You are contradicting yourself. If he was not the biggest problem - he clearly is not the first change that needed to be done. He might have been the first change that could easily be done, but putting new oil (coach) into an engine that is leaking oil (the Blazers roster) is not going to do anything other than maybe postpone the inevitable (Dame wanting out). I have said so above - after 9 years, it is fine with me to change Terry, but I do not believe for one second that the Blazers could have done much better given the sub-par roster (at times due to injuries) they had.
Good, so you agree it was not the reason they did not make the finals in his 9 years as head coach. Same, we agree again. Some years, sure. Other - not at all. Overall, given his roster and injuries he had to deal with - I think he over-delivered over the 9 years. Does not mean he is the best coach in the world. Does not mean he can not be improved upon. But he certainly was not the biggest problem the Blazers had in these last 9 years.
Speaking of Steve Kerr, I could just as easily make this comparison to when he was hired as coach of the Warriors in 2014. Back then there was also a full month of training camp with 8 preseason games. Billups had one week and 4 games. No one knows if Billups will be a good coach or not, but I think it's pretty unfair to call it either way before giving him a fair chance.
I'm not contradicting anything. First of all I said all spring that Olshey should be fired and the new GM should decide what to do with Stotts. Secondly, are you under some mistaken assumption that the biggest problem has to be the first to be solved? That's some binary thinking in a nuanced situation. Sometimes the biggest problem is so entrenched that it can't be gotten rid of all at once, so you have to solve the problems you can first, even if they're not the biggest of the problems. Again I would have fired Olshey and hired a GM that would have presumably fired Stotts and made much bigger changes to the roster but obviously ownership (who may actually be the biggest problem and from our standpoint are completely inextricable) didn't share my vision.
From an efficiency POV, you always start with the biggest problem, eliminate it for the biggest improvement. Obviously, in the real world, it is often the easiest problem (or perceived problem) that is first to be "fixed" and with the person in charge of the fix being the biggest problem and the roster being bound by the CBA, it is was obvious that the easiest problem (or, perceived problem) was going to be solved first. It is easy to look for the coin under the light... sometimes tho, that's not where you lost it.
I thought that was true of the Brandon Roy years but not the Dame years. Conversely, I was genuinely shocked that we beat the Rockets (with Aldridge) and then the Thunder and then the Nuggets.
Not claiming knowledge. I do think we've had enough time to worry. Note: I never wanted, and am still glad we did not hire, Jason Kidd, but it's painful to compare the scorelines of the Kidd-coached Mavs and the Chauncey-coached Blazers last night.
I think its safe to say the Chauncey experiment failed. Its time to move on and cut our losses. He has has more than enough opportunity to improve us into a championship contender. Maybe we can beg Mike Dantoni to give us a second chance?
Stotts wasn't a great coach, but the roster is 90-95% of team success (except for edge cases where you have one of the all-time great and innovative coaches). Sure, the Blazers "changed something," but they changed the thing least likely to alter the franchise's path. Honestly, I think getting Nance is likely to make a much bigger difference to the team's success than the coaching change. Nance can actually be a pretty impactful player for this team.
