Is Anyone Thinking Coaching Options?
by TheOtherLATeam on Mar 3, 2010 1:39 PM PST
Email
PrintI have been a long time supporter and taker of punishment from friends and family for the LA Clippers. When all my Laker friends go to Finals parties I am looking at the draft. Which brings me to this ... I worry about the direction of our team. Blowing up the roster like we did was the right thing to do, but it feels to me that we are relying solely on the big free agent signing. I feel the coach is going to be the bigger part of our success. So my question to you is who should we be looking to in the off season. I personally believe, Bryon Scott would be the best fit for the way we are built currently. And I also heard that he has said that he would like to coach here. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
P.S. Please take it easy on me ..... this is my first post ever
54 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I'm not sold on Byron Scott, at all.
His biggest flaw is an inability to develop younger players. I don’t want Griffin in his hands. Not to mention he’s not exactly cordial with BD, and will contantly have his eyes on the Laker job.
Don’t think he’s a good fit, and his comments earlier that he’ll wait and see which job he likes best rubs me the wrong way. Like he has his pick of the litter.
Much rather see Buss cheap on his head coach, hire Byron for half of fill, then watch Jackson recruit LeBron to the Clippers. (That last part is wishful thinking, to say the least!)
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's doing down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 3, 2010 1:54 PM PST reply actions
Haha. Phil*, not fill. Oops.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's doing down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 3, 2010 1:55 PM PST up reply actions
+1
not sure why people are so quick to go after Byron. I would say JVG is a good target (although he will be very hard to move him from his broadcasting job). Although if we get Lebron (still dreaming) I think that we will let him choose his coach.
" Baron for the win, BINGO!!!! The Clipers Win, The Clippers win!!! "
Ralph Lawler
Excellent first post
Welcome to Clips Nation, btw.
I tend to agree with citizen GfP – Byron’s past history with Baron does not bode well, if you still plan on Baron being a part of the team’s success. And Byron has not done well at developing young talent (though it’s looking more and more like Julian Wright just didn’t have it perhaps). There are rumors that Byron is interested in the job, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s not an ideal choice.
But your point is well-taken. The coach choice is crucial, and unlike Free Agency (where the ultimate choice may be to essentially do nothing and stick with more or less this team), you can’t really punt on the coach choice – it needs to be a real, solid choice, because the team has talent and potential even without LBJ.
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
Punting = Hughes
which is not good.
I would go after Van Gundy.
by Michael White on Mar 3, 2010 2:16 PM PST up reply actions
Wow. Shout-out from the Fearless Leader. Nice.
Here’s where it gets tricky for me. You need a coach in place by the draft, otherwise you wind up with a David Kahn situation. Coaches usually like to shape the team around their ideas, having one in place BEFORE the draft and free agency is usually the way to go. But doing that means LeBron doesn’t get to choose his guy (if he comes). Kind of a catch-22.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's doing down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on Mar 3, 2010 6:33 PM PST up reply actions
coaches don't matter
save some money and cut down some ticket prices
let me amend that
coaches don’t matter in terms of winning. But, coaches can have an effect on losing by destroying chemistry, ruining confidence, etc. Sam Cassell ran the asylum in 05-06. Going to games I saw him always ignore Dun in late game situations. The proven vets on our team knew what to do to win games. So in terms of having a positive effect on teams coaches don’t matter. But a coach can have negative effects on a team
You need a good coach to go far.
A good floor leader will only get you so far. To win a cahmpionship I would argue that you need a good coach to do that. In my opinion, the Clippers need to hire the available coach with the best career winning record.
"Excellence...is not an act, but a habit" Aristotle
doc rivers
lost 16 straight games and was considered a bad coach. Forward one year he gets two hall of famers and a PG that starts coming into his own they win a ship. Furthermore Bill Russell won 2 championships as a player coach. Very few coaches have an effect on the PRO game. In college they make a difference, but in the NBA it’s all about the players when it comes to success.
Jerry Sloan just grunted at you.
While he did have Stockton/Malone and then Williams/Boozer, it’s the offense Sloan runs that allows these tandems to flourish so much. Arguably, any talented point guard/power forward combo should be able to do well in that system, which is why it didn’t hurt them much when Millsap replaced Boozer briefly.
