Great post, I agree with all of the bullet points you listed, and it basically spells out a roster with nearly zero tradable assests. I think that is a negative thing, don't you?
This seems like as good of a place as any to mention this since we've been talking about the possibility of adding a 2-way contract player in this thread. John Hollinger in an article in The Athletic today noted that in today's Covid-19 NBA world, teams are in a way being penalized for having those contracts: “Also, in a low-key bizarre twist, teams are actually being punished for having two-way players because they count toward the minimum eight players required to play a game. They’re better off not having them and rescheduling the game for later, instead of playing their 16th- and 17th-best players 20-plus minutes. The Sixers surely wish that had happened against Denver last Saturday, as do the Heat against those same Sixers two days later.”
1) Vanderbilt is a tough place to win as it's tougher to get into than many other power 5 schools. Also, recruiting isn't a thing in the NBA. 2) When researching the draft I was in love with Aaron Nesmith (watched every game before he got hurt) and the creative ways they got him open shots even though the defense knew he was going to shoot a 3. Nesmith also detailed how Stackhouse is a film junky who breaks down every closeout, box out, rotation, navigation through PnR, and isolation defense and gives each player a grade for the game. Then he works on the stuff with the players who are not getting passing grades. I think that's exactly what this team needs and isn't being addressed with the current coaching staff properly.
Has anyone thought about maybe developing Nassir and Trent more? I really hope we don't screw up ala Will Barton.
Not at all. My post was about tradable assets. Not sure how that is a weird narrative in a thread about a GM needing to make moves.
You've watched more Vandy games than I have, so I'll take your word on the 2nd part. I know from 2007-2017, Vandy had a bunch of solid teams, and made the tournament 7 times in that stretch.
Seems every move (rightfully so) around this team is all about winning now, as Lillard (and CJ) is in his prime. For that reason, I would hesitate to hire Stackhouse. I’m not sure I’m a fan of his anyway. Not saying a first time NBA coach can’t be successful (Nurse) but it is rare. I would prefer Jeff Van Gundy, Kenny Atkinson, Dave Joerger perhaps. Established assistant coaches who seem primed to be a HC would be under consideration if I couldn’t get those guys. Hammon, Udoka. I’m not anti college coaches and Beard is very good. Don’t know about him as a pro coach, not sure anyone does. Some college coaches carry that aura some don’t. Jay Wright for example does. Heard some negative things about Vanterpool a few years ago, maybe that has been fixed. We worry how Dame and co aren’t held accountable for basic basketball stuff...would his friend DVP do that? And I know this would never happen but I like David Fizdale. I think he had two terrible situations and his reputation now might be permanently fucked. But he’s a good coach and respected by players.
I for one agree with you on Vanterpool. I also am a huge no way on Hammon. This is not the time to try the "First Female Head Coach" stand. Udoka isn't going to make it on my list anytime soon either. Totally agree you go established no matter what at this point. Go with an really ready assistant coach, A really good Euro coach or an already established head coach. This is absolutely not the time to try out something new because it might be shiny someday.
Kerr was a 1st year coach with no coaching experience. Ty Lue was promoted mid season and had never been a head coach. Vogel was in his first year with the Lakers last year, obviously he had experience. Nurse as you mentioned. If you take out the fact the Warriors won multiple titles under Kerr that means the other 4 most recent titles have all been coaches in their FIRST year with the team. But this is why I can't stand the "who are you hiring that's better?" question. I am not the one who gets to interview these candidates. If I was I would have a direct set of questions designed to elicit who thinks the most like what I need. It could be that I don't like how Stackhouse answers those questions so I'd move on to someone else. With Vanterpool I'd be concerned about that exact issue so he'd have to blow me away with how he'd handle that. I'd be looking for someone that isn't afraid to move away from systems that aren't working and has the innovativeness to come up with new solutions. The retreads you mentioned would have to really be able to convince me they aren't stubborn and stuck in their ways like Stotts is because I believe the inability to adapt as the league changes is my number one downfall in a coach.
Great post! I like Kerr, Nurse, & Vogel, not sold on Lue. Vogel struggled his last couple years in Indiana and Orlando, curious to why you think that was the case. Same with Kerr's struggles last year and Lue's only "season" (6 games) without LeBron. Seems to be a wide varriation of success with these guys, much greater than what we've experiences here the last 8 years. Maybe that's a good thing, I'm not sure.
I have a hard time using Kerr, Lue and Vogel’s success as barometers considering the teams they took over. Doesn’t mean they aren’t good coaches but saying “look they haven’t coached and they won” with the talent they had isn’t the situation in Portland.
I wasn't saying I liked those guys, just dispelling the myth that first year coaches don't usually succeed. Sure, but we're talking about finding a coach better than the current one. Obviously a championship is the goal but it is possible to hire a better coach and still not win. It's also possible you hire a new coach and it blows up. I just don't think a Terry Stotts coached team can ever win a title unless he had the best roster in the league. We all know that's not realistic so I'd like to find a coach that can maybe steal an occasional playoff game because of a great game plan instead of needing one of his iso guards to go crazy.
I’m back on the FIRE OLSHEY train. Although it’s not entirely his fault with RoCo laying a most heinous egg and all the injuries. However, this team needed a huge talent upgrade - not just balancing out the roster with needs. It boils down to this: Another year of Dame’s prime is yet again wasted with a too conservative management/GM. No balls.
We will. Trent is gone next offseason. We will probably trade Nassir. Or by the time he develops we won't be able to afford him like Trent
maybe Olshey does have a plan... load up the roster with injury-prone players and there's a ready-made excuse for failing to meet expectations. Get paid 6 million to do it again the following year. Nice job if you can get it
Olsheys move should be to fire Stotts. Honestly Olshey did a good job, but even healthy the Team wasn't that good, every Team bombs 3s like crazy on us. It’s pathetic. Stotts has to go immediatly
