This is what makes a normal "no" into a resounding "HELL NO". The horrible defense is enough on its own to cut ties with Terry. But the complete lack of offensive adjustment makes it crystal clear that Terry is only fit as a stop-gap coach for bad teams who are trying to find a direction to go in. He's no offensive genius - he has a couple offensive gimmicks that he can use as an assistant, but as a HC he doesn't have a decent playbook for a team wanting to go deep into the Playoffs.
Stotts more often than not puts players in a position to succeed and missing shots, put backs, turning the ball over is not on the coach. Players have to execute and recently in losses they haven't. Going into a 4th qtr trailing by 17 and tying the game with 8 seconds on the clock is an accomplishment, Bosh made a great play on the ball...that's not Stotts fault.
This is the "Nate McMillan" response to a loss: gotta hit shots. It's the coach's job to design an offensive scheme that creates high-percentage shots for his players. Stotts doesn't do that. Sometimes our offense can create open shots, but rarely do we create high-percentage shots. When defenses continually push the ball 5' beyond the 3-point line and keep it there for the better portion of the (if not the entire) shot clock then it's up to the coach to figure out how his team can beat the defensive pressure and get the ball moving towards the hoop. Yet game after game we struggle to get the ball close to the 3-point line and end up with a bad shot. That's NOT on the players, that's on the coach. To suggest that players merely "have to execute" is a slap in the face of all coaches, suggesting that they have zero influence on whether a team wins or loses. The coach is VITAL to providing the players a system in which they can execute, and Stotts is flat out failing at giving his team what they need.
This makes no sense, sorry, Nate was a half court, give the ball to Roy and get out of the way coach. Losses are losses, all teams have them. Coaches don't make bad passes, forget to box out or brick freethrows or layups. You don't like Stotts system...that's an opinion. I happen to think he's doing a great job and also think the players are responsible for protecting the ball, boxing out or making shots. We get a lot of good looks because of Stotts offense. Couldn't disagree more with your assesment but you're obviously using Stotts as the blame guy. I'm not.
LA has missed a handful of clutch shots in a handful of losses but no more than Dame or Wes missing freethrows with the game on the line. You win and lose as a team. Damian has hit clutch game winners, it's a disservice to Nico, Wes, Rolo and Dame. When we started losing around allstar break, freethrows in the 4th qtr were not being converted way too often. Many splits at the line. Nic missed some game winners as well. Everybody wants a fall guy after a slump, especially after back to back losses. I think the 6th man..(Blazer fans) are failing the team as much as anything by wanting heads to fly when a slump comes into play. It's getting to be like Euro soccer here sometimes. Lose a game and tar and feather the coach. We're better than that.
Some truth here. Not making FTs in crunch time hasn't helped. But what about the degree of difficulty discrepancy on shot attempts late in games? Even in our last road win Dame hits a contested 30'er to ice it @ NO. Not everybody that's critical "wants heads to fly". I just want to see progress. How many games have we lost or been tied trying to defend on the final possession? Dallas (Ellis), Miami (Bosh-1, LBJ-1), NO (Evans), Indiana (Hill), Lakers (Johnson), Houston (Harden), Warriors (Thompson). I may have even missed some, point being most of those shots were good to very good looks. A few shots around the rim, a few shooters able to square up in rhythm, and a few fairly well contested/gotta "tip your cap" daggers. Compare that with the shots we are having to attempt in similar situations. Teams not known for their defense are even forcing desperation shots late in close games & this has been the case since long before LA went down. But I'm still hopeful that we figure something out through all this. A wrinkle in the play calling that allows US to dictate the possession instead of the defense, a new line-up that gels . . . the stuff that coaches are paid to come up with.
Karl is underrated. He sure made the Sonics fun to watch. He'd be a giant step up for us. But I predict Olshey will promote one of our assistants. Olshey picked them, not Stotts.
No, the actual George Karl, whose Sonics took back to back games off the 72-win Bulls in the NBA finals. (To reach which, you have to win 3 playoff series.)
