darthska
Staff member
- Apr 30, 2004
- 47,034
- 31,701
All the years I've heard Doug Collins call games and I never knew he coached Jordan.
That's really something he should mention every now and then.
[:: LAKERS 2014 THREAD | POLL: Who Should Coach Next Year? ::]
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by licensed to ball,
- Start date
That's really something he should mention every now and then.
- Oct 8, 2005
- 13,424
- 4,833
maybe you were skahearing him
- Dec 17, 2005
- 23,933
- 5,933
- May 3, 2013
- 8,790
- 1,989
- May 6, 2007
- 4,719
- 423
Coach K 
Coaching isn't JUST coaching tho.
It's about meshing with the players you do have, and building thru that.
Coach Thibbs is an amazing defensive mind, who also happens to have a lot of gifted defensive athletes. Give him 10 scrubs who could care less about defense, it don't matter what he teaches them, they won't survive.
Phil Jackson was a master of massaging his elite guys, and yet still blending his role guys, which is why he was so tremendously successful. But he didn't "teach" the game of basketball to anybody in some enlightening way.
Pop has transformed the most, from defensive guy, to offensive guy, to blending of his players, but he's also had 3 HOFers on his roster for over a decade, and simply uses his role guys off of them. Thru Duncan's prime, he had a top 3 defense every year. When Duncan aged, and Richard Jefferson came in, they dropped to between 8-14 in defense, and were out in round 1-2 every year, easy. Gets rid of RJeff, and Kahwi comes in and once again they become a force defensively, while maintaining their offense (mostly due to Tony Parker) Pop didn't forget how to coach defense those 8-14 years, he simply had lesser talent.
Doc 2007 sucks, Doc 2008 wins a title. The guy didn't learn how to coach in a single year, he simply had a massive upgrade in talent, and also benefited from a great assistant coach. (Thibbs)
Spo 2010, Spo 2011, what changed? He learn how to coach really well all of a sudden or something?
It's why I have maintained over and over, it has NOTHING to do with D'Antoni in terms of what's wrong, or where are biggest problems lie. It's merely a transition from where our roster was, to where it is now. Give this very same coach 30 year old Kobe, and 32 year old Nash, and 30 year old Pau Gasol, and good luck stopping these Lakers. But give him 3 dead guys, and oh my God, he struggles.
The system he runs works. The plays he calls out of timeouts are nothing short of incredible. No one notices, but he has actually improved his rotations. (he used to be a 7-8 man lineup guy, to this year he has been using 10-11 man groups even with injuries)
Give him better players, hope he stick with a 10 man rotation to keep players fresh, let them all play together and learn spots and where to get good shots/attack without thinking too much, and if we could somehow get an upgrade over Rambis, as well as a couple more defensive athletes like Wes/Bazemore/Sacre out there, he can do the job in terms of exploiting mismatches, motivating guys, and executing down the stretch with his own playcalls. (Mike Brown wouldn't even speak in some huddles he sucked so much, that's not a head coach, it's a cheerleader in a suit)
And if Mike gets the leader/star that believes in him, and carries the roster, then he'll be just fine. Nash bought in in Phoenix, and the others followed suit. If Wiggins, or Kevin Love, or Rondo, whoever it might be in the next year or two comes in, we'll be ok.
Example, Carmelo and his iso style hates D'Antoni and they clash. Melo goes down, Mike goes to Jeremy Lin, a scrub off the bench, with the EXACT same roster, they go on a big win streak and the whole country watches. Melo comes back, and the whole thing breaks down. Who gets fired? The coach, who gets paid 10 mil, rather than the player who is owed 120 million. Which of those 2 were the **** up tho? Seems like an obvious answer, no?
It's all about what player comes in NEXT to rep LA. Not Kobe's old, grumpy ***. He gone soon. Either the rook, or the next FA we bring in, if that player meshes with Mike, and the rest follow suit, we could get back in the fold. At that point, we can judge Mike much better than what we are dealing with right now, a roster full of holes, and injuries, and a bad mix of talent all pieced together.
Sometimes, patience is every bit as important. I'm fed up with Mitch and the job he's doing, but I'm being patient to see if he can get back in a groove and turn it around. If he doesn't panic move things, I'll give him longer leash. If he does stuff to save his ***, and try and fake out the lame fans that don't really get what he's attempting, I'll choke his *** out and demand he give up his chair.