Are Williams, Boozer, and Millsap talented? Absolutely, but is the fact that they have essentially replicated the Stockton/Malone Era in an extremely hostile Western Conference solely attributed to their talent? That can’t possibly be true. I mean, the guy has had 1 sub-.500 season since taking the head coaching position with the Jazz! (How has he not won COY yet??)
My point is that no coach could ever create a winning team with no talent (good luck NJ…), but having a good coach absolutely has an effect in pulling out wins when a team has talent that is capable. As we know, probably better than any fan-base, having a ton of talent doesn’t mean you’ll have a ton of success. That’s as much on the coach as it is on the players, I think.
you just proved my point though
Stockton and Malone will go down as second tier all-time greats because of one thing. When it came down to it Jordan and Pippen were were just a better duo, or to put it more succinctly better players. Sloan and Jackson are considered great coaches, sure they helped in terms of consistency, but ultimately it’s the players that decide each coaches legacy. Look at the Spurs; even they were nothing until they got blessed with Tim Duncan. Players turn around franchises not coaches. What this franchise needs the most is the right player not the right coach. If we want this franchise to become an elite one we need that superstar
I'm not sure how I proved your point...
Well, in one sense, I absolutely agree with you. Almost every championship team has a superstar (the 2004 Pistons team is an exception, of course). Popovich is a difficult example to use, since he only coached one season before Timmy came along, but that was a really pathetic season. Without Timmy, there’s no way Pop would have been this successful.
But my point is that talented coaches know how to utilize talented players. If a coach has a really good system in place, you can trade one star player for another and replicate the same success (which is what I was saying about Utah). If we had our exact same squad, but we had Sloan, Popovich, or Jackson at the helm, I guarantee you we’d be much, much better. No one really argues about whether we have talent or not. But is that talent being properly utilized? I don’t really think so at all, and I don’t think you can put that on the players.
So again, I don’t agree that it’s “all about the players,” but I would say that it’s most certainly all about BOTH the players AND the coach. You simply can’t win if one of those two isn’t talented enough to make the other look good.
that's both of my points again
maybe we are just not understanding each other lol.
1. players ultimately decide championships or franchises
2. coaches can hurt a team (by not utilizing their players strengths, or destroying a young players psyche ahem Mr Thornton)
Ahh I see, I see haha
Yea, I agree with #1, except in weird situations like with the Pistons, but I don’t think anyone saw that one coming, so that doesn’t count. And #2, I completely agree, and I think that might have been CMDSr’s weakness, which is so freaking hard to self-diagnose (in his defense).
Coaches matter a ton, as they influence WHO the talent on the roster is.
Organizations win- and that means ownership to GM to coach to players (not necessarily in that order). Coaches do more than x’s and o’s. They put in a philosophy (Jerry Sloan loves “tough” players), be it offensive or defensive-minded. This philosophy definitely affects the GM’s decisions in drafts and free-agent pick-ups. Also coaches determine playing time- if a player doesn’t do what matters most to the coach (such as hustling on defense) they can get pulled out. Look at the dysfunction of my two favorite teams (clippers and warriors)- both have gone through horrible times, which directly comes down from the top. When players enter a system, they develop according to what is emphasized by the coaches. A lot of players (almost all) come into the league with a lot to learn. Usually, they have to put in a lot of work to become an all-star, and that development comes from the coaches. Do the coaches motivate them correctly; do the coaches understand how to best use a player’s strengths and hide his weaknesses? What we see on game night is in essence a “final” product of a lot of work behind the scenes. So while I undertand and agree with the fundamental point of bacek “that players ultimately decide championships”, I feel that there are far more layers to success than that.
by KeithClossrules on Mar 4, 2010 6:01 PM PST up reply actions
nope
you are completely wrong on the NBA level. In the NBA it is mainly a one on one game. There is no concrete evidence that shows that coaches make players better. Find some real evidence to show me otherwise. If you read my posts you can see I already mentioned coaches help in terms of consistency. If you read another one of my posts coaches can be a hindrance. Read first my friend, then criticize; I already addressed the issues you bring up. Well except for the development part. But guess what that has nothing to do with coaches, it is about work ethic. Just like in the real world you got it and your successful, or you don’t and you live in your parents basement divorced with 3 illegitimate children. Coaches aren’t changing a player’s work ethic I don’t care what you think.
