One thing that's been consistent in these discussions all along is that for most, if not all, of the reasons people put out their in favour of sacking Bucks, there's always several responses (often rooted in truth) about how "criticism X isn't Buck's fault, it's actually excuses 1, 2, and 3 that explain that".
Bucks has been probably the most unluckiest of coaches that I can remember, but all that means is that it's possible to come up with reasons why we shouldn't sack him, rather than the flip side, which is to come up with good coaching merit based reasons for keeping him. All these (perfectly valid) excuses do, is mask his actual coaching ability. After 6 years, we still haven't seen anything that demonstrates that he's a capable coach that deserves reappointment - only reasons that show how unfair it'd be to sack him.
Given our declining results each year, the decision on whether to keep/fire him based on thus far obscured coaching merit, is therefore a massive gamble. It could pay off or fall apart in extreme equal measures. Or it could be more of the same.
Bucks has been probably the most unluckiest of coaches that I can remember, but all that means is that it's possible to come up with reasons why we shouldn't sack him, rather than the flip side, which is to come up with good coaching merit based reasons for keeping him. All these (perfectly valid) excuses do, is mask his actual coaching ability. After 6 years, we still haven't seen anything that demonstrates that he's a capable coach that deserves reappointment - only reasons that show how unfair it'd be to sack him.
Given our declining results each year, the decision on whether to keep/fire him based on thus far obscured coaching merit, is therefore a massive gamble. It could pay off or fall apart in extreme equal measures. Or it could be more of the same.