Same with Mike. If we're patient, he might get the system rolling with better talent. If we cancel him now, during a season that clearly is not his fault, we could be throwing away a good coach, just for the sake of making a change. Which is short sighted, and unwise business practice.
Coaching isn't 2-3-4-5 traits, it's a combination of factors that all tie into a single purpose. Pop is an elite coach. He ain't carrying the Milwaukee Bucks to a God damn thing tho, and that has to be remembered every time we blame 1 guy for a 12 man units fails.
It's about meshing with the players you do have, and building thru that.
Coach Thibbs is an amazing defensive mind, who also happens to have a lot of gifted defensive athletes. Give him 10 scrubs who could care less about defense, it don't matter what he teaches them, they won't survive.
Phil Jackson was a master of massaging his elite guys, and yet still blending his role guys, which is why he was so tremendously successful. But he didn't "teach" the game of basketball to anybody in some enlightening way.
Pop has transformed the most, from defensive guy, to offensive guy, to blending of his players, but he's also had 3 HOFers on his roster for over a decade, and simply uses his role guys off of them. Thru Duncan's prime, he had a top 3 defense every year. When Duncan aged, and Richard Jefferson came in, they dropped to between 8-14 in defense, and were out in round 1-2 every year, easy. Gets rid of RJeff, and Kahwi comes in and once again they become a force defensively, while maintaining their offense (mostly due to Tony Parker) Pop didn't forget how to coach defense those 8-14 years, he simply had lesser talent.
Doc 2007 sucks, Doc 2008 wins a title. The guy didn't learn how to coach in a single year, he simply had a massive upgrade in talent, and also benefited from a great assistant coach. (Thibbs)
Spo 2010, Spo 2011, what changed? He learn how to coach really well all of a sudden or something?
It's why I have maintained over and over, it has NOTHING to do with D'Antoni in terms of what's wrong, or where are biggest problems lie. It's merely a transition from where our roster was, to where it is now. Give this very same coach 30 year old Kobe, and 32 year old Nash, and 30 year old Pau Gasol, and good luck stopping these Lakers. But give him 3 dead guys, and oh my God, he struggles.
The system he runs works. The plays he calls out of timeouts are nothing short of incredible. No one notices, but he has actually improved his rotations. (he used to be a 7-8 man lineup guy, to this year he has been using 10-11 man groups even with injuries)
Give him better players, hope he stick with a 10 man rotation to keep players fresh, let them all play together and learn spots and where to get good shots/attack without thinking too much, and if we could somehow get an upgrade over Rambis, as well as a couple more defensive athletes like Wes/Bazemore/Sacre out there, he can do the job in terms of exploiting mismatches, motivating guys, and executing down the stretch with his own playcalls. (Mike Brown wouldn't even speak in some huddles he sucked so much, that's not a head coach, it's a cheerleader in a suit)
And if Mike gets the leader/star that believes in him, and carries the roster, then he'll be just fine. Nash bought in in Phoenix, and the others followed suit. If Wiggins, or Kevin Love, or Rondo, whoever it might be in the next year or two comes in, we'll be ok.
Example, Carmelo and his iso style hates D'Antoni and they clash. Melo goes down, Mike goes to Jeremy Lin, a scrub off the bench, with the EXACT same roster, they go on a big win streak and the whole country watches. Melo comes back, and the whole thing breaks down. Who gets fired? The coach, who gets paid 10 mil, rather than the player who is owed 120 million. Which of those 2 were the **** up tho? Seems like an obvious answer, no?
It's all about what player comes in NEXT to rep LA. Not Kobe's old, grumpy ***. He gone soon. Either the rook, or the next FA we bring in, if that player meshes with Mike, and the rest follow suit, we could get back in the fold. At that point, we can judge Mike much better than what we are dealing with right now, a roster full of holes, and injuries, and a bad mix of talent all pieced together.
Sometimes, patience is every bit as important. I'm fed up with Mitch and the job he's doing, but I'm being patient to see if he can get back in a groove and turn it around. If he doesn't panic move things, I'll give him longer leash. If he does stuff to save his ***, and try and fake out the lame fans that don't really get what he's attempting, I'll choke his *** out and demand he give up his chair.
Same with Mike. If we're patient, he might get the system rolling with better talent. If we cancel him now, during a season that clearly is not his fault, we could be throwing away a good coach, just for the sake of making a change. Which is short sighted, and unwise business practice.
