Except we beat a team with 1 all-star (who's worse than ours) in the WCSF, and our 2nd best player was the best player in the series and played like a superstar, primarily through isolation and freelance... So you're basing your evaluations of a coach based on the result of one single season and all-star voting returns?
High risk? Its not hard to run an isolation heavy offense and a bottom-5 defense that rarely runs a 2nd scheme. Honestly, it seems like you want to view them as risky because theyve been brought up as alternatives to Stotts.
I don't question you played basketball at a high level, have tools to evaluate players and coaches, and that your opinion has value. You certainly have been called names for constantly banging on Stotts, but there is name calling for those who provide a counter argument, this isn't a tactic only used by one side. Ultimately, I think the name calling comes up when people feel attacked; and it's not right.
I'm not sure what the correlation between Portland's offense and the risk factor of those coaches is. I 100% disagree with your last statement as I'd be thrilled to have a better coach. The last two coaches we fired a year after they made the WCF's landed us PJ Carlismo and Mo Cheeks, both were major setbacks. I'm not sure we can afford a setback of that level with Jodi at the helm.
We beat 2 all-stars in the 1st round and a deep team with HCA in the second round. Again, you don't see many examples of teams making it to the WCF's with one all-star. I think you greatly over state the amount of isolation offense Portland runs. Just yesterday on the radio they were talking about how we have over 100 plays and those plays have multiple variations of them. I think they played a clip of Quin Synder saying Stotts gets the most out of his personnel out of anyone and his offensive knowledge was elite. Personally, I thought Synder's comments were over the top, but he knows a lot more about basketball than I do.
And? Youre acting as if its some rare thing to get to the WCF with only one an all-star as if our roster wasnt that good, but then you have to apply that logic to the Nuggets considering they only had one-star as well. Let alone the fact that they werent experienced. So I don't see how one can use that logic as some sort of accomplishment considering itd apply in a counteracting way towards our opponent. That's why I'd rather just base it off of what happens on the floor, because thats what determines the result. Thing is, the coaching is responsible for some of the things that happen on the court, but not everything. Simply focusing on results without additional context to evaluate a coach implies that the coach was responsible for everything that happened on the court, and therefore additional context isnt needed.
I think he's in the upper third. He does a good job of developing young guards, he's resurrected careers with guys like Melo, Whiteside, Nurkic, Ariza, Kanter and Hood, and he did what he could with mentally volatile guys like Leonard and Harkless. Other than Bazemore and Connaughton, I can't think of a lot of guys who left the Blazers and played better elsewhere. This is a much better key, IMO, in evaluating the quality of coach. Certainly better than win/loss record and probably better than playoff record. A coach can only work with the players he's got. If players consistently do better with your coach than they've done in other places, well, maybe you've got a good coach. I suppose Aldridge played a little better his first couple years in San Antonio, but that kind of proves my point. Pop is a much better coach. For that matter, the Bucks have better coaching so it's not a shock that Connaughton got better there. (He also just got older and more experienced.) I think Bazemore looks better now because he's playing more at the guard position, which is where he fits. You could argue Stotts fucked up by not playing him more there, but it's not like he had much choice. I suppose the counter-argument is that Dame is such a great leader that he drags up Stotts' mediocrity. Personally, I don't buy it. Dame has his hands full being a superstar. He's a great leader, but he's not a miracle worker. He's not the guy developing young players or assigning minutes or roles or game strategies. History has shown that in recent years Portland tends to extract about as much out of their talent as they can. That's a sign of good coaching. I think when we look back on these years, we'll criticize our decisions with talent much more than our coaching.
Hed be a top third coach for a rebuilding team for all the reasons you gave. For a team trying to win and contend? Bottom third.
You seem to be saying that a coach who can get the most out of his talent is good for rebuilding teams, but not for contending teams? That seems kind of weird.
An important distinction. Contrary to many here, I felt Nate did a good job getting the team from bad to middle-of-the-pack. Where he failed was when asked to lift the team from decent to true contender.
I think this is by far the best argument I've read for changing coaches. I remember reading in Larry Bird's autobiography that he felt after 3 seasons players need new coaching just because of the staleness issue. New perspectives and fresh ideas are good for the team. It's why he only coached three seasons for Indy. Pop and Phil Jackson both broke that rule and clearly succeeded, but Pop is well-known for bringing in a variety of assistants, and Phil was never stale as a coach. Portland is especially getting stale when you consider we've had the same GM and the same coach for 7 seasons. When you have a superstar with so many playoff flameouts, there's normally a lot of pressure to turn things over because of the superstar getting impatient. Lillard's patience (and of course that supermax contract) is both a blessing and a curse.
But are those guys really a bigger risk than Stotts was when he was hired? The guy had already crashed and burned in 2 different chances to be a head coach. How was a retread with no history of success not a huge risk?
I can get the most (or close to it) out of my grandpa van. Doesn't mean I can get the most out of a high performance muscle car.
He doesnt get the most out of his talent though. He develops players well and creates a good culture. Thats good for rebuilding teams, but not for getting teams over the top. That takes top-notch gameplanning, in-game adjustments, offensive and defensive schemes, and other things that arent relevant to a team trying to rebuild.
Every player on the team and most every coach in the league says Stotts gets the most out of his players. It ain't just Quinn Snyder. We are talking about the very best basketball minds on the planet.
What players aside from the three I identified have been really held back by Stotts? I understand you disagree with his coaching because of playing style, schemes, etc. You feel no matter what kind of talent we have, we'd be limited. But can you name Blazer players who actually did better elsewhere? I really can't come up with much of a list. I think our teams just haven't been that talented, and whether he could or could not be a good playoff coach with a really talented roster is kind of hard to know. Maybe you know he'd fail because you just understand playoff basketball better than Stotts, but you can see why I'd have my doubts about that. Anyway, like I said, I can get on board with the idea that Portland is probably overdue for coaching/GM shakeup. If they only pick one, I really, really hope they start with the GM. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether Stotts is the right coach. But it's pretty hard for me to understand how we are 7 years into the failed Dame/CJ experiment, how we paid so much for Turner/Meyers/Hark, and how we started the season without any sort of player beyond Mario Hezonja who was 6-6 to 6-9 when the entire league is going that way.
Please provide examples of direct quotes supporting your claim. Why? Because all I hear on every national broadcast is how iso-heavy Portland’s offense is which, to me, does not imply a very complex playbook. The eye test confirms a “my turn, your turn” approach to offensive possessions.
You can run an iso-heavy offense and still be a high scoring team. Houston is second in the league in scoring and are ridiculously iso-dependent. Portland is 9th, which given our talent is pretty good IMO. We're 10th place in offensive rating. Houston is again 2nd. Just take a look at this list. Given our talent this year, with the right coach how much higher up do you think we'd be? Honestly, I kind of doubt it gets much better no matter what you do. And really, I kind of think Portland plays iso-heavy because that's what Dame and CJ want. Dame is really, really good at running the pick and roll, and CJ's single best asset is his handle. I don't think this team does a lot better by putting the ball in the hands of Ariza, Whiteside and Melo more. I mean it feels kind of comical to even say that Dame and CJ need to pass the ball more so those guys can get theirs. Those guys just aren't very good at doing much more than we ask them to. It's a predictable offense because a lot of our guys just aren't that great at offense. It's a talent thing. *shrug*
