Everything Dwane Casey

[ogi]

Our out of bounds plays are rarely drawn up by Casey so there is that...

Also our out of bounds plays generally lack creativity when you look at the good teams....even tho we score on them I doubt their effectiveness vs playoff defenses and heavy scouting.

Thats the thing with this team. We have a simple offense with only single options rinning on each play so if you can shut the option down, the offense crumbles into an ISO.

I dont think we can run anything better because a certain SG isnt too smart and doesnt see two passes ahead...and is reliant in passing off the drive instead of ppl movement

And you know who draws up the plays and how frequently how exactly?

I suggest you take a closer look at our offensive plays because what you're saying simply isn't true. Considering the nature of the system yeah plays break down into ISOs a little more than they should but to say we have single options on each play just isn't true.

[ogi]

How is it convoluted logic to say that the coaches responsibilities that lead to winning is a better measure than purely the wins, of which the coach only shares the responsibility with the GM and the players?

Seems much more logical than relying on cursory measures. I'm more than willing to listen to intelligent reasons for Casey being a good coach, I simply don't consider W/L that good of an indicator because of the impact that the GM and players have on it.

So if waiting for actual evidence means my heels are dug in, then so be it.

What would be considered actual evidence?

[Just Is]

Maximize the talent of two players.. nice

Just to add on to this: how was Lowry used immediately after coming here (specifically after his injury against OKC in his 4th game as a Raptor) and during Gay's duration here where it would almost literally be doing the exact opposite.

I don't really agree with how ChristianL's puts most of his thoughts down on paper (this one included), but I do see the over arching point. If those rankings were reversed (Boston was top 10 in out of bounds efficiency, Casey was near the bottom of the list) then there'd be a lot of us waving it around as proof of how superior Stevens is over Casey, Casey is an idiot, etc.. I'm pretty sure you can actually dig through this thread from last year and you'll see plenty of posts that read just like that.

Actually, just to focus on this particular point; same point previously mentioned in regards to Toronto having better offensive players (and players in general) would actually be just applicable in this scenario as in the previous one. "Better outcome due to possessing better players" & "Worse outcomes in spite of possessing better players" wouldn't be contradicting statements indicative of one coach over another.

Or another clearer way to phrase it would be that a "bad" coach would be able to make it further with a good roster than a "good" coach would be able to make it with a "bad" roster.

[Fully]

How is it convoluted logic to say that the coaches responsibilities that lead to winning is a better measure than purely the wins, of which the coach only shares the responsibility with the GM and the players?

Seems much more logical than relying on cursory measures. I'm more than willing to listen to intelligent reasons for Casey being a good coach, I simply don't consider W/L that good of an indicator because of the impact that the GM and players have on it.

So if waiting for actual evidence means my heels are dug in, then so be it.

You want 'evidence' that Casey is a good coach… but won't accept a great win/loss record, a top 5 offence, multiple players hitting their career peak as a player of his, good out of bounds effectiveness, strong team chemistry, etc. as any type of proof. What exactly are you looking for then as far as evidence goes?

You seem to have positioned yourself in a way that you're going to credit any of the positives above to the players/GM but somehow any of the negative aspects of the team - a slipping defence for example, or last season's collapse versus Washington as a prime example as to why Casey is a bozo. It's a very disconnected logic whether you realize it or not.

[JWash]

Casey for the most part is fine as a coach. He gets guys up to play, defensive schemes are good and he knows how to maximize his off-court personnel (coaching staff for example) in order to best utilize their talents, and he has an excellent working relationship with the GM and probably ownership also.

Now think he struggles in two key areas. The first one is rotations. Too rigid with them and a little bit too reactive instead of proactive. Rather than putting out our best lineups and making the other team adapt to us, he reacts to what the other team is doing, which CAN be good at times but often leaves you behind the eight ball.

The second one for me isn't the offensive gameplan itself. The gameplan is actually fine. Not every team HAS to zip the ball around in order to be efficient offensively. You can create 1 on 1 situations and kick out opportunities and still have a deadly offense. My problem with the offense is simply that I think Casey as a coach defers to his stars too much, which makes it difficult for us to win games where either DD/Lowry don't play up to standard or one of them doesn't pick up the slack for the other.

