don’t need a deep dive on her philosophies, she’s co-signed by popovich. That’s good enough for me. He’s one of the greatest coaches of all time, and his tree is strong.
Because she lives and breathes basketball. She has one of the best basketball IQs around, is an analytical mind who is an expert at reading the game and at putting together schemes. The players respect her and she has been under Pops wing for years.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but how do you know this? How much more does she live and breath basketball compared to other qualified candiates? What is her basketball IQ? How does that compare with other candiates? Seems like some grand statements to make, so I would hope there is more evidence to go off of than quotes, because we can find very positive quotes about most any coach. Again, I'm not saying she sucks or she's great, I have no clue. I know Pop endorses her publically. I know prior to her arrival the Spurs had won 50+ games in like 15 straight seasons. This season will be their 4th consecutive year they won't win 50 games.
Some people are worried about hiring firing Stotts because they are not sure who is better. We were down 44-24 in the 1st quarter to......the Charlotte Hornets. At the point, who wouldn't be better?
If you hire her only for that reason, yes. If you hire her for basketball reasons, that makes a cool add-on.
Continuing the cooking analogy, I have used used the same ingredients as my wife to cook the same dish. Mine turns out edible but not great. Hers, using the same ingredients will turn out great. Sometimes it is not a matter of changing the ingredients, but changing the cook so that the ingredients can be used to their fullest potential (and who knows, sometimes those ingredients when used properly, turn out to be something you'd find at a 3* restaurant). Just because we don't have a second all-star doesn't necessarily mean we don't have the potential for a second all-star. Perhaps they just are being used properly to reveal their true potential. Many have talked in the past about how CJ, if he had his own team, could/would likely be an all-star. Does that mean he would? No. But it means that people see that capability in him. Just because he isn't doesn't mean he can't. Change the cook first, then tweak the ingredients as needed/able. Gramps...
I think it's more than a valid reason. Others have strongly disagreed with my stance about star talent, so you'll likely receive some push back.
I like the anology. I think your solution is far less likely than mine to become top 1-2, but we'll likely find out shortly if the cook really makes a massive difference.
I'm not saying my solution ends with replacing the cook, just that it is the first step. I think the too-closely-matched-skillset-and-doubly-defensively-weak back court has regularly shown its limitations and the need to have another star (or near all-star) player in a more complementary position is evident. I just think after so much changing of ingredients over the years with repeated similar outcomes, we need to start by changing the cook. You make some excellent points and I am not trying to dispute them, just saying where I feel we should start. I'm afraid that even if we had Joel Embiid and Kawhi Leonard, the track record does not engender a high confidence in the desired outcome. Gramps...
Likewise, I appreciate your perspective! I also agree that rotating around the fringe ingredients has been done and does not appear to be the solution.
Olshey stubbornly clings to his notion of his Blazer core and keeps rearranging the supporting cast, hoping for a solution. Portland's problems aren't in the middle of the rotation, they are at the top
