Meh. Idk I think he shoulda challenged that. In his defense it did look like a foul. I thought it was for sure live. But if Nurk is swearing to you it wasn’t, you should trust him in a situation that critical with 3 free points and Nurk’s third foul on the line. it was a border line call but you gotta show trust in Nurk in that situation. We needed Nurk bad and even if we lost the challenge at least it would have shown that Terry had his player’s back. Unfortunately it was probably hard for him to analyze all this on the spot... he didn’t realize how not making that challenge likely would cost him his career. Kinda sad tbh
Matter of fact i don't even post here at all anymore because of this kind of thing and i will be gone again in about two minutes. Rest assured. I'll bump the thread to keep you all irritated. Might even have to link the thread to the "Fire Kidd, Billups, DeAntoni, ect" thread that will surely come around.
The reason i quit posting was because YOU made this point. So i quit. No Not Oblivious at all. You asked i obliged. Now who the fuck is OBLIVIOUS?
Stotts said Nurk told him "I barely touched him." Hearing the player who was called for the foul confirm he did touch the shooter (which is typically a foul), but that he didn't touch him that much, shouldn't have given him much confidence. Not to mention the handful of times Nurk claimed to have never touched a guy, ask Stotts to challenge, only to lose the challenge after realizing Nurk's assessment of his actions was inaccurate. Ignoring Dame would be one thing, but Nurk lost the benefit of the doubt a long time ago. Had we known the team was going to meltdown at the moment, maybe it would've be worth ignoring was Nurk said and go for it, but that certainly isn't wasn't cost them the game.
It went down fucking hill from that moment. How many times did Stotts not even use his challenge, the guy looks like a deer in the headlights every time Dame isn’t in god mode, like what should we do now. Good riddance.
If that's your concern, you need to put Olshey on blast, not Stotts. It is Neil's job to yank an ineffective coach. p.s. I agree with you on most of your "vaccine" positions. I'd be more confrontational about it if I thought it would help, but I think it makes it worse.
I highly doubt we hire a coach with a DV conviction, not that I don’t believe in second chances, I just don’t see it happening. Neil will hire his guy. Billups.
This has always been the hardest thing for me to wrap my head around. How someone could think Stotts is SO bad and accountable for all the mistakes made by players underneath him, yet not hold the GM to that exact same standard regarding coaching.
Stotts was a far better coach than I thought he'd be. I have been pleasantly surprised. A class act through and through, and our best coach since Dunleavy (maybe even Adelman). His support of this team, this city, and the histories of both are just incredible. You'll be missed Terry Stotts...
What’s the checkered past from Billups? Misdemeanor theft while in college for taking video rental coupons from book covers in the campus bookstore while in college? pfffffff
I though Terry did a solid job. Injuries aren’t his fault. He could have been better though. Met him several times, and he was absolutely lovely.
