The Coach Search - What Will the Clippers Do?
I haven't said much about the Clippers coaching search so far, primarily because there's not a lot to say right now. Piecing together the information that's out there, the Clippers would appear to be targeting a handful of top assistants, and of course there's the required Mark Jackson possibility. Big name former head coaches, guys like Jeff Van Gundy, Avery Johnson and Byron Scott, don't really seem to be in the mix. Is that because they are too expensive, or because the Clippers think they're wrong for the job? I honestly don't know at this point. (For what it's worth, it seems that Van Gundy is not considering a return to coaching at this time.)
The question of prior head coaching experience (or in the case of Jackson, prior coaching experience) is a valid one. Is it better to seek out a coach who has been in the first chair before because he knows what to expect and presumably will have learned from the experience, or to find a rising star from the ranks of assistant coaches? Let's face it, the reason that the vast majority of former head coaches are on the job market is because they were fired from their previous job, so almost by definition you'd be hiring someone who failed the last time they had the job (at least at some level) when you hire a former head coach.
Former coaches like Jeff Van Gundy and Byron Scott and Avery Johnson (and other guys in the booth like Doug Collins and Mike Fratello) are well known - but it may surprise you how many candidates with NBA head coaching experience are out there. I was able to list 60 some without breaking a sweat. That's only counting guys who have coached within the last decade - so for instance, I didn't include Paul Westhead on the list. So there's no dearth of candidates with at least some experience. Of course, one name that seems to be at or near the top of the Clippers' list (and a few others' for that matter) falls into the former head coach category - current Dallas assistant Dwane Casey.
It's also worth noting that this year's NBA playoffs have offered at least some evidence that coaches do indeed matter. Scott Brooks was part of a 27 game improvement in his first full season in Oklahoma City and won Coach of the Year. Scott Skiles took a Bucks team that no one thought would be any good, playing without $27M worth of injured players, and led them into the playoffs and almost to a first round upset in his second season in Milwaukee. Meanwhile, the Nuggets experienced a significant decline when George Karl left the bench, and it doesn't feel like a coincidence that Phil Jackson, Gregg Popovich and Jerry Sloan are among the names still coaching this season.
Jackson, Popovich and Sloan are definitely the anomalies in the coaching world - coaches that have been able to sustain success over time. Skiles is a great example of the counterpoint. His record would suggest that he gets results early, but that his style wears thin, either with players or with management. He won 51 games in Phoenix in 2001 - and was fired during the following season with a losing record. He won 49 games in Chicago in 2007 - and was fired during the following season with a losing record. The question with Skiles in Milwaukee may be one of shelf life - how long can he sustain success this time?
At any rate, coaches do matter, at least some, and the Clippers have an opportunity to make a fresh start this summer - so this decision matters.
There are a lot of things to consider, and I'm just going to throw some of them out there for now. Something tells me there's going to be plenty of time to discuss these and other issues.
Supply and Demand - As I've noted, there's plenty of supply of potential head coaches. The quality of the candidates is another question. On the demand side, there are currently job openings in Chicago, Philadelphia, New Jersey and New Orleans, in addition to the Clippers. Some of those jobs are more attractive than others, and four of the teams are in the lottery so they could get more attractive based on the results there. Philadelphia has been the most aggressive in the job search so far, having already interviewed Doug Collins for the job. I'd put the Clippers job in the attractive category from a basketball standpoint (if only for the chance to coach Blake Griffin), but the unattractive category from an ownership standpoint.
In addition to the five teams with openings already, there are a Homer Simpson handful of others where the situation remains nebulous. There is of course the George Karl situation in Denver; it remains to be seen if Karl's health will allow him to return to the Nuggets bench next season. Mike Woodson does not yet have an extension in Atlanta, and while the Hawks' 53 win season looks good, their 40 point loss in Game 1 against the Magic looks really, really bad.
