I wasn't saying one was worse than the other. I was saying they were completely different. Different sport, different personalities, different issues.
If you want a reason why the 49ers position isn't worse it's because they actually had three (and still possibly four) winning seasons before parting ways with their coach.
Why should it be either? The Kings were playing well and even after their skid without DeMarcus they were still on pace to win 10 more games than last season. If with him they returned to the play that got them to 9-6 they could still win 45 games. Our team's owner hired a coach first and then hired GM that was opposed to that philosophically. I'm not sure how that's Malone's fault.
I don't recall anyone saying that we should accept that. But not being satisfied with the team's play and punting on the season by firing your coach and going with an interim solution doesn't seem like a rational answer to me.
To me the proof is in the pudding. There's a reason that the national media was picking up on the Kings as a surprise team. They were defying expectations and not in a lucky or smoke-and-mirrors way but with a grind it out defense, strong rebounding and taking the ball to the hoop aggressively. Yes, Malone should do what his bosses wanted as any employee should. But I'm not an employee of the Kings and MY question is whether PDA's "plan" will bear fruit. Vivek says he expects playoffs THIS season. Pete's vision better provide that.
I don't have to predict the future. I saw improvement in the games that were played. I saw better defensive rotations. I saw more (but still not enough) ball movement. I saw a team identity being formed and a gameplan that would let them compete in nearly every game that Cousins played. And I saw room for growth from our players and our coach. I saw a path to success. I don't see that now. I see uncertainty and a much better chance of an eventual collapse and rebuild.
I have no idea who said anything remotely like that about Isaiah. It certainly wasn't me. And I'm not playing the "what if" game. I saw a better product on the floor and then I saw a GM say that product wasn't good enough because he wanted a more exciting style and an owner who said he wanted improvisational jazz on the offensive end. In short, I see a lot more "what ifs" now than before they fired their coach.
If you want a reason why the 49ers position isn't worse it's because they actually had three (and still possibly four) winning seasons before parting ways with their coach.
Why should it be either? The Kings were playing well and even after their skid without DeMarcus they were still on pace to win 10 more games than last season. If with him they returned to the play that got them to 9-6 they could still win 45 games. Our team's owner hired a coach first and then hired GM that was opposed to that philosophically. I'm not sure how that's Malone's fault.
I don't recall anyone saying that we should accept that. But not being satisfied with the team's play and punting on the season by firing your coach and going with an interim solution doesn't seem like a rational answer to me.
To me the proof is in the pudding. There's a reason that the national media was picking up on the Kings as a surprise team. They were defying expectations and not in a lucky or smoke-and-mirrors way but with a grind it out defense, strong rebounding and taking the ball to the hoop aggressively. Yes, Malone should do what his bosses wanted as any employee should. But I'm not an employee of the Kings and MY question is whether PDA's "plan" will bear fruit. Vivek says he expects playoffs THIS season. Pete's vision better provide that.
I don't have to predict the future. I saw improvement in the games that were played. I saw better defensive rotations. I saw more (but still not enough) ball movement. I saw a team identity being formed and a gameplan that would let them compete in nearly every game that Cousins played. And I saw room for growth from our players and our coach. I saw a path to success. I don't see that now. I see uncertainty and a much better chance of an eventual collapse and rebuild.
I have no idea who said anything remotely like that about Isaiah. It certainly wasn't me. And I'm not playing the "what if" game. I saw a better product on the floor and then I saw a GM say that product wasn't good enough because he wanted a more exciting style and an owner who said he wanted improvisational jazz on the offensive end. In short, I see a lot more "what ifs" now than before they fired their coach.
Last edited:
