What data? You mean when he has his type of players and can't get past the 1st round because of it? He can't coach star players and he can't coach post players. If George Karl was a great coach, he would be able to adapt and coach to the strengths of the players on the roster rather than force his style upon them. But he can't.
I know we'd all like to see the Kings simply make the playoffs. But the end goal is to win a championship. And George Karl isn't "synonymous" with winning 1st round playoff series, let alone championships. Go check you data and info on that one. He's a one-trick pony that only wins in the regular season and ONLY when he has obedient beta players that don't wreak havoc on his ego. Star players win you games and championships, not coaches. Phil Jackson has 12 rings. Not one of them without TWO of the top 3 or 4 players in the league at the time. Good luck finding an NBA coach in the modern era that was able to win a championship without superstars simply because they were so great to get a team of decent players to overachieve.
The NBA is and always has been about star players. That's not going to change anytime soon. The Kings have one. Now it's all about finding the right fits around him and a coach that knows how to manage it all. That's where Phil Jackson had value -- because he could manage egos. George Karl not only can't manage egos, he has the biggest one in the locker room. That's the problem.
I know we'd all like to see the Kings simply make the playoffs. But the end goal is to win a championship. And George Karl isn't "synonymous" with winning 1st round playoff series, let alone championships. Go check you data and info on that one. He's a one-trick pony that only wins in the regular season and ONLY when he has obedient beta players that don't wreak havoc on his ego. Star players win you games and championships, not coaches. Phil Jackson has 12 rings. Not one of them without TWO of the top 3 or 4 players in the league at the time. Good luck finding an NBA coach in the modern era that was able to win a championship without superstars simply because they were so great to get a team of decent players to overachieve.
The NBA is and always has been about star players. That's not going to change anytime soon. The Kings have one. Now it's all about finding the right fits around him and a coach that knows how to manage it all. That's where Phil Jackson had value -- because he could manage egos. George Karl not only can't manage egos, he has the biggest one in the locker room. That's the problem.
Last edited:
This is all something to think about. Why does a coach who almost never coaches a team to a sub .500 year never get out of the 1st round. Look it up.
He's a gimmick coach. He believes pace will win a few extra games as it runs other teams into the ground AND IT DOES. In playoffs when the pace slows down, he doesn't have the coaching tools to win. The sad thing is that I am sure he had a few teams that could have gone further. This gimmick thing sounds like Vivek coaching his daughter in middle school. This is the NBA.
He's a gimmick coach. He believes pace will win a few extra games as it runs other teams into the ground AND IT DOES. In playoffs when the pace slows down, he doesn't have the coaching tools to win. The sad thing is that I am sure he had a few teams that could have gone further. This gimmick thing sounds like Vivek coaching his daughter in middle school. This is the NBA.
I don't post much any more but nothing seems to change. You STILL criticize others for the content of their posts without batting an eye. Still Ballin gave a valid opinion about Casspi (emphasis on OPINION) and you jumped all over it. If this was in reverse and someone criticized your opinion you'd be all over them, maybe even sending them a private message. Bring yours on, I don't care.
I think what he has shown this year, Casspi is a "Any-coach" kind of guy. He plays hard even During slumps, doesn't pout in the media. He knows his calling card is that he'll play hard regardless of his shot falling or not, because talent alone won't keep him in the league. I think this would qualify under what @VF21 would say.
That's the long and short of it.
The Kings are a starving franchise right now. And fans are starving too. Like Chris Rock (EDIT: it was Eddie Murphy who did that skit) once said, if you give a starving man a plain saltine cracker, he'll not only be thankful but also believe it's the best cracker he's ever had.
A playoff appearance is the Kingsfan version of a saltine cracker right now. So the fact that George Karl hadn't coached a team that missed the postseason in oh so long has caused many fans to overvalue the achievement just as they would overvalue a saltine cracker.
Karl found a system that was consistent, but topped out really low. Even when he had his best players (Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp) he was only able to make one good playoff run in all those years. And to repeat myself yet again, he only managed that feat because he had a couple of star players.
Why anybody would want to keep a coach that has proven his ceiling and limitations for nearly 30 years over a top 5 player in today's game that has played only 6 seasons under the most unique of circumstances is well beyond my understanding. Out of the 2, which is more likely to see a drastic change in their career arc? Then when you add in the fact some of us keep beating to death, which is that this league is a players league, it really becomes a no brainer.