Jeannie Buss muddied the waters a bit concerning Phil Jackson and the Lakers last week, saying she thought he'd coach next year, but wasn't sure where, which spawned some idle speculation of PJ and LeBron joining forces on the Clippers (yeah, right). But Phil told Ramona Shelburne yesterday that he's about 90% certain he'll coach the Lakers next season.
Even if Jackson isn't a realistic option for the Clippers (it's hard to imagine a coach who recently took an unsolicited pot shot at Donald Sterling being the LAC coach, from either man's perspective), his status may have an impact on the coaching search. For instance, Byron Scott is widely considered interested in the Lakers job, and would likely await a resolution there before committing to any team. But I'm going to trust PJ on this one - 90% sounds pretty convincing to me - he'll coach the Lakers again.
Also on the list of 'Hall of Fame coaches who have been linked to the Clippers" is Larry Brown. Brown just led the Bobcats to their first-ever playoff appearance, but his well-earned reputation as a vagabond, along with the previously uncertain ownership situation in Charlotte, has fueled speculation that he might move on this summer. There were rumors that he'd reached out to the Clippers a few months ago, but those seem to have been unfounded. Brown himself has said that he might leave Charlotte - for the purpose of spending more time with his family in Philadelphia. He has also said that he will not coach for anyone other than Michael Jordan next season. So while Charlotte could conceivably be in the market for a coach, Larry Brown is not a candidate for any of the head coaching jobs out there.
Timing - Generally speaking, I'd say it's better to move quickly on filling a coaching vacancy, for several reasons. For one thing, it's hard work coaching an NBA team, and there's plenty to do during the off-season, especially for a team with only five players under contract. The coach will have a style, which will dictate personnel moves to a large extent. There's also the draft to consider - it would seem that you'd want the head coach's input on the 8th pick (it's a little less crucial if you're picking first or second, I suppose).
Of course, ever since the Clippers traded Al Thornton and Sebastian Telfair to clear maximum cap space, there have been rumblngs that the team would let LeBron James pick the coach if he were interested. Frankly, I've never really understood the logic there. I mean, it's funny and all, and it conveys a message about how badly they want the guy. But realistically, what does it mean? Are there really any coaches out there that LeBron is going to feel that strongly about? I mean, does LeBron have a preference in the great Dwane Casey or Elston Turner debate? The speculation about a hall of fame coach (i.e. Larry Brown or Phil Jackson) hooking up with the two time MVP to make the Clippers world champs is just that - speculation. It ain't happening. So the reality is that to have LeBron (or any other star) involved in the decision, you'd be waiting until July when negotiations can start with free agents, for input of a very limited nature.
So from my perspective, waiting makes no sense. The lottery is coming up in less than two weeks on May 18. There's a very slim chance that the Clippers will move up in the draft, which will make the job that much more attractive. So waiting to know what happens there might make sense. But I'd make it a priority to get a coach in place as soon as possible between the lottery and the draft on June 24th - the very real benefits of having your head coach involved in draft scouting far outweigh the theoretical benefit of allowing LeBron James to 'pick' his coach.
As I mentioned, Philadelphia is already out there interviewing candidates. The longer the Clippers wait, the more likely it is that leading candidates will be off the market. Dwane Casey was a top candidate for the Sixers in the past, and will certainly be on their short list this summer as well. Collins and Avery Johnson have already interviewed in Philly, and Tom Thibodeau and Mark Jackson are also considered candidates. In other words, the Sixers are talking to many of the same names supposedly on the Clippers' short list, and they have a head start.
Coaching Style - First of all, it's clear that the perfect coaching candidate would be a genius on both offense and defense. Turns out, there don't seem to be a lot of those guys out there. It should also be noted that it's not always clear, especially with an assistant coach, exactly what his strengths might lie. But these guys do have reputations, and we can guess where they might fall on a continuum from offensive to defensive-minded, from 'player's coach' to disciplinarian, etc.
