Mike Taylor Waived by the Clippers
by Steve Perrin on Jul 31, 2009 7:09 PM PDT
in News
77 comments
Mike Taylor dunk vs. Grizzlies (Original angle + Replays) (via LilPharmacist11)
In what was a truly dismal season on the whole, there were just a few bright spots for the 08-09 Los Angeles Clippers. The best news on the season was generated by their three rookies - lottery pick Eric Gordon who had a stellar rookie campaign, and second rounders DeAndre Jordan and Mike Taylor, who each showed signs of being second round steals.
There's something especially satisfying about the 'second round steal.' The Gilbert Arenas, Carlos Boozer, Paul Millsap - the guy that 90% of the league regrets passing up. And the Clippers have pretty much NEVER had one. I mean, literally never. The best non first round pick in Clippers history would have to be 1982 San Diego third rounder Craig Hodges - and he would hardly qualify as a 'steal'. There's really only one steal in franchise history - the late Randy Smith, a seventh round pick of the Buffalo Braves in 1971.
Gordon's rookie year was so impressive that it's difficult to recall that at the beginning of the season only one rookie was actually in the rotation - and it wasn't Gordon. Mike Taylor gave Jason Hart strong competition for the backup point guard position in training camp and in pre-season games, and played more minutes than Hart in the first few games, essentially surpassing him on the depth chart at that point. Meanwhile, Gordon was buried deep behind Cat Mobley AND Ricky Davis, and DeAndre Jordan wasn't even on the active roster. Over the course of the first five games, Taylor played 81 minutes, Gordon 27 and Jordan 3.
Today the Clippers waived Mike Taylor.
If you're wondering why Taylor was waived today, you need to realize that his three year contract was unguaranteed, and that it became guaranteed as of August 1. From the moment the Clippers acquired Sebastian Telfair two week ago, particularly in light of their pursuit of Ramon Sessions, this moment seemed inevitable. The Clippers were working too hard to shore up the position Taylor plays - and with roster spots becoming scarce and Taylor's contract unguaranteed, this was bound to happen. It's too bad for a lot of reasons, one of which is that we'd all prefer to have Taylor from a basketball and potential standpoint as opposed to say Ricky Davis or Mark Madsen. But those guys have guaranteed contracts, in their final year no doubt, so they have a value of a different kind. The roster was too crowded, and Taylor was the odd man out.
It's tough to reconcile today's events with the events of March 25, 2009 in Madison Square Garden. On that evening, a little more than 4 months ago, Taylor scored a career high 35 points against the Knicks. It was the third highest scoring game for a rookie last season - after Eric Gordon's 41 and Anthony Morrow's 37 against the Clippers. It's also worth noting that he followed up that game with two more solid outings, scoring 69 points in that three game span, while at the same time doing a better job of taking care of the ball - a 3 to 1 assist to turnover ratio during those games. It seemed, perhaps, as the season was winding down, Mike Taylor was 'getting it.'
But before the Lakers had even been crowned champions, it began to look like the Clippers management was not as enamored Taylor as that 35 point game might have suggested. During assistant GM Neil Olshey's presser following the NBA lottery, he gushed about the young core of the team, mentioning the luxury of adding the number one pick to the likes of Gordon and Jordan - but left Taylor's name out of the discussion. I found it strange at the time, and said as much. Taylor's name was conspicuous by it's absence, and not to mention that Olshey labeled point guard as the team's biggest need. Obviously, the team wasn't convinced that Taylor was a viable alternative there, as we is now evident in hindsight.
With management already leery of Taylor - the subject of his 'decision-making' came up often when MDsr discussed him - the young point guard headed to Las Vegas Summer League to lead a talented Clippers roster and promptly stunk up the place. As Ralph Lawler pointed out today, Taylor wasn't the best point guard on that summer league team. Kyle McAlarney was better - much better in fact.
Still, here's a guy who scored 35 points in an NBA game four months ago. A guy that is a blur with the ball. A guy who can dunk like that YouTube at the top of the post. (Warmups won't be as much fun, I'll tell you that.) I really assumed, at the bargain price of $736,420, that they keep him around as a project and a change of pace point guard.
So what does it tell us that they didn't? Well, they now have 12 guaranteed contracts and a qualifying offer out to Steve Novak. Depending on your opinion of the capabilities of Mardy Collins (and assuming that Ricky Davis isn't a viable solution), the team is now dangerously thin at both guard positions and the small forward. And given that MDsr always starts the season with 14 contracts, they may very well use the two available roster spots for a combo guard and a wing. Which would still leave Novak out in the cold.
