#FireCasey

[Wild-ling#1]

Sorry, when you said he has "assistants he can work with" before the "but Jack says", I assumed that your positive sounding statement meant you had optimism.

So because Jack is concerned with scoring you don't feel that advancing further than last year (and the year before really) is a reasonable expectation?

I'm just trying to sort out where your opinion is separated from Jack's.

I don't see how a step back or holding ground can be an acceptable expectation for the season. .... Unless Lowry or DD is dealt (thus significant roster change and possibly going young at the positions - Joseph starting for example), progression should be the only acceptable expectations for this group.

OK, to clarify: All the changes, I think, may give us some cause for optimism. But optimism can be more like "hope" than something you bank on, right?

But I think Armstrong is a straight-shooter, who knows much more about B-ball than I do (like a lot of people). And what he says makes sense to me. And given the significant nature of all the changes, I also think this is another transition year. Which is ... exciting, right? Whatever happens, I think there's cause for further optimism in 2016-17.

On the coaching side, I very much like what Slaw said above.

But I think Casey's a smart and patient man who might be capable of figuring out where his strengths and weaknesses lay. I'm guessing Masai thinks so too. And he has help. But he may be gone by Christmas. Honestly, I won't second-guess that, if it happens. But compared to some, I come off sounding like Zooey Deschanel, it seems, because I am inclined to optimism .. even though it's rare that I have a firmly-fixed opinion on these sorts of things. And because I'll give Casey the benefit of any doubt, for now, because ... why not? Seems like a good guy. Maybe he'll - and they'll - surprise us.

[Wild-ling#1]

But that wouldn't remotely indicate that there is any reason to expect anything less this season.

Really?

So what's your opinion? Is it that Casey is such a knob that he'll screw up any chance we'll have of success?

Or is it that the roster is so obviously bullet-proof that even that knob can't mess things up?

Seems your forming your conclusion on the basis that things should always trend upwards. Only fair and reasonable. But they don't, necessarily, right? Significant change adds significant variables, and so risks. That's not a Casey thing, per se. "The best laid plans ..." and all that.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

As Slaw just reasoned, above (maybe your posts overlapped) Ujiri must have decided that the season's expectations were defeated primarily by roster issues and that 1) it was tough to evaluate the coach or 2) there was no candidate out there worth eating the $4M coach's salary to obtain - or kinda' both ... which we all suspect (given what we heard about Thibodeau's vetting by the Raptor's organization).

But there is a kind of difficulty in evaluating both a roster and a coach at the same time (not saying it's impossible, but the difficulty is obvious - or at least seems so to me).

If a GM can't evaluate both the roster and coaching staff, then he isn't fit to be a GM.

While I don't think the roster over the last two seasons was good enough to compete for the EC crown, I do think that a better coach would have been capable of leading the Raptors into the 2nd round, at least.

Just looking at last season, the Raptors had a superior record and won the season series with Washington, yet they got swept in the playoffs. There are various excuses regarding the health of players (ie: Beal missed regular season games, Lowry was less than 100% in the playoffs, etc...), but if you are going to credit Casey with the regular season record as justification for him being a good coach, then he equally needs to be credited with the dreadful playoff performances. Casey is an average-at-best coach, that appears to have a 1st round exit as his ceiling.

I think it comes down more to the price tag, as it does to replacements being available. The argument that there wasn't a single available coach who would have been better than Casey is a cop-out, in my opinion. Having said that, if MU has his eye on a specific coach(es) who was unavailable for a particular reason this offseason, then that and the $4M price tag could easily have swayed his (and MLSE's) decision. I really don't think MLSE had any desire to be paying $8M+ for a head-coach, plus any additional costs that might have been involved if the new head coach wanted to bring in any/all his own assistants - then it could easily have been a $10M+ price tag.

[Axel]

Really?

So what's your opinion? Is it that Casey is such a knob that he'll screw up any chance we'll have of success?

Or is it that the roster is so obviously bullet-proof that even that knob can't mess things up?

Seems your forming your conclusion on the basis that things should always trend upwards. Only fair and reasonable. But they don't, necessarily, right? Significant change adds significant variables, and so risks. That's not a Casey thing, per se. "The best laid plans ..." and all that.

Seems like you continue to miss my point.

As CRF pointed out, Masai stated goal for last season was improvement in the playoffs. So from using a narrow game 7 loss as the starting point, getting swept is clearly not meeting that objective.

Using Slaw's point provides rationale as to why Masai may have decided that there were enough circumstances outside of Casey's control to give him a pass on not meeting that objective.

None of that would provide any rationale that we should expect less this season. So even with last year getting written off due to circumstance, the Masai stated goal is better than losing game 7 of round one.

None of that is really my opinion or drawing any conclusions, I'm just connecting the existing dots.