The Clippers have asked permission to speak with Boston assistant coach Tom Thibodeau. Thibodeau is Boston's 'Defensive Coordinator' and was widely credited with coming up with the schemes that helped the Celtics have the best defense in the league two seasons ago, which led to an NBA championship. Of course, adding Kevin Garnett to the roster probably helped the defense a smidge also.
Casey is another who falls on the defensive end of the spectrum. During his head coaching stint in Minnesota, the Wolves (also with Garnett) were a top 10 defensive team, an improvement over Flip Saunders' the season before, and significantly better than Randy Wittman did with the same personnel after Casey was fired. Casey was considered the top defensive assistant to George Karl when he and Nate McMillan were both assistants in Seattle.
If you're looking for a run-and-gun candidate, it's a little less clear. Marc Iavaroni was Mike D'Antoni's top assistant in Phoenix for several seven seconds or less seasons and was considered a hot head coaching prospect at one point. He got his chance in Memphis, and quickly became a not very hot head coaching prospect. He lasted 121 games with the Grizzlies, winning fewer than 30% of them. He's now an assistant in Toronto, where the Raptors had the worst defense in the league this season.
Bill Cartwright is a current assistant in Phoenix, who also happens to have 151 games of head coaching experience with the Bulls a few years back. His record as a head coach was 51-100.
Keith Smart is a long time assistant to Don Nelson in Golden State, who has 40 games of head coaching experience mopping up for John Lucas in Cleveland in the pre-LeBron season. Smart also gets to sit in the first chair in Oakland from time to time, where the ever innovative Nelson sometimes let's him run the show.
Few if any of the higher profile candidates have reputations as offensive-minded head coaches. Eddie Jordan used an open, ball movement offense in Sacramento and Washington, but his reputation is more than a little sullied at this point after a disastrous season in Philadelphia. JVG, Avery Johnson and Byron Scott all have reputations as defense first coaches - not to mention as hard-asses. It's difficult to see Baron Davis happily coexisting with any of those guys, particulary Scott with whom he previously clashed in New Orleans.
This question of style is problematic for the Clippers. Teams like the Thunder and the Bucks have gone from the lottery to the playoffs by becoming significantly better defensive teams. It's a cliche, especially at this time of year, but defense does win championships. Now, I firmly believe that offense and defense feed each other - getting stops leads to easier scoring opportunities, and efficient offense limits easy opportunities for the opponent. But defense first seems to be the best recipe for signficant improvement. If the Clippers are feeling like they have to cater to a run and fun style to appease Baron Davis it could be a significant tactical error. At the same time, there's no question that getting Baron's buy in is going to be important with three seasons left on his contract. It's a dilemma.
Coaching Experience - I'm going to use this category as a little rant directed at Mark Jackson. First of all, I'm not convinced that head coaching experience is a prerequisite for success. There are of course exceptions to any rule, but Scott Brooks is a recent example of a coach who did well in his first head coaching job. As I've pointed out, there are in fact a plethora of available candidates with at least some head coaching experience, but the fact that they're available usually indicates a problem of some sort.
But while head coaching experience may be overrated, it seems to be that SOME coaching experience would be highly preferable. Mark Jackson has been working as an analyst for several season, and has made it known that he wants a head coaching job. He and his agent have done a good job of getting him on the radar. He was a serious candidate for the Knicks job two summers ago (they hired D'Antoni) and a finalist for the Minnesota job last year (they hired Kurt Rambis). But what happened to paying dues and learning the ropes? If he really wants to be an NBA head coach, let him at least serve an apprenticeship somewhere.
A recent New York Daily News article on Jackson's quest to become a head coach listed Vinny Del Negro, Doc Rivers and Pat Riley as examples of successful NBA head coaches who had no prior coaching experience. Really? That's the list? Color me unimpressed. As I said, there are exceptions to every rule, and we're looking hard to find them in this case, going back almost 30 years to Riley. Meanwhile Del Negro could hardly be considered a success story - at any rate, he doesn't seem like much of a success to John Paxson.
