#FireCasey

[Chr1s1anL]

By the play on the court with appropriate context. How do you win? What are the circumstances? By the adjustments and rotations and schemes and everything. It's a complex thing.

If it were as simple as looking at the record than Mike Brown and Mark Jackson would be two of best coaches in the league.

Once again we have to agree to disagree. The whole point is to win basketball games. If players are judged on playoff sucess than so should coaches. That's just my opinion. All I care about is the W's.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

[LJ2]

I'm curious why you guys think the Celtics roster is weaker than ours when most sports guru in the media had them pegged ahead of us in the east this season before the season started? I always assumed our roster was better because I was bias.

And why isn't Horford a second star on that team? Perhaps Stevens isn't maximizing his potential the way Casey has maximized the potential of our stars.

[Axel]

Once again we have to agree to disagree. The whole point is to win basketball games. If players are judged on playoff sucess than so should coaches. That's just my opinion. All I care about is the W's.

Then explain what happened with Mark Jackson in Oakland. If Ws is the only measurement that counts, then how do you explain that?

Also, players are judged on much more than just playoff performance. It's certainly a big component but you are over simplifying the complex. Evaluating players, coaches, GMs, teams, on court play, scheme, scouting - literally everything about basketball can't be simplified to a single category to determine success and talent. If it were possible, these conversations would all be over fairly quickly.

[Rudy Bargnani]

Mark Jackson was fired for similar reasons Tom Thibodeau was fired. He had a poor relationship with the organization.

He publicly got in spats with his assistant coaches.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/12/...sons-joe-lacob

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/ma...tate-warriors/

Unfortunately for every Steve Kerr there is a Fred Hoiberg.

[Axel]

Mark Jackson was fired for similar reasons Tom Thibodeau was fired. He had a poor relationship with the organization.

He publicly got in spats with his assistant coaches.

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/12/...sons-joe-lacob

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/ma...tate-warriors/

Unfortunately for every Steve Kerr there is a Fred Hoiberg.

But if wins are the only thing that matters then why care?

[special1]

#FireCasey

But if wins are the only thing that matters then why care?

To answer your question:

Wins do matter the most. If Mark Jackson had won a championship or reached the finals do you think he would've gotten fired? Golden State lost in the first round! Let's not re-write history here. He didn't win when it mattered and he rubbed people within the organization the wrong way.

We all know wins aren't the only thing that matters (ask David Blatt). Relationships with the players (your stars) and the organization also matters.

However, what some seem to miss or ignore is that Casey has a great relationship with the organization and the players (top to bottom).

Comparing Mark Jackson and/or David Blatt to Dwane Casey is a fool's errand in my opinion and a failure to understand the circumstances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Axel]

We all know wins aren't the only thing that matters (ask David Blatt).

However, what some seem to miss or ignore is that Casey has a great relationship with the organization and the players (top to bottom).

Comparing Mark Jackson and/or David Blatt to Dwane Casey is a fool's errand in my opinion and a failure to understand the circumstances.

You say we all know but until I hear the words from Chr1st1an, we don't. He loves to say it's as simple as the W but for 99% of the population it isn't.

Blatt is a truly interesting one since he was hired to oversea a rebuild and instead had Championship objectives.

Mike Brown is another great example of wins not being a great indicator. He coached 8 years and has a Top 25 all-time Win%, better than Jerry Sloan, Spo, both Van Gundy brothers, Carlisle, Vogel and even Mr Champion Bill Russell. Yet he isn't very in demand because of it isn't as simple as wins vs loses.

So the next time someone uses Wins as the be all end all defence of Casey, Mike Brown would like a word.

[golden]

We all know wins aren't the only thing that matters (ask David Blatt).

However, what some seem to miss or ignore is that Casey has a great relationship with the organization and the players (top to bottom).

Comparing Mark Jackson and/or David Blatt to Dwane Casey is a fool's errand in my opinion and a failure to understand the circumstances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The key word here is trust. Relationships matter. All things being equal, people want to work with other people that they trust and like. There were huge trust issues in GSW with Jackson and management. Lebron never liked Blatt from Day 1, and Blatt apparently had an arrogance that rubbed everybody the wrong way. Masai likes and trusts Casey, and Casey is pretty humble in comparison to most ego-driven NBA coaches. Not easy to find a coach that ticks every box: play calling, player development, accountability, ego-in-check, trustworthy, systems, etc..., etc...

When Masai got hired, people thought he might bring in George Karl, who was available. On paper, Karl has a nice track record and was coming off a 60 win season, but everybody now knows what a bag of hammers that guy is behind the scenes.

[special1]

You say we all know but until I hear the words from Chr1st1an, we don't. He loves to say it's as simple as the W but for 99% of the population it isn't.

Blatt is a truly interesting one since he was hired to oversea a rebuild and instead had Championship objectives.

Mike Brown is another great example of wins not being a great indicator. He coached 8 years and has a Top 25 all-time Win%, better than Jerry Sloan, Spo, both Van Gundy brothers, Carlisle, Vogel and even Mr Champion Bill Russell. Yet he isn't very in demand because of it isn't as simple as wins vs loses.

So the next time someone uses Wins as the be all end all defence of Casey, Mike Brown would like a word.

Mike Brown coached Lebron James....

The Lakers tried him out and fired him quickly. Cleveland hired him again and then fired him.

Conclusion: Lebron James would make any coach look good.

Casey is a good coach. I don't think there's much debate at all about that. I don't think Chr1st1an is wrong about that and using wins is a fair argument. There's so many other ways to judge....

