He is a very good dude.
But, it is time for a change in RipCity.
I would fire him first thing Thursday morning. This squad needs a different voice.

 

I respected Vogel and LeBron still arguing.
It is "foot on the throttle" mentality.
Something Portland definitely lacks. And needs.

 

It's been 'wait till next season' for about half a decade now.

 

The dude has the injury excuse every damn year. Every year it's not his fault. When does that stop?

 

Agreed. All the Stotts apologists always say well next year we can run the team back at full strength and then we’ll assess Stotts. Guess what, guys? There’s always going to be injuries - there is on every team in this league. So if you’re expecting a fully healthy roster next season, I also have a bridge I could sell you.

 

Every season 29 teams are saying wait until next year......I can accept that the lakers are kicking our butt right now....that doesn't mean I'm an apologist...it means we got our butt kicked..collectively...I'm a fan of coach Stotts, not an apologist....I don't think firing him is solving our issues. I also don't think there's another coach available that's going to turn around our success rate if Stotts is fired. Our problem to me is simply lack of execution.....not system...we are a piss poor passing team..we're a poor offensive rebounding team..Lebron is a stellar passer, KLove is a stellar passer, BGriffin is a stellar passer.....our best passers are gone....Plumlee and Meyers...Nurk is pretty good but not perfect either at passing

 

It's partially his fault but mostly the fault of lacking talent, which you can tag onto Olshey. Stotts may not be turning losers into winners, but he's also not holding back winners. If you replace Stotts but keep the players the same, don't be surprised by more so-so results.

The coach is always the easy scapegoat because he's one guy, which is easier to replace than a whole team. But the whole team is far, far, far more important. Until you have the talent right, replacing the coach is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.