It doesn't help that I find Jackson's work as a TV commentator to be banal. I'd feel a little better about him as a coaching candidate if I'd ever heard him say anything remotely insightful during a basketball game. As Tom Ziller quipped the other day on FanHouse, "one can reasonably expect that players on a Jackson-led team will be reassured frequently that they are 'better than that.'"
In the end, I don't have a lot more on this subject than my opinion, and I wouldn't characterize it as particularly informed. I'm not a big fan of Jackson, obviously. I think Dwane Casey is an interesting candidate who clearly did not get a fair shake in Minnesota. And I think current assistant John Lucas, with significant head coaching experience and a relationship with the returning players, deserves consideration as well. For now we'll just have to wait and see. Let's hope we don't have to wait too long.
54 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Great write-up Steve
Personally, I’ve always thought it was a no brainer that coaching matters. It’s not the be all, end all, but it’s silly to say it doesn’t matter at all.
I think what matters most is how much respect the coach can command. Guys like Phil, Sloan and Pop command and get respect. Even Doc Rivers, who many consider a terrible X’s and O’s guy, had the respect of many of his players before they won the championship.
Whatever the system, we need a guy who can get his players to buy-in. I don’t think Dunleavy suddenly turned into an awful coach. I think he’s always been a solid x’s and o’s guy. I just think that Sam bought in completely to what he was doing, and thus got everyone else on that team to buy in as well. Since that time, the injuries mounted, the losses increased, and he basically lost everyone on the team.
I remain a big fan of Casey and hope he gets the nod. I know the players respected him in Seattle and I think he can be a quality coach.
Interesting take re: Dunleavy and Cassell
It’s a much more honest position then the idea that Cassell was basically the coach of the team. Dunleavy coached the team his way, Cassell bought it, and Cassell had the clubhouse capital to get others to buy in. That’s as good of a take on the subject that I’ve ever read.
I’m somewhere in between on the coaches matter argument, which is to say I don’t have strong feelings either way. I do think there are good coaches (Adleman and Sloan) but I would be hesitant to use Brooks in the analysis. Did Brooks coach them to a 25 game improvement, or did having Kevin Durant develop into a superstar result in the improvement?
by Michael White on May 5, 2010 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions
Cart/horse my friend
Doesn’t the coaches matter crowd have to argue that Brooks is responsible for turning Durant into a superstar?
Otherwise, what did he do that mattered?
Coaches don't matter. - Bill Simmons, The Book of Basketball
Since coaches don't matter why do you support MDSr?
"[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 May 5, 2010 4:29 PM PDT up reply actions
Buying in, Tuning out
There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence that players respond to a coach for awhile, but that it doesn’t always last. It’s worth noting that the Clippers had two years of improvement before Cassell got to town… so MDsr was having a positive impact at one time (and it’s worth noting also that the impact was mostly on defense). There was a tail off as players maybe stopped listening (or stopped responding), there were injuries, they players turned over and new guys who seemed never bought in in the first place arrived… in short, it ended in disaster and lasted way too long. But yes, the more the players buy in and the less they tune out, the better.
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
I'm not going to get into this again, I'm not, I'm not
"[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 May 5, 2010 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, I think you are. :-)
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
If we were any other franchise, I'd jump for joy if we hired Dwayne Casey.
But with out history and reputation, I feel we need to make a giant splash indicating we’re fed up with losing, and that means going with a name commodity. My dream is Phil Jackson, Steve I know you think it’s laughable, but Phil could lure LeBron, and vice versa.
The Curse can only be killed by a titanic shift in the opposite direction. For all we’ve gone through, that would be the end-all, be all.
But realistically speaking, I’d be happy with Fratello if JVG really stays in the booth.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's doing down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on May 5, 2010 1:57 PM PDT reply actions
Yes, hire a coach before draft day
The new man should have some input. If anything else, it’ll feel a little more like his team, then. It should also force the question, “What kind of system are we trying to shape here?” I should hope that this would also be posed somewhere in the interview process.
