Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,986 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Last season, after just about every loss, there would be a number of posters who would say, "If we had a good coach we would have won that game." Despite not thinking Mo was a great coach, I never bought into the fact that he was costing us all those games.

I'm curious how those posters feel now that we're losing more than ever, with IMO a much better coach. Do you believe Nate is a worse coach than Mo? Do you think we really miss SAR, NVE, and Damon, despite most wanting them gone?

This thread isn't trying to point out that anyone was wrong, I just want to know how we can be worse despite getting rid of the supposed reason we were losing so many games?
 

·
Banned member
Joined
·
28,451 Posts
Tince said:
Last season, after just about every loss, there would be a number of posters who would say, "If we had a good coach we would have won that game." Despite not thinking Mo was a great coach, I never bought into the fact that he was costing us all those games.

I'm curious how those posters feel now that we're losing more than ever, with IMO a much better coach. Do you believe Nate is a worse coach than Mo? Do you think we really miss SAR, NVE, and Damon, despite most wanting them gone?

This thread isn't trying to point out that anyone was wrong, I just want to know how we can be worse despite getting rid of the supposed reason we were losing so many games?
different scenario, as the vets from last years team are mostly gone (Shareef, Damon, NVE and Derbrick).

We got worse because the team replaced the vets with a 2nd year player, a rookie, a 3rd year career backup and a rookie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
Mo didn't play the young guys. He had vets like Damon, DA, Shareef, Van Exel and Ruben. If Nate had the vets that Mo had, we would have had a better record. Mo Cheeks coaching our young guys would be terrible. There would be no teaching, no growth or development, and I believe a worse record than we even have right now.

Look at the job Mo has done in Philly. They're currently out of the playoff race. I still say he's a bad coach, and Nate is definitely a better coach. We made the right decision on the coaching front.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,411 Posts
Despite having a top 5 player in the league (Iverson) and an arguably top 20 player in the league (Webber) to go along with a premier shot blocking Center (Dalembert) and some of the leagues best role players Igoudala and Korver and they still aren't in the playoff picture in a weak eastern conference...It further shows me how inept Mo is as a coach...

I think if it wasn't for his reputation as a "good" guy and as one of the top point guards of all-time he wouldn't be more than a life long assistant...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,986 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Hype #9 said:
Mo didn't play the young guys. He had vets like Damon, DA, Shareef, Van Exel and Ruben. If Nate had the vets that Mo had, we would have had a better record. Mo Cheeks coaching our young guys would be terrible. There would be no teaching, no growth or development, and I believe a worse record than we even have right now.

Look at the job Mo has done in Philly. They're currently out of the playoff race. I still say he's a bad coach, and Nate is definitely a better coach. We made the right decision on the coaching front.
I'm not saying Mo is a good coach, I've never said such a thing. All I'm pointing out is there seemed to be two things that people blammed for our losses last year.

1) Mo Cheeks
2) Damon

The majority of people also wanted the NVE, SAR, and DA all gone, and they are.

I agree with everyones points in this thread, but I'm curious if you guys still really think that Mo costs us a ton of games last year. I'd say at least half the losses were blammed on Mo last year, so do people really think Nate would have won twice as many games as Mo did?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
Tince said:
I agree with everyones points in this thread, but I'm curious if you guys still really think that Mo costs us a ton of games last year. I'd say at least half the losses were blammed on Mo last year, so do people really think Nate would have won twice as many games as Mo did?
I wonder this, as well. And remember that the team wasn't that bad until after Mo was fired (22-33 before, 5-22 after). I mean, it was bad, but it wasn't bad like we've seen this year.

Ed O.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,411 Posts
Ed O said:
I wonder this, as well. And remember that the team wasn't that bad until after Mo was fired (22-33 before, 5-22 after). I mean, it was bad, but it wasn't bad like we've seen this year.

Ed O.
As noted earlier, last year we had veterans...

No more decent veterans, were now the youngest team in the NBA and the veterans we actually do have, have been hampered by injuries all year...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
zagsfan20 said:
As noted earlier, last year we had veterans...