Is Ramon Sessions that combo guard? Maybe. But given that there's no assurance that the Clippers would get Sessions even if he signs an offer sheet with them, it's not as if the Clippers waived Taylor specifically to make room for Sessions. They waived Taylor to make room for SOMEBODY. That somebody could be Chucky Atkins or Kyle McAlarney. We don't know. But the team decided they could do better than Taylor.
It's sad to think that Mike Taylor's thumb injury may have cost him not just two months but his second season. Let's face it, he needs time and experience if he's going to make it in he league, and he would have been getting a ton of that during the time his thumb was healing. My guess is he'll get picked up by another team this season. If he does, and he gets into a game against the Clippers, you can rest assued that he will try to dunk on everyone.
0 recs |
77 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Would his thumb injury affect his basketball IQ and out-of-control tendencies?
Stuck in limbo.
by PaperClip on Jul 31, 2009 7:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
its too bad we need to keep ricky and madsen, just to use their contracts as trade leverage.
i’d rather have mike taylor any day of the week than those 2.
by hans007 on Jul 31, 2009 8:19 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Does this mean we sign NCM?
That kid had a great summer league, he definitely deserves an invite to preseason.
FA in 2010.
by ClipperChuck on Jul 31, 2009 9:03 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Does that mean the psyche of DJ
will be so damaged that he won’t do anything next year. Is sessions this good or does he look good in a crappy team (Ty Nesby)?
by Qlippers on Jul 31, 2009 9:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
DJ’s only twitter posts since Mike was waived.
Man….
Man, smh!
smh=shaking my head
He’s obviously very upset…..Mike was, in my opinion, a good player who had shown so much promise. He had his issues and it was a bit concerning when he wasn’t correcting them during summer league play. Still he was worth the time and effort. I understand why we waived him but it doesn’t necessarily make it the right move. Ricky and Mark lucked out plain and simple. Mike was cut by default.
by dulciusEXasperis on Jul 31, 2009 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would have kept Mike. How is it the Clippers continue to draft guards and for some reason
they don’t develop or aren’t given the time to develop, seems like a coaching problem. EJ’s the obvious exception.
by eastie Rich on Aug 1, 2009 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know if it's a coaching problem
It could also be the players problem of not working on his game. Coaching can only get a player so far, if the player doesn’t want to listen then there isn’t much anyone can do.
DJ looked like he progressed 10 folds from the beginning of last year to this summer.
I’m not going to cast blame on MT’s progression.
by Qlippers on Aug 1, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im a bit nostalgic
that we didn’t try and hang on to Jared Jordan. Seems to me that Jared Jordan was a great passer in college. Could have possibly developed into something. (Not a starter yet, but posibly become a good pass first pg.)
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Aug 1, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clippers lost that game
Nice dunk though.
Wins > dunks.
by John R on Jul 31, 2009 11:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
a small, miniscule criticism
the only thing i’m not really fond of about this blog is that it adds links to player names. I keep thinking it’s a SP link and when i click it it’s a player info page of stuff I’ve already seen on nba.com and other sb nation blogs.
it’s all good though.
Mike taylor wasn’t our point guard of the future anyway, but with a little experience he could have been a nice role player.
by cantthinkofagoodname on Jul 31, 2009 11:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'll pass the criticism along...
Those links are added automatically. The player pages can be interesting, not only for stats but also to see what else has been written about the player – from anywhere in SBNation. So for instance maybe you want to see what BrewHoop has written about Ramon Sessions.
But yeah, if it’s a player name, it’s not a direct link to a Steve post. I’ll link my posts to other words. And of course you can always roll over and see the URL that it’s linking to – if it’s an SBNation.com link, then it’s one of those player pages or team pages, and if you don’t want to go there, don’t click on it.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Aug 1, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's not a big deal
I’m also using IE6 on this computer so It doesn’t show the “roll over” thing but whatever.
by cantthinkofagoodname on Aug 3, 2009 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think this will be the last we see of MT...
He’ll get another shot in the NBA for sure…or make some nice coin overseas…
by banandy on Aug 1, 2009 1:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think you might be right there. Look how much emotion a second round pick who has been cut has raised with his fans.
There will be fans on another team enjoy his crazy speed, agility and enthusiasm in the future. Good luck to him
Bingo! Oh me oh my!
by ClippersUK on Aug 1, 2009 3:06 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
Will miss MT
I got a chance to meet Mike at a team reception in Vegas. He is a funny guy and very engaging. He really seemed to be a good chemistry guy. It’s too bad he had such a tough time in the summer league. Hopefully he will catch on somewhere.
by thewhiteshadow on Aug 1, 2009 8:33 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This feels like last year
when we found out clipper spirit taylor didn’t make the team, we were all pretty bummed
by Qlippers on Aug 1, 2009 10:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not as bummed about player Taylor leaving
then spirit Taylor leave. MT brought this on himself with his seeming regression spirit Taylor did nothing wrong.