What kind of system ARE we trying to shape here? How do we optimize the performances of Kaman and Griffin, playing together? I definitely see something between a set offense and a run and gun, but beyond that I’m pretty clueless. What about something like Utah’s motion offense, for instance…
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
How do we optimize the performances of Kaman and Griffin, playing together?
Step 1, we see them play together.
Step 2, Figure something out.
by Michael White on May 5, 2010 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions
NOT POSSIBLE
Unless you suggest we hire a new coach after the beginning of the season when we will see them play together for the first time (Kaman will not play summer league), there is no way to judge them playing together before we HAVE to figure something out.
We know what Kaman can and can’t do and Griffin will be a rookie so he is moldable. I think the biggest question mark for any new coach is how to mix Baron’s run and gun style with Kaman’s post up play.
Have to figure something out?
Just hire a damn coach and let him work it out. Don’t overthink this. Coaches need to be good enough to modify their game plan depending on how the two play together.
I personally think Baron’s run and gun style should be the least of our concerns. The team played the best basketball last year when Baron and Kaman were playing their pick and pop game. If Griffin can be a true post presence, it shouldn’t be rocket science on how to get all those guys involved.
Man, this is when I start to go over to the coaches don’t matter crowd. Stuff like this is not that complicated. Give ball to best players.
by Michael White on May 6, 2010 9:37 AM PDT up reply actions
Utah...
That offense requires lots of ball handlers, lots of passers. The Clippers can try to reshape around something like that, but those have not been among the strengths of recent clipper teams.
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
Tyron Corbin, Utah assistant coach
Is my choice for head coach. He comes from Jerry Sloan’s school, is a defensive specialist I believe and comes from a team that is able to best utitlize the talent they have which isn’t always the top but they always play at the top. Plus Utah has a star PG & big men which is similar to what we have (of course Baron is no Derron).
what about Lawrence Frank?!
he always appealed to me.. took over a job mid-season and not only got his team to buy in, but OVER-achieve.. 2 finals, multiple playoff appearances. i know he got fired with like 4 wins on his plate last year but that was not a situation many could have succeeded in anyways.. he’s a favorite of mine and i think he’s getting over-looked
Has Baron said anything recently about Scott?
It was several years ago, after all. Time enough to gain some perspective.
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
Sigh
Coaches still don’t matter. I recently finished Stumbling on Wins and they have a whole section on it. Its really good.
They also have a section on relying on observation to form opinions. I don’t think they use the word hubris to describe the practice, but they come close.
Of course, maybe one of the brand new coaches will be the first one ever to matter. (Maybe second, Phil Jackson might matter, but there is that whole only coaches when he has a minimum of 2 hall of famers or a $100M payroll. I mean he was coach when the Lakers suffered the most epic meltdown in Finals history. Did he matter then?)
Agree though that catering to the wishes of Baron Davis is certainly a mistake.
Coaches don't matter. - Bill Simmons, The Book of Basketball
Karl in Denver?
Is that observation salient? I hear what you’re saying, but it seems a stretch to say they don’t matter at all.
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
Someone must have run an advanced statistical analysis on what variables most influence success in the NBA or not
How would that work exactly? You take a statistical measure (like PER) and compare it to wins and losses? The largest delta between Winning Percentage and the PER equals a great coach?
Obviously there would be huge problems with that, but it’s the best I could come up with in the 15 seconds I took to consider the exercise.
by Michael White on May 5, 2010 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes, this does seem difficult if we're trying to isolate the effectiveness of a coach.
Let me think about this more….
I think the main point
is that coaches shouldn’t matter. Players should play hard all the time. Players should be playing smart all the time. etc…
I have a feeling that the best coaches could also be great psychologists/counselors/motivational speakers.
In terms of basketball, they are pretty much saying the same thing over and over again. Schemes really aren’t that much different offensively and defensively; this is not the NFL.