The Kings are a starving franchise right now. And fans are starving too. Like Chris Rock (EDIT: it was Eddie Murphy who did that skit) once said, if you give a starving man a plain saltine cracker, he'll not only be thankful but also believe it's the best cracker he's ever had.
A playoff appearance is the Kingsfan version of a saltine cracker right now. So the fact that George Karl hadn't coached a team that missed the postseason in oh so long has caused many fans to overvalue the achievement just as they would overvalue a saltine cracker.
Karl found a system that was consistent, but topped out really low. Even when he had his best players (Gary Payton, Shawn Kemp) he was only able to make one good playoff run in all those years. And to repeat myself yet again, he only managed that feat because he had a couple of star players.
Why anybody would want to keep a coach that has proven his ceiling and limitations for nearly 30 years over a top 5 player in today's game that has played only 6 seasons under the most unique of circumstances is well beyond my understanding. Out of the 2, which is more likely to see a drastic change in their career arc? Then when you add in the fact some of us keep beating to death, which is that this league is a players league, it really becomes a no brainer.
Last edited:
Agree with most of what you had to say. One thing I will do is look at some things he couldn't control. In the past 20 years, the West has had the Malone-Stockton Jazz, the Spurs, Kobe-Shaq and Kobe-Pau Lakers, early 2000 Blazers and Kings, Suns and Rockets Mid 2000's. That is some very tough competition, and he was never going to out coach Pop or Phil Jackson.
And I'm on the Karl needs to be fired wagon, just providing some of the talent he's had to face.
And I'm on the Karl needs to be fired wagon, just providing some of the talent he's had to face.
In the NBA, you don't really have to outcoach anybody. It's about who has the best players and is able to manage those personalities best. Jackson and Pop largely won because they had the best 2 players or best collection of players and were able to keep them reigned in.
Karl often didn't have the best players because he'd preferred obedient players that would run his system and squeeze out 50+ wins during a long regular season. When he did have 2 of the better players in the league, he wouldn't get out of their way. Rick Adelman never won a title, but I'll bet you'll find that he enjoyed more postseason success than Karl despite the fact that he didn't have best players in the league either. He generally allowed his players to do what they did best. That's the difference.
And, lastly, while you are correct that competition was always fierce, I'm more critical of the numerous 1st round exits and lack of deep playoff runs considering how many playoff appearances his teams have made. That's the most telling thing. It's one thing to not win a title or reach the Finals, but you shouldn't be 1 and done so often. His Seattle teams drastically underachieved because they weren't suited for the style of play that comes in April thru June.
Karl often didn't have the best players because he'd preferred obedient players that would run his system and squeeze out 50+ wins during a long regular season. When he did have 2 of the better players in the league, he wouldn't get out of their way. Rick Adelman never won a title, but I'll bet you'll find that he enjoyed more postseason success than Karl despite the fact that he didn't have best players in the league either. He generally allowed his players to do what they did best. That's the difference.
And, lastly, while you are correct that competition was always fierce, I'm more critical of the numerous 1st round exits and lack of deep playoff runs considering how many playoff appearances his teams have made. That's the most telling thing. It's one thing to not win a title or reach the Finals, but you shouldn't be 1 and done so often. His Seattle teams drastically underachieved because they weren't suited for the style of play that comes in April thru June.
Goddamn it's a beautiful sight. So many winning seasons I had to re-size the image.
With that talent you should make the playoffs.
More than 75% of the time his team made the playoffs, his team had a losing record in the playoffs tho.
I
There have been 321 NBA coaches
148 of them have never made the playoffs
Only 90/173 have coached more than 20 playoff games
Only 40/173 have coached more than 60 playoff games
Only 20/173 have coached more than 100 playoff games
Only 10 men in NBA history have coached 150+ playoff games
4 out of those 10 men have below .500 playoff records
Each and everyone of those 10 men have regular season records well above .500
I'll throw out some names;
Jackson
Riley
Motta
Popovich
Brown
Auerbach
Sloan
Adelman
KC Jones
That's the company George Karl keeps.