No more decent veterans, were now the youngest team in the NBA and the veterans we actually do have, have been hampered by injuries all year...
So who were the decent veterans we had last year?

I've heard and read repeatedly that Damon wasn't going to be missed. That NVE was worthless. SAR wouldn't be missed because we have Zach. The team would be better off with DA gone. Ruben Patterson is a cancer. &c.

Some of us, of course, saw their value to even the sub-mediocre Blazers last year, but I'm wondering which veterans in particular helped keep us (relatively) competitive now that the losses have been racked up at such an impressive rate.

Ed O.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,481 Posts
I know you love playing Devil's advocate, but you can't rationally be comparing the pieces the two coaches have to work with. In the long run, did it make sense to have Damon, SAR and NVE? Clearly not. In the short run, did they make us more competitive than our Kiddie Corps? Obviously.
 

·
Banned member
Joined
·
28,451 Posts
Ed O said:
So who were the decent veterans we had last year?

I've heard and read repeatedly that Damon wasn't going to be missed. That NVE was worthless. SAR wouldn't be missed because we have Zach. The team would be better off with DA gone. Ruben Patterson is a cancer. &c.

Some of us, of course, saw their value to even the sub-mediocre Blazers last year, but I'm wondering which veterans in particular helped keep us (relatively) competitive now that the losses have been racked up at such an impressive rate.

Ed O.
you seem to be unable to realize that when someone says the team would be better off without a player, they mean LONG TERM eddie.

not short term.

short term, big freaking deal, ruben ****ing patterson gets us 3 more wins.

well woopidty do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,411 Posts
SMiLE said:
you seem to be unable to realize that when someone says the team would be better off without a player, they mean LONG TERM eddie.

not short term.

short term, big freaking deal, ruben ****ing patterson gets us 3 more wins.

well woopidty do.
Exactly what I was going to say, just got to it first...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,411 Posts
RipCity9 said:
I know you love playing Devil's advocate, but you can't rationally be comparing the pieces the two coaches have to work with. In the long run, did it make sense to have Damon, SAR and NVE? Clearly not. In the short run, did they make us more competitive than our Kiddie Corps? Obviously.
What I was going to say, just got to it first...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
SMiLE said:
you seem to be unable to realize that when someone says the team would be better off without a player, they mean LONG TERM eddie.

not short term.
They do? Because many posters on this board thought that the Blazers were going to win more than 27 games this year. Cheeks being replaced was cited as a primary reason. The loss of veterans was dismissed by some.

Did you want links? I can find them.

Ed O.
 

·
Banned member
Joined
·
28,451 Posts
Ed O said:
They do? Because many posters on this board thought that the Blazers were going to win more than 27 games this year. Cheeks being replaced was cited as a primary reason. The loss of veterans was dismissed by some.

Did you want links? I can find them.

Ed O.
again Ed...

LONG TERM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,001 Posts
SMiLE said:
again Ed...

LONG TERM
You can say it until you're blue in the face, but your "long term" explanation doesn't answer the question of why this season people thought that Nate would lead the team to more wins than the team had last year.

I understand that some people think that dumping veterans and playing youngsters in a situation with no hope of being competitive is good for the franchise long term (although I find it to be a questionable position to take). But that doesn't address why the team hasn't seen a short-term bump in how the team performs with a purported improvement at coach.

Ed O.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,812 Posts
Ed O said:
You can say it until you're blue in the face, but your "long term" explanation doesn't answer the question of why this season people thought that Nate would lead the team to more wins than the team had last year.

I understand that some people think that dumping veterans and playing youngsters in a situation with no hope of being competitive is good for the franchise long term (although I find it to be a questionable position to take). But that doesn't address why the team hasn't seen a short-term bump in how the team performs with a purported improvement at coach.

Ed O.
Because most of us are Blazer optimists ED unlike you who seems to be a Blazer pessimist. Nothing wrong with either but I think that explains things.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top