2nd year....Bulls lost to the Pistons in his 1st year Pop won in his 2nd season too Detroit was Chicago's crucible. The Bulls had lost to the Pistons for 3 straight years in the playoffs. First it was 1-4 in conference semi-finals; then a 2-4 loss in conference finals; then a 3-4 loss in conference finals. Finally in 1991, they swept Detroit in the conference finals. I watched that game, and almost all of the Pistons walked off the floor without congratulating the Bulls. Bad boys to the end that was the year the Bulls won their first championship by beating the injured Lakers in the finals. They should have been playing the Blazers, but Rick Adelman fucked up the Portland/Lakers conference finals and Blazers lost
The statement was "You should never do the same job for 9 years." If it had a qualifier that you should never do the same job for 9 years if your team hadn't been the best in the world, I might've responded different. Again, my response is that not only do I think it's perfectly acceptable for people to have a job for 9 years, I wanted to point out that across sports there have been many coaches who have won it all after their 9th year. I did not say there have been many coaches who have won their 1st title after 9 years with the same team. That would be a different discussion for sure.
I'm trying to think of one in basketball. Is there one thst never won their first one until AFTER their 9th year as that team's coach?
Hell... im trying to think in ANY sport where a coach has been there for a decade before winning a title... Coaches may have won after being with a team for a decade.. being fired then years later winning somewhere else... but 9 years on one team before winning? Especially in today's coaching timeliness where most are rightfully fired usually 4 or 5 years in at most... good luck.
You're including different stops with different teams. That's not what I was posting about. That's not what anyone in this thread should be posting about. We're hoping for Blazers success and the fact is no one has ever won a championship with a team after not having won one in their first nine years as head coach of that team. The message gets stale, the coach gets complacent and mostly it's because the coach has shown that they aren't able to win in that environment.
I agree with that....just offering another twist as to how coaches that have even been successful can get stale and run the course. As far as coaches in the NBA the league for many years has been a good old boy country club with recycled veterans or assistants waiting in the wings. Its kind of nice to new a few new guys come in, now if they can be successful or not? Nine years is to long imo, even for players it's got to get old when you're that young.
I think the more interesting and relevant breakdown is would be the following: Find the list of the coaches who have been on one team for 9+ years without winning a championship (I know it's here somewhere) Compare that coaches success with the coach who replaced him Determine how many titles that franchise won in the next 9 years. That might give better insight on if the coach was the issue or maybe it's a bigger issue with the franchise. I'm going to guess that these franchises rarely, if ever won a championship after moving on for the coach of 9+ years.
I agree with most of what you said but if you're saying that it's time for Dame to go, I would have to disagree. Stotts and Olshey will go. The new GM will get the best they can for CJ and possibly others on the team and Dame will no longer be in a stale situation. Dame likes to compare himself to Dirk who went through different coaches and rosters in Dallas and it is time for a change of scenery for Dame but not scenery doesn't have to mean setting. Now if Dame is holding up all of the moves that everyone knows need to be made for this team to get out of this rut and is doing so with an ultimatum that he will want traded if he doesn't have things his way... then I would say that this situation has become too stale for him and us. Both parties in that scenario should move on.
This was far easier to compile than I thought. Here's what I found: Of the 5 pervious coaches who coach for a team 10 years and did not win a title Decreased losing percentage of 10% (8+ wins a year) A new coach followed every nearly once every 2.5 years - instability 0 Championships and 1 Final appearance in 50 seasons.
I suppose that's one conclusion. I think you could spin it and say that these are all smaller market franchises who hold onto marginal coaches for longer. My long time stance is that we should focus on the roster creation aspect of things that appear to play a much larger role in winning championships.
Yeah the list was in my reply to your post a couple replies back. It's: John MacLeod - Suns - 13 seasons, no championship Jerry Sloan - Jazz - 12 seasons, no championship Don Nelson - Bucks - 10 seasons, no championship Flip Saunders - Timberwolves - 10 seasons, no championship Doug Moe - Nuggets - 10 seasons, no championship The Suns became far more competitive after MacLeod but that was due to the Barkley move and emergence of KJ. We know that the Jazz look great this season but it's the tenth since Sloan and we don't know how they'll fare but they've been worse in the nine years since Sloan left. The Bucks were worse after Nelson left. The Wolves were terrible, I could just leave it at that but they were worse after Flip Saunders and underwent a major rebuild when KG left for Boston and still haven't put it together. The comparison usually isn't a fair one because when a team is ready to go away from a long time head coach it usually means they're also ready to make other big changes. The idea that these teams would be in position to win a championship at the end of one of these long and unsuccessful run doesn't tell me much because none of these coaches were close to winning one when they left. I don't find the exercise very useful because firing Stotts and Olshey for that matter isn't about the precedence of what others have done after a firing, it's about the precedence this duo has set of mediocrity for our organization. They need to go because they haven't been getting their jobs done and have been given ample time to show if they can or cannot. Let's see if some other people can do a better job. You don't keep a person in a job who is failing to meet expectations and has stopped growing because you're afraid you will fuck up and hire someone worse.
Yes, I used your list, thank you. I agree with you that a 5 team, 100 season sample isn't the end all be all. I think it does at the very least poke a hole in the theory that getting rid of a coach who hadn't won a title for 9 years will unlock the key to success. Getting rid of your coach under the assumption they are the key reason you're averaging 2-3 playoff wins a season vs winning a title would be very foolish in my opinion; though it appears some here have adopted that mindset. I'm in full agreement that Olshey/Stotts have not got the job done. The "lets see if some other people can do better" theory is kind of what this exercise was designed for. Can new people do they better? Sure. Is it realistic for the long term that the expected outcome will improve when we see change? I'm less confident. How do we build a championships roster of players? That's the big question I continue to ask.
Which I think feeds into Tince's point that roster construction matters far, far more than the coach. I don't think Stotts is a keeper coach, so I don't care if he's fired. However, I think firing Stotts is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic until we get a GM who can both find elite talent and put together a roster that is cohesive on both ends of the court.
I agree but along with retooling this roster and possibly a total rebuild if Dame isn't on board with building a better team around him... we need a new coach because this one is obviously checked out and done with the local media. He's been a disaster this season and IMO has never been good. Dame has been keeping Olshey and Stotts around since day one (hopefully just from his play) and they have honestly been doing nothing but riding his coattails. So we need to start a huge overhaul right away and I would start by firing Olshey and Stotts today. Olshey has shown an inability to accurately assess the value of guys that he has drafted and today it seems like Ant was what kept us from getting Aaron Gordon... Ant. Stotts has become seemingly disengaged on the court and combative about that off the court. Time for these guys to go. Time for different roster construction. Time for change.
Yes, yes, and yes! If firing Stotts means we can add that legit 2-way all-star this roster needs to win a title, I'd do it in a split second!