Coaching isn't 2-3-4-5 traits, it's a combination of factors that all tie into a single purpose. Pop is an elite coach. He ain't carrying the Milwaukee Bucks to a God damn thing tho, and that has to be remembered every time we blame 1 guy for a 12 man units fails.
- Sep 5, 2010
- 92,915
- 129,256
The best part abuot the Melo-D'Antoni relationship is Melo now thrives at the four position like D'Antoni wanted him to. Dude is/was a killer on spot ups, but was so resistant to the idea with D'Antoni.
- Dec 17, 2005
- 23,933
- 5,933
Everyone should also remember a professional basketball head coach is being paid millions of dollars to properly coach his players and to properly explain the benefits of his beliefs to his players so that they buy into what he is asking for.
Sure, we can say Melo didn't want to listen to MDA. Melo can be stubborn.
But so was Kobe. There's a reason why Phil called him "uncoachable." Yet, Phil had the ability to get through to Kobe at some point and when he did Kobe bought in and won 2 chips.
I'm not trying to compare Phil and MDA. I'm only using that as an example to say coaches can overcome stubborn players and get through to them if they patiently take the time to figure out what the best way is for a player to understand what they are coaching.
Better coaches can do it.
Look how selfless the spurs are year in and year out. You think that's just a coincidence? Or that they only draft players who are known to buy in to any coach? No. It's coaching. It's selling your system properly. It's teaching players the fundamentals and showing them what they can achieve by playing more selflessly.
If a player refuses to listen to you, isn't it your job to make him listen to you?
Maybe Woodson was able to connect the dots for Melo in a way that MDA couldn't. Why not give Woodson a little credit for Melo "flourishing" even though this same base of players from last season is incredibly underachieving.
A players job is to play, a coaches job is to coach.
Sure players need to be open minded and trust their coach, but coaches also need to gain the trust and understanding of their players by properly portraying their thoughts and having their players buy into what they are selling.
It's a two way street.
Sure, we can say Melo didn't want to listen to MDA. Melo can be stubborn.
But so was Kobe. There's a reason why Phil called him "uncoachable." Yet, Phil had the ability to get through to Kobe at some point and when he did Kobe bought in and won 2 chips.
I'm not trying to compare Phil and MDA. I'm only using that as an example to say coaches can overcome stubborn players and get through to them if they patiently take the time to figure out what the best way is for a player to understand what they are coaching.
Better coaches can do it.
Look how selfless the spurs are year in and year out. You think that's just a coincidence? Or that they only draft players who are known to buy in to any coach? No. It's coaching. It's selling your system properly. It's teaching players the fundamentals and showing them what they can achieve by playing more selflessly.
If a player refuses to listen to you, isn't it your job to make him listen to you?
Maybe Woodson was able to connect the dots for Melo in a way that MDA couldn't. Why not give Woodson a little credit for Melo "flourishing" even though this same base of players from last season is incredibly underachieving.
A players job is to play, a coaches job is to coach.
Sure players need to be open minded and trust their coach, but coaches also need to gain the trust and understanding of their players by properly portraying their thoughts and having their players buy into what they are selling.
It's a two way street.
Last edited:
- Dec 17, 2005
- 23,933
- 5,933
Who the **** said Woodson is flourishing?
You need your reading glasses bro?
That false attempt of reading is the only response you had to my post?
I said why not give Woodson a little credit for Melo "flourishing"... Melo. The player. Who is scoring a lot of points but losing games Is supposedly "flourishing" hence P's post.
Then I followed that right up by pointing out the team is UNDERACHIEVING. The same team that made the 2ndround last year now is UNDERACHIEVING INCREDIBLY.
So my point was obviously, Melo might be flourishing at the 4 like MDA originally asked for, but what good is that doing the team?
My mind is blown.
How is any of that interpreted as me saying Woodson is flourishing? If anything what I was saying was the exact opposite.
If anything P's post makes MDA look worse. Melo choosing to do lately what MDA asked him to do and losing games to horrible teams doesn't exactly prove to be such a wonderful idea by MDA does it?
C'mon bro.
Double check your reading before you reply Sheesh. 
You need your reading glasses bro?
That false attempt of reading is the only response you had to my post?
I said why not give Woodson a little credit for Melo "flourishing"... Melo. The player. Who is scoring a lot of points but losing games Is supposedly "flourishing" hence P's post.