In Gordon we trust
by bestclipfan on Aug 1, 2009 11:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not saying he didn't brought this upon himself
in his summer league play, but I thought everyone agreed that Taylor was cut by default because of Mark Madsen and Ricky Davis’s guarenteed contract…
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Aug 1, 2009 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No sure it is as much default
as much as he did bad and the clips are looking for a PG any ways.
In Gordon we trust
by bestclipfan on Aug 1, 2009 2:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
MT will get better and is already a great spark off the bench
Is anyone else as sick of Coach/GM/Idiot DUMBleavy as I am? Problems w/ Mike Taylor’s “decision-making” just reeks of similar past dumby moves (eg., Korolev instead of Granger always comes to mind, as does Corey Maggette’s forever being in this fool’s doghouse). But now there’s not the slight mitigating power of Elgin Baylor to possibly restrain some of the more foolhardy moves. Dumby unfiltered is going to be hard to continue to take. How much longer, Lord? Wake up, DTS!
by Droozella on Aug 1, 2009 12:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The sacrafices of becoming a Clipper fans..
also involves staring at the bald spot on Dunleavy’s head. Oh, and the way his skin squishes together whenever he frowns…
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Aug 1, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know what will happen first
Dunleavy getting fired or him blowing a gasket from yelling and getting angry most of the game.
In Gordon we trust
by bestclipfan on Aug 1, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Problems w/ Mike Taylor’s "decision-making" doesn't reek of past moves.
it reeks of Mike Taylor having decision making problems.
I loved the kid as much as anyone in ClipperNation. but directly cxonnecting Taylor being cut to “Dumby” is off-base, imo.
Droozella, I’d love to hear your take on how Taylor could have possibly stayed on the team. Everyone saw this coming. If you didn’t see it coming, then you probably weren’t paying attention to the roster data, which is totally understandable. Madsen’s and RDavis’ expiring contracts are more valuable than Taylor, at this point, imo.
by falconPUNCH on Aug 1, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nope, I too didnt see this coming.
I didn’t even know Mike Taylor’s contract was nonguarenteed.
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Aug 1, 2009 5:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A bit of a look at Clipper guards in the Dunleavy era reveals the Clips have used
35 different guards. Of those 35 players, only 5 players have averaged double figures in scoring, B.D, (14.9 and 7.7) E.J. (16.1 and 2.8), Cassell (17.2, 6.3 his first year and 12.3, 4.7 his second), Mobley ( scoring dropped his first three years, slight uptick in his fourth while his assists dropped every year) and Q. Richardson (17.2 and 2.1), and only BD has averaged over 7 assists a game.
It seems that the Clips do o.k. if they obtain a player like Cassell or Mobley (although both of their production dropped under Dunleavy) or if they get a real talent like they did in E.J.(o.k, how rare is that?). It’s apparent they aren’t up to coaching/teaching the other players they draft (hello dunleavy) or bring in.
It’s also a little telling that E.J.‘s stats are virtually they same as Q’s when they let him go. Seriously, Dunleavy doesn’t have a clue.
by eastie Rich on Aug 1, 2009 3:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
not gonna get a lot of assists
playing the isolation offense that dunleavy likes to run
by dc5dugg on Aug 1, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe this is why we always lose...?
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Aug 1, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe our player haven't been very good.
Maybe that’s why we lose.
by falconPUNCH on Aug 1, 2009 5:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe our coach isn't very good..?
Not a fan of dunleavys at all.
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Aug 3, 2009 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can see this going either way, but if you can have a centers coach (which is
acceptable in the NBA), why not a guard coach? I just think the Clippers, under Dunleavy, haven’t done a great job of developing the talent they bring in.
by eastie Rich on Aug 3, 2009 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't that effectively what Fred Vinson is?
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted" – Albert Einstein
by Another son of Mike Smith on Aug 3, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
To Falcon
Following the Clippers move this made no sense. We made a trade and got a 2nd string caliber player in Telfair why in the blue hell would we get Seesion when that is a locker room debacle waiting to happen between Telfair and Seesion. Taylor makes sense because he accepted his role as a third string which was suppose to stay his role but Mike Dumnuts traded for scrub Jason Hart and Taylor beat him out. This move was also beyond stupid because of chemistry not only did you take away a glue guy of our young core with DJ but you are alos flipping the roster over again which got us beat last season.
by KillaClip on Aug 1, 2009 4:43 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Sessions has no place in this discussion, imo.
We have Telfair.
He is BDiddy’s back up. Behind Telfair falls EJ and Collins, in whatever order. Mardy Collins can run the offense better than Mike Taylor, imo. I think others will agre with me about that. And, Eric Gordon, while not natural at the 1 spot, is probably more productive than any 3rd string point guard in the NBA, including Mike Taylor (who is an undersized 2 guard, imo. although, i wish we could have kept him, i never witnessed true 1 guard skills from him, save for alley-oops that always went to the same person: i’m looking at you DJ).