Talent is what makes a successful team. Personalities is what can destroy a team.
Also, John R’s quote from BS is leaving important things out. Like the fact that BS says that there are very few coaches that make a difference. But unless you are Phil Jackson, George Karl, etc. you probably won’t matter.
Being a huge fan of the Book of Basketball, as John R probably is as well, you must not forget that the “secret” also applies to the coaches as well
The system matters, no?
Otherwise, what was all the hubbub about Dunleavy’s set offense. Oh wait! You didn’t think even that mattered, did you… But then Hughes tried to implement a running game, which we didn’t seem capable of. So hey, try to see what I’m saying here: Skills and talents are REAL, and a good coach should be able to craft a game plan around them. I’m coming from the school of thought that says The Big Picture Matters. The players may be the sails and the oars, but somebody has to be the rutter. Ohhh, or let me know if want some other analogy. :-p
"i know huh........freakin clippers man.....its like a wild ride rooting for this team....gotta love em....(sometimes) lol" In GrIfFin We TrUsT
Good post - of course coaches matter
"[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 May 5, 2010 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Coaching absolutely matters. Anyone who says otherwise just doesn't get the game.
No offense, John R., but you’re way off. You’re telling me D’Antoni has nothing to do with the way PHX played and the NYK currently play?
Larry Brown also had no impact in CHA? Sloan beating the DEN with a starting line-up featuring Fesenko, Matthews, and Miles? On the flipside, Karl’s Nuggets took several steps backwards without him.
Players win games, but if they’re managed incorrectly there’s no hope of winning consistently.
"Buckle your seat belts, folks. This one's doing down to the wire." -The inimitable Ralph Lawler.
by Gordon for President on May 5, 2010 4:46 PM PDT up reply actions
lot's of misconception
I’m in the coaches matter a little camp
take the PHX and NYK example. D’Antoni did change the game, but why is one team so much better than the other. Simple, it’s the personnel.
Schemes and all that other stuff do not really matter. They all work, it’s just the execution that differs.
The best coaches aren’t the smartest basketball people, they just know how to work with basketball players.
The ability to teach is a talent. The ability to get others to listen is a talent as well. The best coaches are the best at skills such as these, the reason they are the best coaches has nothing to do with basketball knowledge.
I bet Tony Robbins could be a good coach
No, Nash mattered
Gentry has the Suns looking as good as ever, and the Knicks stink.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
Sterling is timing-challenged
He either acts too precipitously (e.g. fire Hughes, re-hire) or too slowly (waiting too long to sign top free agents, left with scraps). I fear he will do so again, with both the coach and this year’s free agent crop. It’s hard to be optimistic when he’s guiding the ship.
i dont agree the a head coach is necessarily good for the draft...
The Knicks who drafted Danilo Gallinari ahead of Eric Gordon would probably agree.
by cantthinkofagoodname on May 5, 2010 4:28 PM PDT reply actions
actually Danillo Gallinari is starting to play pretty well
he is deadly from long range but I still like EJ’s overall game better.
LeBron or Bust !!!!
I have to disagree with the part of Lebron picks the coach!
I honestly think the don is sincere in wanting to win and he has a blank check open to
lebron james to pick coach management and players. You my friend steve should stop
be a pessimist about Lebron coming here because i honestly think if the cavs get bounced
from the playoffs by boston lebron is gone. You are our leader and should provide us
with some hope and lightness. Stay positive my friends.
What good is hope if it's not based on substance?
Hope based on fantasy is pretty much the definition of a homer. There’s nothing wrong with optimism, but I also appreciate the intelligent, informed posts I read here.
On Phil Jackson...
I see Phil staying put with the Lakers for one reason: he lives and dies by the triangle offense, and as we’ve seen this year with Ron Artest struggling with it and Kurt Rambis putting it in at Minnesota, it takes a while for players to pick it up and you need smart players to do it. Phil isn’t about to go somewhere else and start all over. Plus why should Phil go somewhere else with LeBron? I don’t think it would add anything to his legacy, as people would just say he can only win with the best players (first Michael, then Kobe and now LeBron).