Now to be fair this is actually the case for most teams in the NBA, if your best players struggle, your team struggles. I think Pop is the only coach who consistently manages to get away with this but he's top 2-3 all-time so... yeah. The problem with Casey is that if you were to make it a point to get more guys directly involved rather than deferring to your top 2, or even just created a top 3 with Jonas, we'd be less susceptible to games where one of Lowry or DD is off and we lose. In the playoffs that will be very important.

As far as regular season performance, can't really fault him. On pace for 56 wins challenging for the #1 seed when most people projected us to win about the same as last year and be a 5-8 seed. That's meeting and then exceeding regular season expectations. However, he hasn't shown it in the playoffs yet. If he fails to do so again this year, bye. Period. If he can get this team to the conference finals and fight Cleveland or whoever happens to be there I'm cool with him staying on. He's not the worst coach in the NBA like some insinuate, but he's also not a superstar coach that can really elevate a team way beyond it's talent level (imo the only two of those in the league right now are Carlisle, Kerr and Popovich --- sorry I need to see Stevens win a playoff game before he goes in that group). But you can win with those kind of coaches, we've seen it in the past with guys like Spoelstra, Rivers and even Larry Brown (who is overrated btw).

[Barolt]

You want 'evidence' that Casey is a good coach… but won't accept a great win/loss record, a top 5 offence, multiple players hitting their career peak as a player of his, good out of bounds effectiveness, strong team chemistry, etc. as any type of proof. What exactly are you looking for then as far as evidence goes?

You seem to have positioned yourself in a way that you're going to credit any of the positives above to the players/GM but somehow any of the negative aspects of the team - a slipping defence for example, or last season's collapse versus Washington as a prime example as to why Casey is a bozo. It's a very disconnected logic whether you realize it or not.

If Casey is such a genius, why does he say and do such confusing things?

Scola: "You say he's struggling, what is he struggling at?"

Drawing up a play on the wrong side of the court in game 7 of a playoff series with the game on the line?

How does such a great coach become the first coach ever to get swept in the first round as the higher seed?

[JWash]

If Casey is such a genius, why does he say and do such confusing things?

Scola: "You say he's struggling, what is he struggling at?"

Drawing up a play on the wrong side of the court in game 7 of a playoff series with the game on the line?

How does such a great coach become the first coach ever to get swept in the first round as the higher seed?

He didn't say he's a genius. He said he's a good coach. There's a clearly distinct and discernible difference between those two things.

[Barolt]

He didn't say he's a genius. He said he's a good coach. There's a clearly distinct and discernible difference between those two things.

The last two playoff series, though, disagree with that. Drawing up the series deciding play on the wrong side of the court and then getting swept while barely putting up any resistance against the Wizards aren't the marks of a good coach.

[JWash]

People do need to realize how rare what they're asking for is.

You want a coach that's

- Got a good working relationship with management
- Manages players attitudes well
- Willing to cede the bulk of roster control to the GM or at least work hand in hand
- Is excellent with rotations
- Is an offensive genius who wants to zip the ball around
- Is a defensive stalwart

Can someone just name me a coach who checks all these boxes? That is why Casey wasn't fired in the offseason. The only guys I can think of who fit all of that are Kerr, Pop, Carslisle and Phil Jackson (who is no longer coaching). It's not easy to get.

Now you can concede the intangible stuff and go for a guy who does do all the tactical stuff pretty well like Thibodeau, but Masai looked into him and didn't want him. Why? Because he's known for being pretty flammable when it comes to relationships with management and also runs players into the ground.

Seriously getting the kind of coach people here want is just as difficult as getting a superstar player. In order to do it we'd likely have to gamble on someone who's not currently in the NBA and hope that they come in and just check every box. It's tough.

[ogi]

Just to add on to this: how was Lowry used immediately after coming here (specifically after his injury against OKC in his 4th game as a Raptor) and during Gay's duration here where it would almost literally be doing the exact opposite.