Now we have a team that needs help behind Eric Gordon and along side Al Thornton. So, why keep a player exclusively for the 3rd string point guard spot when the aforementioned player can fill in on spot duty (and let’s be honest, Taylor would have only seen spot duty)?
Now the Clips have an extra valuable roster spot.
ALso, I hate the trem “glue guy.” But, we all have become aware of the term’s definition, and Shane Battier is often the model player. So, there’s really no explanation for calling Taylor a Gg. Doing that is just reaching farther than anyone should for Taylor. Taylor =/= Battier. Not in any way.
And, that chemstry thing? Let’s not act like that was the real reason for the horrible past season. It was an excuse. Sure it’s important. But healthy players and an inshape Baron Davis is much more valuable to this team than the "chemistry given by a 3rd string point guard. In fact, i’d be willing to argue that Taylor’s inability to distribute the ball to anyone other than Deandre Jordan hurts team chemistry.
by falconPUNCH on Aug 1, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm glad they waived him
Although he appears to be a good locker room guy, he had very little basketball IQ; I missed that 3 game stretch with NY last season, but every other time I watched him, he was way out of control, turned the ball over and was a scorer first. The problem with the clippers (among many), is that they have a tendency to play one-on-one. We need a pass-first point guard and Taylor never seemed to have this mentality. I loved it when Baron would look for others; when he had a relatively low shot attempts but high assists, the team did better. There are tons of players in the league with incredible athleticism, but little IQ. Obviously having both traits is the best combo, but too little of either is not going to get you anywhere. Also, how much of basketball IQ is coachable? I think you either have it or you don’t- playing basketball is their job and they exposed to the “teaching” aspects every day from their coaches. Say what you will about Dunleavy but he still is an NBA coach and knows much more about bball than me; if MT doesn’t know how to slow down and play in summer league after a year of teaching, do you really think he is going to progress? How many different ways can you tell a player to slow down, not turn the ball over, and get your teammates involved?
by KeithClossrules on Aug 1, 2009 4:48 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
although, i wouldn’t exactly say that i am glad he’s gone.
by falconPUNCH on Aug 1, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Only three guards have stayed most of three seasons or more under Dunleavy.
Q. Ross, 4 years, stats stayed essentialy the same, his best year he avg.d 5.2 and 1.1. After four years of coaching there was no improvement.
S. Livingston. 2+years. Avg.‘s well down his second year and slightly better his third. I’d call that a push.
Mobley, who’s scoring avg.‘s were 14.8 and 3.0 when he started and after three plus seasons his avg.’s were 13.7 and 1.1.
The point is, not only is he not good at scouting guard talent, but once he get’s someone either they don’t improve or they disappear completely.
by eastie Rich on Aug 1, 2009 5:06 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Dunleavy haters are out in force...
Because he cut Mike Taylor? Taylor did it to himself. Look at his summer league stats. He was terrible. And you guys are blaming it on the GM/coach? Mike Taylor needed to play like a second or third string point guard, instead he played like a sixteenth man. You only have so many slots, he didn’t fit!
It’s unbelievable to me that you build ridiculous stats on guards staying on the team: Q Ross was a nice second round pick, who did fine, but didn’t improve, Cassel was already at the end of his career when he arrived, Mobley played well, but was replaced by Gordon… and where’s Gordon in your sham stats? And finally you throw in Shawn Livingston? Guy had a terrible, tragic injury… and you’re blaming that on MDSr? Please.
eastie Rich, you’re a real fan who hates Dunleavy and you use every excuse to blame the team ills on him. I understand your frustration, but this argument is a sham.
by swamigusto on Aug 1, 2009 6:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't build the stats I just looked them up. And it just goes to show what I've always said -
Dunleavy is a lousy coach. Sham Stats – what’s up with that.? I’m sorry you can’t handle the truth. Stats are available for anyone any time they want to spend the time to look them up. Get over it.
Look, here’s something that gets me. All the posts that say you either good enough or you aren’t by the time you turn pro. Bull. Your a kid. A kid still needs coaching and skill drills etc… The stats back up the fact that Dunleavy is a poor evaluator of guard talent. Simple. And if MT didn’t progress I wonder if it’s all his fault.
For years I’ve been going to games and always wondered who was going to play guard. It’s been a real carousel here. So I thought I’d look up the stats and see where they led me.
by eastie Rich on Aug 1, 2009 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
But your conclusion isn't...
…that the Clippers and Mike Dunleavy haven’t developed any good young guards (excepting EJ, which is of course the HUGE exception), it’s that “Dunleavy is a lousy coach”. Your path from argument to conclusion is too simple.
Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t think Dunleavy coached well last year. I think the team and his process stopped working (where was the stifling defense of 2006?), but I think you force your results down the narrow pipe of “Dunleavy stinks.”
It’s as easy and fallible a paradigm as “The Clippers were bad last year because of injuries.” I don’t believe that either.
I don’t think Dunleavy has excelled at developing young talent, but, at the NBA level, how many coaches have? Larry Brown is one coach who is celebrated for his ability to teach. But Brown is the first to bail on a player who doesn’t want to work, doesn’t have the talent, or doesn’t fit his system. And he’s dumped some players who’ve succeeded elsewhere.
In order to really make your point you have to illuminate the other side. Where’s the Clipper player, ANY player, who blew up AFTER he left Dunleavy’s system. (Has Q. Ross become a better shooter once he left the Clippers? No! But he’s still making rosters because of his defense.) I’m just not seeing your argument.
by swamigusto on Aug 2, 2009 10:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
These are certainly interesting issues
Swami – I wouldn’t call these folks Dunleavy haters. Perhaps the more apt term would be that they believe that the coach has a greater role in the development of talent than others might think and have less of a problem finding blame in the organization than other people who believe the organization is basically fine and the players are not stepping up. Things are more complicated here because MDSr is also the GM so he’s responsible for deciding what players to bring in in the first place in addition to their development. I think that tThese issues are all fair game for discussion in a forum like this, and Swami’s post points out some of the difficulties in making blanket statements that the coach is responsible, etc..
A discussion re the issues raised here could fill 15 posts – for example, the nature and extent of the responsibility of the coach and gm for developing talent drafted by the team seems to bring in a number of issues for discussion, such as the ability to evaluate talent, the effectiveness of the coaching system, the nature of the offensive system and how well the individual players can grasp that system, the availability of positive veteral presence on the team to help the young players develop, etc.
I suppose there are no objective truths here. Having said that, I think it would be interesting to read some honest opinions of other coaches and GMs about the Clipper system and of MDSr’s coaching and GM abilities.
by Jax on Aug 2, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jax. you explained it much better than I did in your second paragraph. All I was
trying to do was look up some stats (which I’ve done before) to see if what I “felt” was correct or not. Like I said, I was just wondering why the team seems to have so many guards and virtually none seem to develop. A simple question, and if I post just opinion without fact (stats) then it’s just an opinion.
I actually think Dunleavy is a much better evaluator of forward talent. I think he’s done o.k. there (though he didn’t like Corey). But since this post was about MT I naturally looked at the guards.
by eastie Rich on Aug 2, 2009 10:48 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
ER, why do you believe that MDSr is a better evaluator of one type of talent vs. another?
Now THAT has the potential to be an interesting discussion… Not sure where I fall on that subject…
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted" – Albert Einstein
by Another son of Mike Smith on Aug 2, 2009 10:55 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
o.k, just so you know, I'm not making stuff up. I spend the time to look up stats
etc.. If I had the time (and may later) I could look up some stats on the front line. I’m not sure if I’d be surprised or not. I’m not sure (for example) just when Bobby Simmons or James Siingleton were drafted.
etc.. If I had the time (and may later) I could look up some stats on the front line. I’m not sure if I’d be surprised or not. I’m not sure (for example) just when Bobby Simmons or James Siingleton were drafted. That being said, I already have enough of a reputation as a Dunleavy hater so I’m trying to keep an open mind (hence the use of stats). I wouldn’t be surprised, if comparitively, Dunleavys done much better with forwards than guards.
by eastie Rich on Aug 2, 2009 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't worry about your reputation - it's not an issue
There are those who tend to believe the coach is more responsible (Dunleavy haters) and those who tend to believe the players are more responsible (Dunleavy lovers).
I think that both terms are inaccurate. The basis for your position is not unreasonable, as is the basis for the position of those who tend to believe the opposite. The challenge is in finding support and articulating your position, which you typically do.
by Jax on Aug 2, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jax, I can see where there's got to be a meeting of the two. However,
being the coach and the GM I think the issue rests with who’s in charge. Ultimately it’s Sterling, I said that just to give the Dunleavy lovers a break. But the hands on day to day development of the players (in my opinion) rests with the coach and his staff.
Even Sloan sat Williams until he agreed to play the way Sloan wanted him to.
by eastie Rich on Aug 2, 2009 11:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's true, but
as was pointed out, there’s only so much the coaches can do, and when you are dealing with a second round pick, it seems to me that it is less likely that the player would ever become a solid NBA vet and that you are for the most part taking a flyer. I say that without actually looking at the statistics on the issue.