[Axel]

Seems your forming your conclusion on the basis that things should always trend upwards.

Really, cause you already quoted my post that would prove that statement to be not true.

I don't see how a step back or holding ground can be an acceptable expectation for the season. All of our roster transactions improved the team (Amir/Scola could be considered a wash but the rest were clear improvements), and since we made it to the playoffs these last two years, making the goal to simply "make the playoffs" isn't a very positive indicator for the team. Especially when Lowry is already in his prime and DD is in a contract year. Unless Lowry or DD is dealt (thus significant roster change and possibly going young at the positions - Joseph starting for example), progression should be the only acceptable expectations for this group.

And for the record, I never said Bargnani was dreamy

[MACK11]

Yall giving Casey to much credit here. He is not even an average NBA coach. He's below average at best

[OldSkoolCool]

"We should criticize Casey on the 49 wins and not the 33 losses"

There was a group of us after the first week who realized that even though we were winning the basketball was terrible. Winning is actually one of the worst criteria for a coach to be based on.

The NBA is driven largely by talent. It is the GM's job to assemble that talent so if they have a crappy record year in and year out then it is likely the GMs fault and not the Coaches. See Colangelo vs Ujiri Raptors

What the coach should be assessed for are game management, player development, system (both offense and defence), and communication skills.

Casey arguably sucks at all those. Now also put it into context that he is in the best league in the world. Yes he may know more when compared to us, but compared to his peers I find he is severely lacking....that is the measuring stick you need to use.

"Led us to back to back franchise record win totals!"

Laughable.

[slaw]

Just looking at last season, the Raptors had a superior record and won the season series with Washington, yet they got swept in the playoffs. There are various excuses regarding the health of players (ie: Beal missed regular season games, Lowry was less than 100% in the playoffs, etc...), but if you are going to credit Casey with the regular season record as justification for him being a good coach, then he equally needs to be credited with the dreadful playoff performances. Casey is an average-at-best coach, that appears to have a 1st round exit as his ceiling.

I think it comes down more to the price tag, as it does to replacements being available. The argument that there wasn't a single available coach who would have been better than Casey is a cop-out, in my opinion. Having said that, if MU has his eye on a specific coach(es) who was unavailable for a particular reason this offseason, then that and the $4M price tag could easily have swayed his (and MLSE's) decision. I really don't think MLSE had any desire to be paying $8M+ for a head-coach, plus any additional costs that might have been involved if the new head coach wanted to bring in any/all his own assistants - then it could easily have been a $10M+ price tag.

To the first point, unless the coach they hired was going to substitute in for Lowry and hit threes, play defense on John Wall, and run the offense I'm not sure how much of a difference he'd have made in the playoffs. The players were absolutely dreadful in that series top to bottom. Casey deserves his share of the blame but let's remember that he doesn't rebound or defend or pass or shoot and that the vets on the team quit in the second game.

There are always "better" coaches but the issue is whether another guy would have made a big enough difference to matter. I don't have any particular knowledge of whether or not Ujiri wanted to fire Casey and was told he couldn't but, given how much money MLSE has spent under Leiweke, I have a very, very difficult time believing they tied MU's hands. If MU wanted him gone he'd be gone. I know everyone thinks Casey's an idiot and is the worst coach in the history of everything but MU clearly doesn't think so - there's no ulterior motives or complicated conspiracy theories required.

[Demographic Shift]

Winning is actually one of the worst criteria for a coach to be based on.

The single minded focus to have Dwane whacked that a few folks around these parts hold is legendary. Some pretty wild and borderline inane things have been thrown up against the wall to express the frustration on some decisions he makes....but....you should really reconsider that statement you just made.

[mcHAPPY]

The single minded focus to have Dwane whacked that a few folks around these parts hold is legendary. Some pretty wild and borderline inane things have been thrown up against the wall to express the frustration on some decisions he makes....but....you should really reconsider that statement you just made.

Context matters.

The number of games won (or lost) is irrelevant to the bigger picture of did a coach get the most out of what he had to work with?

No one is judging Brett Brown on his number of wins, that is for sure. But there are a lot of people in the NBA who think he is doing a good job given his circumstances.


A perfect example of why the number of wins is irrelevant is GSW with Mark Jackson and Steve Kerr. Same teams (except addition of Livingston). Drastically different results.


If you think Casey got the most from the team last year, then I guess you're happy with him. If you don't, I guess you're not. I'm firmly in the "not" camp.

[Axel]

Context matters.

The number of games won (or lost) is irrelevant to the bigger picture of did a coach get the most out of what he had to work with?

No one is judging Brett Brown on his number of wins, that is for sure. But there are a lot of people in the NBA who think he is doing a good job given his circumstances.

