The issue I have with "Kerr was gifted a great roster" is that that wasn't the perception at the time. Don't get me wrong, the Warriors were seen as an up-and-coming team, so it was an attractive situation. But most people saw them as a 4-6 seed going into the season. Lillard at the time Billups was hired was much better thought-of than Curry when Kerr took over. Curry flourished into a multiple-time MVP under Kerr. Is Lillard going to flourish into an MVP under Billups? Is Little going to become an All Star under Billups, like Thompson did? Talent always matters the most. Kerr made that point recently, in the interview Tince alluded to. He told a friend that he was torn because he preferred the Warriors to the Knicks but didn't want to disappoint Phil Jackson and his friend asked him, "Which opportunity would Jackson choose?" and Kerr realized that Jackson would take the opportunity with more talent, which was Golden State. But Kerr made the most of that talent, turning a team of interesting young talent into one of the most dominant teams in history. Coaches can matter, they just usually don't matter very much. I don't think Stotts mattered much, but right now Billups is doing even worse which seems not-unexpected for a first-time coach who maybe doesn't have a ton of innate talent for the job. I don't think Billups will end up a negative-value coach (like a PJ Carlisimo) but I think he'll settle in as "goes as far as talent carries him" like Stotts and the vast majority of coaches.