#FireCasey

[Chr1s1anL]

Because Stevens was widely considered one of the best basketball minds in college and someone that many teams would have loved to have hired. He's widely lauded across the league and is very young.

Casey has never be considered anything like that. It's essentially the benefit of the doubt you give a Top 5 pick vs a second rounder.

Who cares about college basketball? He is not in college anymore. So because he had success in college that means we can't hold him to the same standard as Casey?

Casey is also well regarded around the league. Anytime anyone ever talk about Casey in the NBA media it's all praise about the job he has done in Toronto. Rick Carlise went out of his way to call BC to tell him this is the guy you need to change things around. Coach Carlise was right.

I really want to understand this. If Stevens loses in 1st round again. He gets a pass because he almost won a national championships?

Want to make it clear that I think Stevens is a good coach but, so is Casey. He hasn't done anything to say that he more than that in my opinion.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

[Axel]

Who cares about college basketball? He is not in college anymore. So because he had success in college that means we can't hold him to the same standard as Casey?

Casey is also well regarded around the league. Anytime anyone ever talk about Casey in the NBA media it's all praise about the job he has done in Toronto. Rick Carlise went out of his way to call BC to tell him this is the guy you need to change things around. Coach Carlise was right.

I really want to understand this. If Stevens loses in 1st round again. He gets a pass because he almost won a national championships?

Want to make it clear that I think Stevens is a good coach but, so is Casey. He hasn't done anything to say that he more than that in my opinion.

You can't simply claim a record in the playoffs as a standard for coaching. Different teams, different players, different matchups, different everything. So your arbitrary standard is complete bull.

Casey was not and has never been on the same tier as Stevens around the league as a coaching prospect. So yes, Stevens would naturally get more benefit of the doubt due to that and his age. I don't get why that is so difficult to accept.

[Chr1s1anL]

You can't simply claim a record in the playoffs as a standard for coaching. Different teams, different players, different matchups, different everything. So your arbitrary standard is complete bull.

Casey was not and has never been on the same tier as Stevens around the league as a coaching prospect. So yes, Stevens would naturally get more benefit of the doubt due to that and his age. I don't get why that is so difficult to accept.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't understand how what they did prior to coaching in the NBA has to do with how we judge thier NBA career. Your entitled to your opinion.

How long till will be able to judge Stevens on playoffs success like we do with Casey? I just want to know when we can judge them on a even playing field.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

[A.I]

You can't simply claim a record in the playoffs as a standard for coaching. Different teams, different players, different matchups, different everything. So your arbitrary standard is complete bull.

Casey was not and has never been on the same tier as Stevens around the league as a coaching prospect. So yes, Stevens would naturally get more benefit of the doubt due to that and his age. I don't get why that is so difficult to accept.

Its hard to accept for someone who basically believes Casey has no faults and defends him from any sort of criticism.

I do agree with you. Winning college coaches do get a lot more praise and offers from NBA teams. Billy Donovan, John Calipari and so on. Casey has been an assistant for many, many years, had a head coaching job with the Wolves for about a season and half before he got fired and then ultimately won a championship in 2011 and thats when he started getting recognized.

[Chr1s1anL]

Its hard to accept for someone who basically believes Casey has no faults and defends him from any sort of criticism.

I do agree with you. Winning college coaches do get a lot more praise and offers from NBA teams. Billy Donovan, John Calipari and so on. Casey has been an assistant for many, many years, had a head coaching job with the Wolves for about a season and half before he got fired and then ultimately won a championship in 2011 and thats when he started getting recognized.

So you agree we can't judge Stevens on his playoffs records as well? I really don't care about who was the "better coaching prospect". They both got the job. I just don't get why we can't evaluate them both on playoff success.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

[white men can't jump]

Its hard to accept for someone who basically believes Casey has no faults and defends him from any sort of criticism.

I do agree with you. Winning college coaches do get a lot more praise and offers from NBA teams. Billy Donovan, John Calipari and so on. Casey has been an assistant for many, many years, had a head coaching job with the Wolves for about a season and half before he got fired and then ultimately won a championship in 2011 and thats when he started getting recognized.

He can't even acknowledge the impressive job Stevens has done.