Then I followed that right up by pointing out the team is UNDERACHIEVING. The same team that made the 2ndround last year now is UNDERACHIEVING INCREDIBLY.
So my point was obviously, Melo might be flourishing at the 4 like MDA originally asked for, but what good is that doing the team?
My mind is blown.
How is any of that interpreted as me saying Woodson is flourishing? If anything what I was saying was the exact opposite.
If anything P's post makes MDA look worse. Melo choosing to do lately what MDA asked him to do and losing games to horrible teams doesn't exactly prove to be such a wonderful idea by MDA does it?
C'mon bro.
Double check your reading before you reply Sheesh.
Last edited:
- Sep 5, 2010
- 92,915
- 129,256
That **** is always set by the player to me. Of course all coaches want their team to be a family.
You think the Spurs' culture would be what it is if Boogie was there instead of Duncan or if Javale McGee replaced Joakim Noah the Bulls would function as they do? Nah.
You think the Spurs' culture would be what it is if Boogie was there instead of Duncan or if Javale McGee replaced Joakim Noah the Bulls would function as they do? Nah.
dontsteponmyshoes
Supporter
- Mar 12, 2004
- 13,274
- 16,442
Kobe or Shaka Smart are my choices
- Sep 5, 2010
- 92,915
- 129,256
Actually look no further than the Clippers. CP3 replaces Baron and boom. The culture changed.
- Dec 17, 2005
- 23,933
- 5,933
And who is giving Noah the freedom to play with the passion and heart that he does?
You think Noah would be producing W's if he was paired up with Reggie Theus as coach?
You want to give all the credit to the players then fine, let's give all the credit to the players for any of our wins this year.
Coaching had nothing to do with any success.
Can't work both ways.
Last edited:
- Sep 5, 2010
- 92,915
- 129,256
Uh, Noah has that in his basketball DNA. Remember Florida?
- Dec 17, 2005
- 23,933
- 5,933
To what? Winning a division banner? Because I could of sworn they were bounced last year.
So whose fault was that?
CP3's?
Or Del Negro for not properly coaching the same talent that Doc now is bringing the most out of?
These examples just continue to fuel my argument
- Dec 17, 2005
- 23,933
- 5,933
You're acting as if I said players have nothing to do with it though
I clearly said "It's a two way street."
Doesn't that convey that it's Coaching AND Talent?
- Sep 5, 2010
- 92,915
- 129,256
It's a player's league in the NBA. That's why coaches get fired as much as they do.
More times than not, I'll give credit and fault to the players than coaches.
More times than not, I'll give credit and fault to the players than coaches.
darthska
Staff member
- Apr 30, 2004
- 47,034
- 31,701
That's classic CP, right there.Who the **** said Woodson is flourishing?
You need your reading glasses bro?
That false attempt of reading is the only response you had to my post?
I said why not give Woodson a little credit for Melo "flourishing"... Melo. The player. Who is scoring a lot of points but losing games Is supposedly "flourishing" hence P's post.
Then I followed that right up by pointing out the team is UNDERACHIEVING. The same team that made the 2ndround last year now is UNDERACHIEVING INCREDIBLY.
So my point was obviously, Melo might be flourishing at the 4 like MDA originally asked for, but what good is that doing the team?
My mind is blown.
How is any of that interpreted as me saying Woodson is flourishing? If anything what I was saying was the exact opposite.
If anything P's post makes MDA look worse. Melo choosing to do lately what MDA asked him to do and losing games to horrible teams doesn't exactly prove to be such a wonderful idea by MDA does it?
C'mon bro.
Double check your reading before you reply Sheesh.
And I sincerely HOPE you're not expecting ANYTHING along the lines of "Yeah, I see you mentioned Melo flourishing", because THAT... is MOST DEFINITELY... not happening.
What's going to happen is "Oh... *insert L2B quote with the word Knicks* that's you mentioning the Knicks, no? *insert L2B quote w/ 'flourishing' in it*... and that's you saying the Knicks... up in New York, sometimes called the Knickerbockers... that's not you saying they're flourishing? That right there, that we can all read? That's not what that says? I'm tripping?"
One of the first ones to say "I said that? You suuuuuuure?" though.
K.
The Clippers roster isn't better this year than last year?
Blake hasn't improved mightily this year? Was VDN holding him back or something?
