Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
IMO, Glen Gulutzan may have been the worst bench boss in the league. You can praise him for his system theory (aside from how god damn slow it could be) if you like, but he just could not hack the bench itself. If Peters is better at that, then he is definitely an upgrade, even if the system is almost the same.
That is an incredibly self-serving and frankly terrible false dichotomy you've built there.
There's nothing about choosing Peters over someone like Sutter that automatically makes us "lucky" or implies that he made a decision for our betterment ahead of "saving face".
|
I know false dichotomy is your favorite phrase, but how is this a false dichotomy?
You mention that Brad thinking he's the smartest guy in the room and select what you believe is a lame duck coach will do more damage to his career than anything. I agree. It would be easy to select AV or Darryl and if anything bad happens, at least you can say that you hired the guy with the proven record of success.
We know that there are many metrics when it comes to evaluating a coach: some objective and subject subjective. Absolutely Treliving will look bad if he chooses the less proven guy and he doesn't work out. If Treliving cared about looking good in the eyes of the media or fans, his choice would already be made.
I think we are lucky he doesn't think like that.