Let us all not forget that when Boston hired Stevens, they basically thought they'd be tanking for at least 2-3 years. That is a big reason they gave him a 6 year deal. He had them in the playoffs by year 2. Nearing the end of year 4 they could win the conference. All this with a roster that for sure 2 years ago was not considered close to playoff caliber. And even now with Horford added, it's still pretty mediocre roster with lots of flaws that definitely looks like they have no business winning as much as they do.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[A.I]

So you agree we can't judge Stevens on his playoffs records as well?

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

I agree somewhat. The Celtics are still a young and improving team. They were a terrible team up until last season (2 seasons ago they still made the Playoffs, but had a losing record). You have to give Stevens the benefit of the doubt for at least 2 or 3 more seasons. If the Celtics show no signs of improvement and or take a step back, thats when you point your finger at Stevens.

You also take into account the roster. They have one legitimate star player in Isaiah and no Horford is not one. It is difficult to win with one star player.

[Chr1s1anL]

He can't even acknowledge the impressive job Stevens has done.

Let us all not forget that when Boston hired Stevens, they basically thought they'd be tanking for at least 2-3 years. That is a big reason they gave him a 6 year deal. He had them in the playoffs by year 2. Nearing the end of year 4 they could win the conference. All this with a roster that for sure 2 years ago was not considered close to playoff caliber. And even now with Horford added, it's still pretty mediocre roster with lots of flaws that definitely looks like they have no business winning as much as they do.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Casey had the raps in playoffs by year 3. The year the GM was intentially trying to tank. Now their perennial 50 win team. Had a chance to win the East last year and this year.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

[Axel]

Casey had the raps in playoffs by year 3. The year the GM was intentially trying to tank. Now their perennial 50 win team. Had a chance to win the East last year and this year.

But that's really not relevant because the teams and circumstances aren't the same.

You switch Casey and Stevens with these rosters, Celtics aren't as good under Casey and I doubt many people around the NBA would disagree (although I fully expect you do).

[Chr1s1anL]

I agree somewhat. The Celtics are still a young and improving team. They were a terrible team up until last season (2 seasons ago they still made the Playoffs, but had a losing record). You have to give Stevens the benefit of the doubt for at least 2 or 3 more seasons. If the Celtics show no signs of improvement and or take a step back, thats when you point your finger at Stevens.

You also take into account the roster. They have one legitimate star player in Isaiah and no Horford is not one. It is difficult to win with one star player.

Raps are one of the youngest teams in the league as well. Atlanta won 60 games without a star. I personally think Boston has pretty good roster. You got a top 5 scorer. All-star caliber do it all power forward. A bunch of two players. Thats a pretty good roster.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

[Chr1s1anL]

But that's really not relevant because the teams and circumstances aren't the same.

You switch Casey and Stevens with these rosters, Celtics aren't as good under Casey and I doubt many people around the NBA would disagree (although I fully expect you do).

There is no way of proving that. Everyone expected raps to suck after Lowry went down. 15 games later were 10-5. 11-5 on the season without Lowry.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

[Axel]

#FireCasey

There is no way of proving that. Everyone expected raps to suck after Lowry went down. 15 games later were 10-5. 11-5 on the season without Lowry.

You're right, it can't be proven. Just like you can't prove that Stevens wouldn't have done better than Casey when you try to point to Casey's record.

[A.I]

Raps are one of the youngest teams in the league as well. Atlanta won 60 games without a star. I personally think Boston has pretty good roster. You got a top 5 scorer. All-star caliber do it all power forward. A bunch of two players. Thats a pretty good roster.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

Hawks have Bud as their coach, he is one of the better coaches in the league. Hawks also had Paul Milsap and Horford, who at that time were All-star caliber players. Celtics have a solid roster, but still lots of room for improvement and they are in need of a second star player.

[Chr1s1anL]

You're right, it can't be proven. Just like you can't prove that Stevens wouldn't have done better than Casey when you try to point to Casey's record.

So how can we judge them if we can't use winning as a standard? At that point it comes down to style of play. That comes down to preference.

Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk

[Axel]

So how can we judge them if we can't use winning as a standard? At that point it comes down to style of play. That comes down to preference.

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.