Cassell or Lucas
Both are well liked by players & in the past have been great leading teams.
Cassell for coach
Baron Davis wants to run this team and have a say who would be coach.Get rid of Davis he has no future with the Clippers. They have to go on a three year plan and Davis will then be 36.Give the coaching job to Sa m Cassell, he was the best player coach on the floor in the last ten years.
He is a no nonsense guy who will bring excitement to the Clippers and a winning attitute. Sterling wake up.
This is the Guy
How come no one ever mentions Sam Mitchell as a coaching candidate? He has done well as a coach and was only fired in Toronto because Colanjelo wanted to bring his own coach in when he became GM. Toronto was a more competitive under his tenure.
I agree...
When I was looking at former coaches, I asterisked Mitchell. A little like Casey, he didn’t get a fair shake.
The raw deal of all time had to be Bob Hill. Was fired in San Antonio the season Robinson and Elliott were hurt. They replaced him with Popovich, they won the lottery, drafted Tim Duncan and the rest is history. Hill had a great record with them, and was losing because of injuries.
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
Bob Hill got another chance though
he ended up coaching in college and did horrible there. He eventually got the big chair again with the Sonics but didn’t get it done either. I agree that sucks to get fired from a team with Sean Elliott and David Robinson out with injuries (he was fired way before the Spurs won the lottery though).
FA in 2010.
by ClipperChuck on May 6, 2010 10:26 PM PDT up reply actions
Perfect fit for the Clippers
I think he’s showing that he is the man to light a fire up the Clippers arse. Sign him now!
Only picture of Casey on the database...
He’s holding Rick Carlisle back from an argument….. but yeah, it looks a little weird.
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
Why Not Nate McMillen??
Nate McMillen, who’s one of the most respected coaches in the league is unsigned. I wonder if Neal Olshey is considering him.
I agree with those of you who don’t think that the Clippers coaching search should be effected by who Baron will get along with. Baron has shown flashes of brilliance throughout his career. But flashes of brilliance doesn’t qualify him to run anything but his own household, not the Clippers’.
I don’t dislike Baron at all. But rather, I accept him for what he is. A talented ballplayer who doesn’t bring it every night. Sometimes he leads, usually not. If Baron was meant to lead this team, he wouldn’t need permission. He’d just lead by example and players would eventually follow him.
I think Baron kind of figured out his role towards the end of the season
when he stopped taking that many jump shots and started driving and kicking out more often. He really was playing very well for the last quarter of the season.
LeBron or Bust !!!!
If he's available, he would be my choice, for sure.
"look, you can find any coach you want, bring him in here and run the situation. But I don't think they are going to do as good a job as I do." -Mike Dunleavy Sr.
by CLiPPz WeRD 12 on May 7, 2010 12:26 AM PDT up reply actions
Why Not Lenny Wilkens?
For the life of me, I can’t understand why Lenny Wilkens’ name never comes up on coaches lists for vacancies in the last few years. Is it because of his age? I mean if Hubie Brown can come back, why not a much better coach (at least in terms of won-loss record and especially in getting the respect of players) like Lenny Wilkens? He won a championship with a center very similar to Chris Kaman in Jack Sikma. He has never had the so-called superstars but still managed to get his teams to overachieve. Remmber his time with Cleveland, he overachieved there too! His time with the Knicks shouldn’t be counted against him, because they had no chance to win there if you remember that situation and the players he had. The Clippers have a chance to have something special and they need a big name coach. I wish they would consider Lenny Wilkens.
Coach
They should look into bringing in Dave Cowens , Cooper or even bad boy Bill Laimbeer
they have all the experience you need to coach……
My vote is...
1) Lucas
2) cassell
3) laimbeer
by snackbar on May 8, 2010 4:22 PM PDT via mobile reply actions

by 