Actually, just to focus on this particular point; same point previously mentioned in regards to Toronto having better offensive players (and players in general) would actually be just applicable in this scenario as in the previous one. "Better outcome due to possessing better players" & "Worse outcomes in spite of possessing better players" wouldn't be contradicting statements indicative of one coach over another.

Or another clearer way to phrase it would be that a "bad" coach would be able to make it further with a good roster than a "good" coach would be able to make it with a "bad" roster.

Yet most people outside of raptors fans don't look at this roster and think "that's a lock for 2nd in the east"

[Fully]

If Casey is such a genius, why does he say and do such confusing things?

Scola: "You say he's struggling, what is he struggling at?"

Drawing up a play on the wrong side of the court in game 7 of a playoff series with the game on the line?

How does such a great coach become the first coach ever to get swept in the first round as the higher seed?

Genius? Such a great coach? Please try and follow along - I've explicitly said that I think Casey is a middle of the road NBA coach… I just happen to think the discussion on here is so badly slanted in one direction that it's necessary to offer a balanced view at times.

And you're pretty much doing the exact thing that I am talking about in the second half of my paragraph by the way. You even used the same example as I did (the Washington sweep) This isn't about absolving Casey of all blame when things go wrong - I wanted Casey canned last summer too! But you can't lay all the criticism at his feet when things go poorly - and then give him none of the credit when things go right. Well, I guess you can… but it doesn't make any sense. Which is my entire point.

[Fully]

Just to add on to this: how was Lowry used immediately after coming here (specifically after his injury against OKC in his 4th game as a Raptor) and during Gay's duration here where it would almost literally be doing the exact opposite.

It's silly to use such a dated example as a measuring stick of a coach when there's much more recent evidence to the contrary, is it not? A coach can evolve and improve in the same way a player can, and it's pretty obvious that Casey has done just that; both in terms of his utilization of Lowry and generally speaking as well.

Clinging to the misuse of Lowry from 4 seasons ago as an indictment of Casey and ignoring that KL has turned into a top 10ish player in the league under Casey since is flawed thinking. And Lowry himself has shouldered a lot of the blame from his first season in Toronto and said that he had a lot of growing up to do. But let me guess - Lowry's poor play in Toronto is all Casey's fault while Lowry's stellar play in Toronto is entirely on Lowry (with a hat tip to his sit down meeting with Masai during the summer of 2013). Did I get it right?

[white men can't jump]

Casey for the most part is fine as a coach. He gets guys up to play, defensive schemes are good and he knows how to maximize his off-court personnel (coaching staff for example) in order to best utilize their talents, and he has an excellent working relationship with the GM and probably ownership also.

Now think he struggles in two key areas. The first one is rotations. Too rigid with them and a little bit too reactive instead of proactive. Rather than putting out our best lineups and making the other team adapt to us, he reacts to what the other team is doing, which CAN be good at times but often leaves you behind the eight ball.

The second one for me isn't the offensive gameplan itself. The gameplan is actually fine. Not every team HAS to zip the ball around in order to be efficient offensively. You can create 1 on 1 situations and kick out opportunities and still have a deadly offense. My problem with the offense is simply that I think Casey as a coach defers to his stars too much, which makes it difficult for us to win games where either DD/Lowry don't play up to standard or one of them doesn't pick up the slack for the other.

Now to be fair this is actually the case for most teams in the NBA, if your best players struggle, your team struggles. I think Pop is the only coach who consistently manages to get away with this but he's top 2-3 all-time so... yeah. The problem with Casey is that if you were to make it a point to get more guys directly involved rather than deferring to your top 2, or even just created a top 3 with Jonas, we'd be less susceptible to games where one of Lowry or DD is off and we lose. In the playoffs that will be very important.

As far as regular season performance, can't really fault him. On pace for 56 wins challenging for the #1 seed when most people projected us to win about the same as last year and be a 5-8 seed. That's meeting and then exceeding regular season expectations. However, he hasn't shown it in the playoffs yet. If he fails to do so again this year, bye. Period. If he can get this team to the conference finals and fight Cleveland or whoever happens to be there I'm cool with him staying on. He's not the worst coach in the NBA like some insinuate, but he's also not a superstar coach that can really elevate a team way beyond it's talent level (imo the only two of those in the league right now are Carlisle, Kerr and Popovich --- sorry I need to see Stevens win a playoff game before he goes in that group). But you can win with those kind of coaches, we've seen it in the past with guys like Spoelstra, Rivers and even Larry Brown (who is overrated btw).