Your larger point about the fact that the coach and GM are ultimately in charge and that the buck stops with them is a point that I strongly agree with.
by Jax on Aug 2, 2009 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was going to slam the Clippers picks (not the players, who they
could have had) and found they actually didn’t draft too badly. The biggest bust being Koralev, Paul Davis was drafted in the second round, and there were actually a slew of very good players available when he drafted Livingston (but at least he was trying to address the guard problem).
Still, when you draft or trade for someone it can’t just be how fast is he, or how high he can jump. You have to factor in character and work ethic.
by eastie Rich on Aug 2, 2009 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll happily take back the "hater" line...
Didn’t really mean to annoy anyone with that moniker (it was simply convenient).. and I’d rather not be called a “Dunleavy lover” either, if you don’t mind.
Looking through the thread, It just seems to me that if Livingston hadn’t suffered that injury, Dunleavy’s successes (the drafting of Gordon and Ross and the acquisition of late-career players, Cassell, and Mobley), and failures (Mike Taylor, Brunson, Hart, Dickau, et al) there wouldn’t be much of an argument one way or another about Mike Dunleavy and guards.
I have to admit the memory of journeymen players like Rick Brunson or Jason Hart in Clipper’s unis makes me want to scream… and, just to keep things on point, I felt pretty much the same way watching Mike Taylor race down the floor without a clue last year.
by swamigusto on Aug 2, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
taylor out
i think taylor had a very small window to operate in to have continuing success with this team due to the changes in the teams make up, the needs of the team and the expected progression of time itself as it relates to a players individual growth, and unfortunately Taylor did not make it through that window, he did not seize the opportunity before him which was his for the losing. i enjoyed taylor and had lofty dreams of his potential of what i saw as a spark, the microwave that the game in new work promised. There is no way that Mike Taylor, a 55th pick in the draft, can be considered a bust. most guys drafted about after midway through the 2nd round aren’t expected to make the team at that point, let alone be a contributor making it a whole season.
by Takebb909 on Aug 2, 2009 5:02 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
A (very) quick look at the stats show a total of 22 forwards in the Dunleavy
era. That should point to there being better talent at that position. The two best forward were E.B. and Corey, but he didn’t bring them in and that’s about to change with Griffin. He brought in (in there first years or as clippers draftees) Matt Barnes, Koralev, Singleton, Fazekas, Powell and AT. The players he aquired from other teams weren’t nearly as strong.
Overall, I’d still have to say he’s done much better at the forward position than guard – but that’s just an opinion.
by eastie Rich on Aug 2, 2009 11:58 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Corey was drafted by Orlando and came here before MDSr got here
And Corey certainly developed under MDSr – he was a one and done at Duke who came off the bench there. He turned himself into a pretty good NBA player.
by Jax on Aug 2, 2009 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was totally Dunleavy's fault that Taylor didn't progress...
In fact, summer league was case in point. Taylor looked horrible and it’s all because Dunleavy did a terrible job coaching him during summer league…
Wait a minute.
Dunleavy didn’t coach summer league.
Oops.
I guess it’s not that simple.
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted" – Albert Einstein
by Another son of Mike Smith on Aug 1, 2009 7:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Ah, to have a position of being in charge where I'd make millions a year and then
not be responsible for anything. Wow, what a deal.
by eastie Rich on Aug 1, 2009 9:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
In all athletics ameature or professional
it is never the coaches fault for bad decisions and making bad decisions is why Taylor is gone. You can’t help a horrible basketball IQ when the player won’t change. And yes Dunleavy is a bad coach but I don’t think he has anything to do with the point guard stats. And you can’t throw in Q Ross in those stats because he wasn’t in for stats just defense, if he gave you one stat (one assist one point) then it is extra. I know you hate the coach ER but you can’t blame him for things that are the players fault and Taylor was just asking to get cut with his piss poor (to put it nicely) performance at summer league.
In Gordon we trust
by bestclipfan on Aug 2, 2009 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
These two posts by Another Son and Eastie Rich are perfect examples
of the divergent bases of opinion that I mentioned above. One poster tends to believe that the players are ultimately responsible. The other believes that the coach/gm is ultimately responsible. Mike Taylor is a great foil for the discussion because as noted below, he was a second round pick with tons of potential who could have been a first round pick but for (I seem to recall) some personal issues that forced him out of school.
Second round picks are generally flyers, right? However, because of all the injuries last year Taylor was able to play and at times showed some potential. This is why many people on this site tend to support him and want him to have a chance this year. That makes sense.
However, for whatever reason, he flamed out during summer league. And the team picked up Bassy and has a chance for Sessions. Leaving Taylor, an undersized shooting guard, an unnecessary luxury for this team (and he may have been sacrificed to strengthen our offer to Sessions). Doesn’t seem to me that this decision has much to do with Taylor’s lack of development but rather a strategic move based on the current makeup of the team.
