This is
@Pioneer10 's point...
Why would you say
"Lue is just the better coach for this squad but in no way do I think he is the better coach overall" and then immediately acknowledge
"But we have no way of knowing this."
It's irrational.
You have no way of knowing that Blatt is a better NBA coach overall compared to Lue, yet, you equate the two anyway even with the implication that Blatt could/would be better with a different squad - because for some reason Lue is "just the better coach for this squad." How does this make sense?
What does Lue have to do to demonstrate he's the better coach? Win a championship? Get a handle on a disjointed team of prima donnas? Make a team of athletes play like a team of athletes?
How long do we discount what Lue has achieved in order to prop up Blatt far beyond his accomplishments in the NBA? It's getting to the point of being a bit weird... in the worst way.