If they get knocked out in round 1 this year, does that mean that Doc and VDN are equals?
There are variables, like I clearly stated. Many, many variables.
YOU CAN'T FIRE PLAYERS, ONLY COACHES. That's why they get scapegoated.
- Dec 17, 2005
- 23,933
- 5,933
That's fine. That's a respectable opinion.
You are obviously someone very knowledgable about the league.
But as true as that may be, more often than not is the key part.
It may be often but there are still situations when a coaching upgrade is needed.
And clearly, Doc being hired and Del Negro being fired is a prime example of that.
Everyone can see the vast improvement in Blake's post game and defense since Doc got hired.
That's not just the player waking up one day being better.
But again, talent is needed to coach. Pieces are needed to succeed.
Which is why his morning I said why rule out Petino based off of his horrible Celtics stint? Why not see what he could do with better pieces and a better situation?
Sometimes coaches need a better fit, just like how sometimes players do.
You are obviously someone very knowledgable about the league.
But as true as that may be, more often than not is the key part.
It may be often but there are still situations when a coaching upgrade is needed.
And clearly, Doc being hired and Del Negro being fired is a prime example of that.
Everyone can see the vast improvement in Blake's post game and defense since Doc got hired.
That's not just the player waking up one day being better.
But again, talent is needed to coach. Pieces are needed to succeed.
Which is why his morning I said why rule out Petino based off of his horrible Celtics stint? Why not see what he could do with better pieces and a better situation?
Sometimes coaches need a better fit, just like how sometimes players do.
That's classic CP, right there.Who the **** said Woodson is flourishing?
You need your reading glasses bro?
That false attempt of reading is the only response you had to my post?
I said why not give Woodson a little credit for Melo "flourishing"... Melo. The player. Who is scoring a lot of points but losing games Is supposedly "flourishing" hence P's post.
Then I followed that right up by pointing out the team is UNDERACHIEVING. The same team that made the 2ndround last year now is UNDERACHIEVING INCREDIBLY.
So my point was obviously, Melo might be flourishing at the 4 like MDA originally asked for, but what good is that doing the team?
My mind is blown.
How is any of that interpreted as me saying Woodson is flourishing? If anything what I was saying was the exact opposite.
If anything P's post makes MDA look worse. Melo choosing to do lately what MDA asked him to do and losing games to horrible teams doesn't exactly prove to be such a wonderful idea by MDA does it?
C'mon bro.
Double check your reading before you reply Sheesh.
And I sincerely HOPE you're not expecting ANYTHING along the lines of "Yeah, I see you mentioned Melo flourishing", because THAT... is MOST DEFINITELY... not happening.
What's going to happen is "Oh... *insert L2B quote with the word Knicks* that's you mentioning the Knicks, no? *insert L2B quote w/ 'flourishing' in it*... and that's you saying the Knicks... up in New York, sometimes called the Knickerbockers... that's not you saying they're flourishing? That right there, that we can all read? That's not what that says? I'm tripping?"
One of the first ones to say "I said that? You suuuuuuure?" though.
Actually, what happened was easy, I was on my phone and couldn't scroll up with ease to re-read.
I could clarify my point on the flourish comment, but it wouldn't do any good. Chalk it up as my bad and move on. If he wants to revisit, I can do that. No prob.
- Dec 17, 2005
- 23,933
- 5,933
I don't wanna rehash anything I gave my response.
You clearly misread my post.
At least you said
My bad.
Now we can move on
You clearly misread my post.
At least you said
My bad.
Now we can move on
Last edited:
Pitino doesn't work like Hoody does tho. (off your example)
Steve Spurrier didn't work in the NFL, he got axed quick. In college, he plays a lot of golf.
Some guys just are not cut for this level. Pitino is one of those. COULD he be a good coach, I don't know. Is Melo and his 120 million gonna listen to a guy makin 8 mil and not workin as hard as George Karl might have in Denver? Who knows.
But maybe Anthony Davis would kill himself for Pitino, all depends on how they jive together.
Steve Spurrier didn't work in the NFL, he got axed quick. In college, he plays a lot of golf.
Some guys just are not cut for this level. Pitino is one of those. COULD he be a good coach, I don't know. Is Melo and his 120 million gonna listen to a guy makin 8 mil and not workin as hard as George Karl might have in Denver? Who knows.
But maybe Anthony Davis would kill himself for Pitino, all depends on how they jive together.