Having said that, there may be something to the inability of the team to develop talent, which again is something that one would think is reflective in stats like W-L record, in watching the team perform, and the like. I also think that we would be able to see that play out as our draft picks get older. I suspect that EJ will continue to improve as he moves into his second year, while Al Thornton appears to have regressed from his first to his second year. Thus, IMO it is certainly possible for players to develop on this team, and it would seem just as important that players are drafted who have the best chance to develop as anything else. As I recall, the main knock on Al Thornton before he was drafted was his basketball IQ. He had great athleticism, but . . That’s why he fell to 14th.
Whenever you choose a player who has low basketball IQ, you might be making a conscious decision that you understand he has less of a chance to develop, but since he’s so athletic, the rewards would be greater if he does. The classic risk-reward pick. I could see MDSr wanting Thornton in part becuase he could be a good iso player one day. I suppose you could say that if that kind of a pick doesn’t work out, it’s on the GM, particularly if there were players of perhaps lesser natural talent available who had a much higher basketball IQ.
These are just musings on a difficult subject.
by Jax on Aug 2, 2009 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Jax... the voice of reason...
Well put, sir. One quick clarification – I don’t think Taylor was ever considered a first round pick. He had been kicked off the team at Iowa St. and ended up in the D-League. He was impressive at pre-draft camps, which is where he started getting noticed. I think MDsr was happy that he was still on the board at 55 and that Portland was willing to trade that pick; but he was never to my knowledge projected higher than second round. As you and others have pointed out, you can hardly call a second rounder being cut a draft bust – it’s the norm.
In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. - Elwood P. Dowd
by Steve Perrin on Aug 3, 2009 10:21 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks - I had read somewhere that he had been thought of as a potential first round pick
before he was kicked out of school. Kevin A. has an interesting post up about the Taylor waiver, and he appears to be pretty critical about the trade for the pick that became Taylor and the waiver. He seems to think that if we were going to trade for the pick, we should have given him some more time to develop.
by Jax on Aug 3, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't you mean DJ Foster?
I believe KA is currently on vacay.
Stuck in limbo.
by PaperClip on Aug 3, 2009 6:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand
al the fuss about a third string (maybe) point guard that, aside from a 3 game stretch last season, was pretty much horrible any time he was on the floor. In a best case scenario, he would NEVER see any time on the court…actually, I take that back, he would be seeing a bunch of garbage time at the ends of game that the Clippers win by 20 or more…and at that point, who cares? Seriously! I don’t get the fetish with Mike Taylor. Get over it.
Do or do not. There is no try.
by Clip Show on Aug 2, 2009 1:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
i tend to think the reason everyone likes mike (and i do as well) was he was scrappy. I think its pretty similar to how we all liked james single ton also.
he’s also basically the ultimate under dog being a 55th pick and all. unfortunately , he isn’t really a pg. who knows if he ever will be. I just looked up his college stats… and the guy average 4.5 assists and 5.4 turnovers as iowa state’s pg. james single ton also wasn’t really a small forward and was too small to be a power forward (and if you notice the guy hasn’t really done much since). I guess these type of guys are us clipper fan’s brian scalabrine (except unlike scal, they dont make like 5 million a year )
He may never be a pg, but i’m sure he’ll eventually be an energy guy for some team , like a poor mans leandro barbosa i’d think is his absolute best case scenario.
by hans007 on Aug 2, 2009 3:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Taylor is the typical player you get in the late 2nd round
tons and tons of potential that often don’t get realized. But maybe on another team Taylor will finally fix some of his mistakes and become the decent player that he has the potential to be.
In Gordon we trust
by bestclipfan on Aug 2, 2009 10:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
player, not the coach.
At this level, which is professional at the highest level this world knows, it is the players responsibility to develop their abilities, not the coaches. coaches developing a player is left for your community leagues, club leagues, high school and even college. by the time you get to the PROS you should be a pro. meaning being a man or very close to it. it means you should show a clear level of responsibility and maturity, not showing up to the job asking them to teach you how to be a lawyer. you should be arriving to that firm only needing to know how the firm operates in their specialty or the companies mindset and direction, what they want from you. instead players are showing up to the league needing to know how to set a screen. when you get to the nba you should already be a self starter needing only to pick up nuances and tricks of the trade and that you should be gleaming yourself. thats whats makes a player like Blake Griffin such a breath of fresh air and an inspiration. That’s why i think this league felt compelled to put an age limit on it, i don’t agree with it. but i understand part of the reason in making that change. So I don’t think Dunleavy should be blamed for player development where as he should be blamed for wins and losses. The coach she be making lemonade. the GM is responsible for the quality of the lemons the coach has. the owner, the access of trees the GM has to choose from. I’m not a fan of Dunleavy’s coaching. I am, however, not dissatisfied with dunleavy as a GM.