-Win/Loss record
-Playoff record and advancements
-Relationship with the players
-Player development
-Relationship with the organization
-Team ratings (offence and defence)
-Personal Awards/recognition
-Perception around the league

Casey ticks a lot of those boxes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Axel]

Mike Brown coached Lebron James....

The Lakers tried him out and fired him quickly. Cleveland hired him again and then fired him.

Conclusion: Lebron James would make any coach look good.

Casey is a good coach. I don't think there's much debate at all about that. I don't think Chr1st1an is wrong about that and using wins is a fair argument. There's so many other ways to judge....

-Win/Loss record
-Playoff record and advancements
-Relationship with the players
-Player development
-Relationship with the organization
-Team ratings (offence and defence)
-Personal Awards/recognition
-Perception around the league

Casey ticks a lot of those boxes.

I agree with a lot of this post. The problem is that Chr1st1an repeatedly posted that wins are the only thing that matters. I would love for him to really admit that there are other factors.

I don't think perception around the league makes someone a good coach (your last item in your list) but it certainly helps with some of the other things like awards. Although awards are a bit sketchy to put too much weight in. Pop was hired in 96 and didn't win CoY until 2002-2003 season. There was a long period of greatness there before the award followed suit (he has won it 3 times overall despite the 4th best Win% of all time and 21 years at the helm).

[special1]

I agree with a lot of this post. The problem is that Chr1st1an repeatedly posted that wins are the only thing that matters. I would love for him to really admit that there are other factors.

I don't think perception around the league makes someone a good coach (your last item in your list) but it certainly helps with some of the other things like awards. Although awards are a bit sketchy to put too much weight in. Pop was hired in 96 and didn't win CoY until 2002-2003 season. There was a long period of greatness there before the award followed suit (he has won it 3 times overall despite the 4th best Win% of all time and 21 years at the helm).

I think Chr1st1an will one day admit that wins aren't the only thing that matters, but it does matter the most. Not only for the current organization, it may matter to your next employer (ask Mike Brown) who got a couple more chances after riding the coattails of Lebron.

I don't think perception is very important but it is a factor in regards to judgement. For example, there are many coaches we only see a few times a year, but based on perception across the league, we may believe them to be good coaches.

Is it fair to say that we get a chance to critique Casey all 82 games every season? You'll see a lot of mistakes if you watch 82 games coached by the same coach. Some people may rightly give more slack while others may nit-pick.

[Axel]

I think Chr1st1an will one day admit that wins aren't the only thing that matters, but it does matter the most. Not only for the current organization, it may matter to your next employer (ask Mike Brown) who got a couple more chances after riding the coattails of Lebron.

I don't think perception is very important but it is a factor in regards to judgement. For example, there are many coaches we only see a few times a year, but based on perception across the league, we may believe them to be good coaches.

Is it fair to say that we get a chance to critique Casey all 82 games every season? You'll see a lot of mistakes if you watch 82 games coached by the same coach. Some people may rightly give more slack while others may nit-pick.

Very true for the most part.

I would say though that being Raps focused means we also miss out a lot on those other coaches too. There may be great examples of other coaches doing things that would be ideal for us to do for very specific things that we are simply not aware of.

[Fully]

If we get to a point where the Raptors have clearly plateaued under Casey - then you pull the trigger and find a replacement at that time. It looked like that moment was two years ago after the debacle against Washington in the playoffs, and I think a lot of us were either hoping that DC would be canned that summer, or at the very least would have accepted it. I was one of them.

But it's become obvious in hindsight that we hadn't plateaued - we came back the next year and set a franchise record for wins/advanced to the Eastern Conference finals. Now we're about to enter the playoffs with our most well rounded and talented team yet (assuming we get a close to full strength Lowry) so if the team falls on their face again or looks like they've taken a step backwards then I'm all for re-opening the discussion on if Casey is the right man to lead this team moving forward. But for right now, continuing to bang on the anti-Casey drum when the team is in the midst of one of the most impressive stretches of his entire tenure just seems stubborn.

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think there's as many ride or die for Casey posters on here as gets said at times; but there is a seemingly growing group that doesn't mind giving him a little credit for a four year stretch as one of the most successful teams in the league.

Could we have gone even farther than game 6 of the ECF last season with a coach other than Casey last year? Maybe. Maybe not. Those 'what if' scenarios can be argued until the end of time as we really have no way of knowing for sure. And it's not as if we should never have the discussions, but I do think we get caught up in the grass is always greener mentality. A lot of us were convinced that Fred Holberg was the Raptors saviour two years ago, but he'll likely have been hired and fired somewhere else before Casey is replaced. So maybe we were a coaching change away from beating the Cavs last season, or maybe the new guy completely loses the locker room and the team takes a massive step backwards.

And no, it's not just about wins and losses at the end of the day. There are other factors that should be factored in when we judge these guys. But like how others have pointed out, Casey does check a lot of those boxes too. Not all of themmind you - he does have his warts like pretty much every other NBA coach not named Popovich does - but there's plenty of tangible pieces of evidence that he's doing a pretty good job aside from the win/loss column. Oddly enough, I find it's the other side of the argument that uses the arbitrary or very hard to prove measures as to why he's a bad coach.

[mjt20mik]

I think Casey's faults are based on in game adjustments and rotation. However, I've seen recently him acknowledge his rotations and be a little bit more flexible about it. Again, I still question some of his decisions, but it looks like he's been improving this year (due to his forced hand with injuries).

Another thing that I've been impressed recently is his minute management. Demar has been playing quite a bit, but everyone else is in the 30-34 min range.

[SkywalkerAC]

Rollin' - pound the rock and next man up are paying off down the stretch.