On the bold...

His defensive schemes are good? Since when? Is this going to turn into another conversation about what he was doing in Dallas? Because that's not relevant. It's more frustrating when he is supposedly a defensive coach. Our D has been inconsistent his entire tenure here. I would greatly hesitate to say it's because players are unable to execute his great schemes.

And does he use his support staff? It's his 3rd crop of assistants. So I don't really know what basis any of us could have for judging his use of non-player personnel as good. We know Nurse was supposed to be the offensive guru, and our O has not seen much change. Greer is our defensive specialist this year, and while we have tweaked schemes, we again have not been able to sustain a consistent level of defensive play (and you see reversion to bad habits here too). Now, it's hard to know things without having access to practices (and I don't mean watching Open gym), but I can't think of many obvious positive things that stand out in regards to use of assistants.

I think you're bang on about "guys getting up to play", at least for the most part there. The best thing Casey has done has been to help foster an environment where guys want to come in to work and want to win. It doesn't really matter if you're great at Xs and Os, and managing game situations if you can't set that foundation.

And I think he's got a good relationship with GM/ownership, but I think Casey's the kind of personality who will always avoid conflict with authority. That also doesn't mean it's as good as it could be. There's clearly at least some disconnect in how they view the game/team, which comes out from time to time when you hear Masai talk.

[ogi]

It's silly to use such a dated example as a measuring stick of a coach when there's much more recent evidence to the contrary, is it not? A coach can evolve and improve in the same way a player can, and it's pretty obvious that Casey has done just that; both in terms of his utilization of Lowry and generally speaking as well.

Clinging to the misuse of Lowry from 4 seasons ago as an indictment of Casey and ignoring that KL has turned into a top 10ish player in the league under Casey since is flawed thinking. And Lowry himself has shouldered a lot of the blame from his first season in Toronto and said that he had a lot of growing up to do. But let me guess - Lowry's poor play in Toronto is all Casey's fault while Lowry's stellar play in Toronto is entirely on Lowry (with a hat tip to his sit down meeting with Masai during the summer of 2013). Did I get it right?

Lowry has literally said that his plan when he was moved here was to play out his time here and use it as a platform to show his skills and get out. It probably isn't easy dealing with a player with that attitude while you're trying to turn the program into a winning one

[Just Is]

It's silly to use such a dated example as a measuring stick of a coach when there's much more recent evidence to the contrary, is it not? A coach can evolve and improve in the same way a player can, and it's pretty obvious that Casey has done just that; both in terms of his utilization of Lowry and generally speaking as well.

Clinging to the misuse of Lowry from 4 seasons ago as an indictment of Casey and ignoring that KL has turned into a top 10ish player in the league under Casey since is flawed thinking. And Lowry himself has shouldered a lot of the blame from his first season in Toronto and said that he had a lot of growing up to do. But let me guess - Lowry's poor play in Toronto is all Casey's fault while Lowry's stellar play in Toronto is entirely on Lowry (with a hat tip to his sit down meeting with Masai during the summer of 2013). Did I get it right?

How is it silly to point it out when the direct point was in terms of managing a player and using a player to the maximum? And isn't an example of using from 4 and 1/2 seasons ago. It's one that STARTED that long ago and literally continued until outside circumstances changed it. The use of Lowry in that manner was specifically BECAUSE he's the biggest example.

In regards to the bold; is misusing a player and that player, subsequently, playing poorly NOT on the coach? Is then using Lowry in the same manner that he was previously being used and THEN seeing success not more indicative of the player than the coach? As the main difference between how Lowry's being used now in comparison to ... say his time with Houston ... is usage (and depending on your definition, role).

In regards to the underlined; this in itself is true BUT in this particular case; the exact same criticism for Casey that appeared from his time as head coach of the Timberwolves are just as applicable now as they were then. I'll provide and link to the coach scouting report from his time there once I can find it again.