by Takebb909 on Aug 2, 2009 4:46 PM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
How many times or different ways can a coach tell a player to slow down, see the court, limit your turnovers? Is coaching at this level really all that different from team to team? It takes a lot to be an nba coach, to get to this level you have to have some level of competence, some level of communication ability. The bottom line, the difference between winning in this league and losing is often chance- a ping pong bounce. I’m not saying that coaches/GM’s/owners can’t have profound influence on an organization, they obviously can. all I’m saying is there is only so much you can do to “coach” a player like MT into a better one. Sometimes, players just have it or they don’t. and if they don’t, you should be able to see after a year of close contact whether they are developing in the right direction, whether they are putting in the work to get better, whether they take direction well. I’m not a dunleavy hater, but actually wouldn’t mind seeing him go either. But really is Mike Brown really that much better than him?
by KeithClossrules on Aug 2, 2009 6:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i concur
thats another good observation. i don’t see mike brown being any better, not the least bit of improvement. not in overall results. dunleavy is good as a coach with regards to being disciplined where many coaches would not, such as if down under 2 mins grinding it out calling the intentional fouls to force the other team in making their free throws as his team tries to inch his way back. good for team that tries to stay within reach. many coaches may be short in vision and just live and die by the 3. that that is ideal for a defensiv mined team which it is on longer
by Takebb909 on Aug 2, 2009 9:09 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions 0 recs
yeah i cannot see dunleavy running out of time outs vinny del negro or mike brown style.
i think spolestra did that a few times too. dunleavy is a decent game manager. maybe his playbook is too big, or maybe he’s too controlling a coach. i think he is very rick carlisle like actually just we have a really negative opinion of him, but supposedly carlisle is a “bad” coach too.
i mean i dont think he’s particularly terrible of a coach, and clearly he’s at least persuasive with sterling and that alone is worth having him. i mean talent and luck make some guy smuch better coaches than they are. i mean i am still not convinced doc rivers or mike brown are particularly good coaches. their teams are talented, they SHOULD win a lot of games.
i’d figure if you could get a lot out of a clearly awful team , then you are definitely a good coach. i mean larry brown , or maybe hubie brown with the grizzlies are probably actually great coaches in that regard (hell larry got us to the playoffs 2 years ina row, he might be the best of getting “value” out of his players)
i mean dunleavy coaching the cavs… i think he’d do pretty well. hell he could dump it into shaq and Z constantly , he’d proably win 60 games if not more.
by hans007 on Aug 2, 2009 10:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doc Rivers
Couldn’t do much without his big three…and got crap from Bill Simmons for years.
by banandy on Aug 3, 2009 11:44 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lets break it down so far
1. Mike Taylor running one on on is Mike Dunleavy’y systems with everyone. 2. Hans007, Mike Dunleavy does not have great managment look at all the countless breakdowns after halftime, look at the 4th quarters (the coaches quarter) every game where the team constantly lost leads or got blown out, look at the games where we started and the team lloked totally unprepared for the game. 3.TakeBB909, if that is the case we should waive DeAndre Jordan because there is no hope for him one season has determined his NBA career. A coaches job is to teach and develop if not there which in overall perspective should make a NBA player freaking better. From other posters Mike taylor had ONE NBA SEASON lol to act like the guy was a bust is lame at the least. 4.When Adam Morrison dominates SL it holds no weight. Curry was horrible during his SL which by end result should get him waived. It’s freaking SL taking what a player does there into account shows the worse level of Basketball IQ for an NBA fan. It is there to hopefully work up a sweat for the young players. 5.The love for Mike is he hustled his @$$ off DURING THE SEASON on a team where everyone quit at some point he went at it every game. I respect effort when it counts over SL games.
by KillaClip on Aug 4, 2009 3:02 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
1st of all DJ showed signs of improvement which is why he is being kept around
and Taylor showed no signs of improvement and actually regressed. Also Taylor was not important to the teams future we already have Baron DJ on the other hand is important as Camby is gone next year and Kaman may not ever return to 2.0 form. And the reason why no one cares about what Curry or Morrison did is because they just have to score what they do in SL will not probably translate against better defenders, but Taylor failing was a big deal because he had to demonstrate basic PG fundamentals and he failed horribly and bad fundamental skills do translate to bad play in season. I do respect that Taylor hustled every game but he also never slowed down which you need to be able to do to be even a modestly effective PG in the league. I really do hope he succeeds but he needs to improve a lot before he can be even a small asset to a team.
In Gordon we trust
by bestclipfan on Aug 6, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Clips Nation
Related FanShots on Clips Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