I completely disagree
Coaches impact how a player develops. Take Chris Kaman- it’s questionable if he should have been an all-star, but there is no doubt he has improved since his rookie year. Yes, he has the work ethic and spent this summer shooting a lot of set shots from 12 to 15 feet.But that was on Dunleavy to continually emphasize that point of his game. But it is more than that. Dunleavy always believed in Kaman and based on post-centric offense on him. Coaches put offensive systems into place that will determine a player’s success. Would Kaman excel in a Golden state system? Doubt it. Would Steve Nash win the MVP on the Riley’s new york knick’s slow down- thug defense system? Steve Nash may still be an all-star on those Knick teams, but I highly doubt he would have won MVP. The fact is, a player’s talents are maximized by the system the coach installs. But the coach also has to believe in a certain player for that player to reach his potential. Simply put, a player’s development is based on the behind-the-scenes work by the coaches PLUS the work ethic the player MUST have, plus the system that the coach puts into place, plus his playing time. Is Baron that much worse a player now than he was in Golden state when he was an all-star? or how about Elton Brand? Would Bruce Bowen win defensive player of the year on a different team than the spurs? What if Bruce Bowen was on the Suns?The coach makes a big difference in the players success and that impacts how we the fans see the value of certain players.
by KeithClossrules on Mar 5, 2010 10:50 AM PST up reply actions
you don't get it
1. on coach’s maximizing players abilities- take the Kaman example yes he won’t excel in GS system but does that make him a better or worse player: no. In this case the coach is a hindrance.
2. on players improving- take Mike Beasley he is around who everyone thinks is one of the greatest coaches of all-time. But, oh no he hasn’t really made that jump; why? Because it is not in his personality to work hard. Sure, it can happen in the future but its for him to turn on that switch someone else can’t do it.
I am still waiting for a good example of where a coach makes players better. Nash is the worst example ever. He was wanted by everyone in the league but when he first came to the Suns he was behind Jason Kidd and Kevin Johnson that’s why he got no run. When he was on the Mavs he wasn’t the focal point of the offense. Finally when he went to the Suns again he was the focal point of the offense. D’Antoni sure has made Duhon a great PG in NY.
Nate Robinson...
Is better suited for D’Antoni’s system and has been a consistent All-Star. Duhon rides the bench because the coach has leadership to define his teams identity.
"I want someone who will, you know, let me put it in or who [will] suck on it." – Donald Sterling
+1
Totally agree Keith…case in point this season is the Milwaukee Bucks and Scott Skiles.
There is no superstar on that team (Bogut and Redd are second tier at best) but when Skiles came in, he developed an identity. They now play very tough defense and play with a chip on their shoulder, very similar to how Skiles coached the Bulls before they went primadonna on him and tuned him out.
Coaches are like captains of a ship: while they cannot row or hoist sails on their own, its that leadership and guidance that determines if the ship sails perfectly or capsizes into the sea.
"I want someone who will, you know, let me put it in or who [will] suck on it." – Donald Sterling
did the players get better?
no, Bogut was a no.1overall pick. Salmons has been the most important player in their recent surge, and he was recently added. Luc Richard MBah Moute came back from injury. Do research
He may have been
a number one pick but he still sucked
"[Fans are] not technically a lot of times savvy. They don't understand and they don't weigh issues the way that [I] weigh them."
Mike Dunleavy, Sr.
by Jax on Mar 8, 2010 3:56 PM PST up reply actions
Mark Jackson
sounds like he could be a nice young coach and would most likely come somewhat cheaper seeing as he’s a first timer. He’s had numerous interviews for jobs though and has never landed one. Supposedly he tanked the Knicks interview, but I’m not sure why. Bring on some veteran assistants and give him a shot.
Charles Oakley recently express his desire to coach as well. I wonder if Mark and him get along seeing as they played together I think. Oakley could for sure team our big guys some toughness.