A perfect example of why the number of wins is irrelevant is GSW with Mark Jackson and Steve Kerr. Same teams (except addition of Livingston). Drastically different results.

If you think Casey got the most from the team last year, then I guess you're happy with him. If you don't, I guess you're not. I'm firmly in the "not" camp.

To add to this, expectation is the key. Look at Billy Donovan this year in OKC. Will 50, 55 wins really be considered a measurement for success? Or is it based on what happens in the playoffs?

[OldSkoolCool]

The single minded focus to have Dwane whacked that a few folks around these parts hold is legendary. Some pretty wild and borderline inane things have been thrown up against the wall to express the frustration on some decisions he makes....but....you should really reconsider that statement you just made.

Lou Williams going off for 20 and winning a game does not a winning team make

I think the overall win record has no indication in the coaching prowess, especially when we are talking about a 49 win team in a historically weak conference/division

Also, you can't think that watching Casey routinely bench our best rebounder in the fourth only to get out rebounded late in the game and lose the game isn't a correlation to a FUCKING STUPID HEAD COACH.

[Axel]

To the first point, unless the coach they hired was going to substitute in for Lowry and hit threes, play defense on John Wall, and run the offense I'm not sure how much of a difference he'd have made in the playoffs. The players were absolutely dreadful in that series top to bottom. Casey deserves his share of the blame but let's remember that he doesn't rebound or defend or pass or shoot and that the vets on the team quit in the second game.

There are always "better" coaches but the issue is whether another guy would have made a big enough difference to matter. I don't have any particular knowledge of whether or not Ujiri wanted to fire Casey and was told he couldn't but, given how much money MLSE has spent under Leiweke, I have a very, very difficult time believing they tied MU's hands. If MU wanted him gone he'd be gone. I know everyone thinks Casey's an idiot and is the worst coach in the history of everything but MU clearly doesn't think so - there's no ulterior motives or complicated conspiracy theories required.

So I'm guessing you're of the mind that coaches don't make significant difference. Which is a perfectly fair stance but one that I completely disagree with and think there is enough evidence to dispel.

The impact of coaching is very evident in situations like GSW and Boston. Opposite ends of the talent spectrum, but quite evident that the coaching staff makes those teams better. The flip side is someone like Mike Brown - great regular win totals but overall a coach who doesn't elevate the team as simply had some good players.

To me, a great coach is most evident by their ability to have a strategy for their opponents, their adjustments and their counter adjustments. Does the original strategy put you in a competitive advantage? Do your adjustments impact the game? Do your counter-adjustments negate the opponents adjusted advantage?

At this point, Casey would seem to be net neutral at best and quite likely imo on the negative side. Since the team is trying to improve on the whole, why wouldn't we want a net positive coach at the helm?

[Axel]

To the first point, unless the coach they hired was going to substitute in for Lowry and hit threes, play defense on John Wall, and run the offense I'm not sure how much of a difference he'd have made in the playoffs. The players were absolutely dreadful in that series top to bottom. Casey deserves his share of the blame but let's remember that he doesn't rebound or defend or pass or shoot and that the vets on the team quit in the second game.

To this point, there are plenty of things Casey can do to change that series. Unfortunately, many of them needed to start happening in training camp and throughout the season.

Develop an offensive system that has multiple options if your top option isn't working/out. Jump shooting teams tend to struggle.

Develop a defence strong enough to keep you afloat when your offence struggles.

Rest your best players during the regular season when possible. Consider we had Fields, Steimsma as vets who could hold down the fort in blowouts and young guys like Bebe and Bruno playing historically low rookie minutes - but rarely used them.

Casey coached to win as many regular season games as possible. Mission accomplished but personally, and according to Masai, it was the wrong mission.

[Wild-ling#1]

Seems like you continue to miss my point.

As CRF pointed out, Masai stated goal for last season was improvement in the playoffs. So from using a narrow game 7 loss as the starting point, getting swept is clearly not meeting that objective.

Using Slaw's point provides rationale as to why Masai may have decided that there were enough circumstances outside of Casey's control to give him a pass on not meeting that objective.

None of that would provide any rationale that we should expect less this season. So even with last year getting written off due to circumstance, the Masai stated goal is better than losing game 7 of round one.

None of that is really my opinion or drawing any conclusions, I'm just connecting the existing dots.

But it's a substantially different team.

We had to go in a different direction. We couldn't fully replace our starting 4 (Amir got $12M from the Celts; we gave up $2M for Scola). And lost a lot of bench scoring. It's nice that you've got the season played out so successfully "on paper", but we'll have to see.

Not sure how it plays out this year. I think maybe we're set up better for 1 or two years down the road than this year ... Unless Casey can play center and the 4 this year.

(Maybe he'll be our 6th man too .... but he'll have to defend better than Lou )