?
Mark Jackson = zero coaching experience.
I don’t think Sam Cassel will really make a good head coach, but at least he’s carrying a clipboard, working with guys, scouting teams. You’re not born to be a head coach.
Sam Cassell
Wherever he went as a player he got the most out of them.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
I say JEFF VAN GUNDY...
As a coach, he has only missed the playoffs one time. If you look at some of the teams that he has had to work with, you will see that is a great accomplishment. I also like that he is a defensive coach, and i always like what he has to say when i hear he commentating.
A bit to hard-line...
Like it or not, this roster does not respond well to firebrand coaches…one of Dun’s many, many problems
"I want someone who will, you know, let me put it in or who [will] suck on it." – Donald Sterling
NBA Today Podcast
Not sure if any of you guys listen to the NBA Today Podcast, but Ryen Russillo (the host) had heard some pretty nasty rumors about Byron Scott’s lack of talent as a coach. He was saying that they were, of course, just rumors. However, a rumor is generally based on some level of truth (i.e. you wouldn’t hear any rumors about the coach just pretends to watch game tape after each game if he were Greg Popovich or Jerry Sloan).
As for other coaches, I was never huge on JVG back when he coached Houston, but he was certainly a playoff-ready coach. I always liked what I saw from Avery Johnson, but that might have been Dirk’s skill more than Avery’s coaching. And as much as I like Mark Jackson as a commentator, he’s got no coaching experience.
Who else is out there and available?
Its lebron's choice!
I think dunleavy is leaving this choice open as the package he will offer lebron. Here’s your
offer plus you get to pick what coach you want.
That would be very smart...
but we’re talking about Dunleavy. We shall see though, it’d be awesome if LBJ took us up on it, hired some unknown from his HS days or something and ended up winning multiple champs for us…
"I want someone who will, you know, let me put it in or who [will] suck on it." – Donald Sterling
Jeff Van Gundy
is the best option here. He’s a workaholic who got 3 years off now so he should be fully committed and rested. His teams always defend and they play beyond their talent level no matter who suits up. He’s only 48 so he has a good dozen years left in him as well and he can command respect since he’s been successful in 2 of the biggest markets.
FA in 2010.
larry brown
only because no one else has mentioned it. maybe MJ will piss him off?
by benoit benjamin's two left shoes on Mar 4, 2010 2:36 PM PST reply actions
not likeyly
MJ and Larry Brown are really good friends going all the way back to MJ’s college days. I think MJ becoming an owner only increases the chances Larry Brown is going to stick around for a while.
" Baron for the win, BINGO!!!! The Clipers Win, The Clippers win!!! "
Ralph Lawler
unless i missed a recent bit of news, last i read jordan isn't gonna become the owner
and the new owner doesn’t want him involved. brown said he’s out if jordan is. larry will be with the sixers or clippers next year, count on it.
by Joe Wolf's Mullet on Mar 6, 2010 4:34 PM PST up reply actions
i stand corrected then...things weren't looking good for him a week or two ago and i don't follow the bobcats as a rule
in that case, brown is off the list.
by Joe Wolf's Mullet on Mar 7, 2010 2:29 PM PST up reply actions
Yep, we got MJed
even in retirement he came through in the clutch. Pretty much at the 11th hour he put together the deal to become majority owner. Seems to have worked as the Bobcats look likely to make the playoffs this year now. Had the team gone to the other ownership group then MJ and Larry Brown would be available. I wonder if we can get Flip Saunders if he parts ways with the Wizards this summer, he’s a solid coach.
FA in 2010.
there still is a chance that things could go sour with
MJ as an owner. And Brown as expressed interest in coaching the clippers but only if he is given complete control over player movement too. Check MG’s fanshot.
LeBron or Bust !!!!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Shaq digs in on Dwight Howard once again, calling his eventual departure ‘a travesty’
- Behind the locker room doors before and after Lin’s game-winning shot against the Raptors
- Video: Jeremy Lin adds to his legend
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Rick Fox isn’t here for the right reasons
- A shameless businessman wants to trademark “Linsanity”
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