Only 39 coaches in history have won a conference
Only 33 have won a championship
148 of them have never made the playoffs
Only 90/173 have coached more than 20 playoff games
Only 40/173 have coached more than 60 playoff games
Only 20/173 have coached more than 100 playoff games
Only 10 men in NBA history have coached 150+ playoff games
4 out of those 10 men have below .500 playoff records
Each and everyone of those 10 men have regular season records well above .500
I'll throw out some names;
Jackson
Riley
Motta
Popovich
Brown
Auerbach
Sloan
Adelman
KC Jones
That's the company George Karl keeps.
Only 39 coaches in history have won a conference
Only 33 have won a championship
Last edited by a moderator:
Of those 9 coaches you wrote down, 7 won championships.
Sloan and Adelman are the two that didn't. And they both have better playoff records then Karl. Adelamn at .503, Sloan at .485(Making 2 NBA Finals as well). While Karl has a winning percentage of .432 in playoffs. The lowest percentage of the names you mentioned I might add. He is the weak link candidate of the group of 10 you put him in.
Sloan and Adelman are the two that didn't. And they both have better playoff records then Karl. Adelamn at .503, Sloan at .485(Making 2 NBA Finals as well). While Karl has a winning percentage of .432 in playoffs. The lowest percentage of the names you mentioned I might add. He is the weak link candidate of the group of 10 you put him in.
I
Well that's pretty obvious, if you've coached that many playoff games, odds are you've progressed deep into the post season. So he's apparently a weak link in the GOAT tier class of coaches? Is this supposed to be a bad thing?
And you can't even definitively make a statement like that, because there are so many different variables. Here's a fact; Every winning coach in history has had great players. Phil Jackson can go from 72-10 and 11 championships to not even making the playoffs in 2005. We can talk about so many different variables. Did Phil Jackson become a bad coach in 2005?
You talk about all the great players Karl has had. I see some good players... But I see a lot of questionable seeds. We know this. He hasn't got quite as good teams as you believe. How do I know this? Because they fall apart when he leaves. Denver went from 57 wins, to out of the playoffs. Seattle went from top tier 61 wins and perennial conference elite in the 90's, to out of the playoffs/fringe borderline playoffs. Hell, when he's joined teams they've generally done better. Joins a 17-25 Nuggets and finishes the season 32-8. Takes a 20-20 Supersonics and finishes the season 27-15. Took a Bucks team that hadn't made the playoffs in nearly a decade, to the playoffs... And took them within 1 game of the NBA finals a few years later.
There are so many factors when looking at coaches... But you can't single out one and not apply the same to the others. ALL winning coaches have good players. All winning coaches have ups and downs. All great coaches lose. I think there is clearly enough done in George Karl's storied career, to prove his greatness as a coach.
Now if you want to make this into a Demarcus v Karl thing... go ahead. I doubt you'll be able to write up something that attests to his worth like I just did. George Karl has just about done it all in the NBA... Few can say that. You spit on his legacy, you spit on guys like Adelman who this franchise adores. You can keep believing this false reality where George Karl is somehow a bad coach and somehow had a hall of fame career despite this, and that he's apparently outdated as a coach despite winning 57 games and COTY not even a half decade ago... Or you can objectively look at his career, clearly see how great a coach he is, understand all the numerous variables that goes into winning (Which Karl probably has the most of along with guys like Lenny Wilkens and Rick Adelman (Multiple teams/different players/different eras/long coaching tenure)
Was Adelman a bad coach in Minnesota or Golden State?
And you can't even definitively make a statement like that, because there are so many different variables. Here's a fact; Every winning coach in history has had great players. Phil Jackson can go from 72-10 and 11 championships to not even making the playoffs in 2005. We can talk about so many different variables. Did Phil Jackson become a bad coach in 2005?
You talk about all the great players Karl has had. I see some good players... But I see a lot of questionable seeds. We know this. He hasn't got quite as good teams as you believe. How do I know this? Because they fall apart when he leaves. Denver went from 57 wins, to out of the playoffs. Seattle went from top tier 61 wins and perennial conference elite in the 90's, to out of the playoffs/fringe borderline playoffs. Hell, when he's joined teams they've generally done better. Joins a 17-25 Nuggets and finishes the season 32-8. Takes a 20-20 Supersonics and finishes the season 27-15. Took a Bucks team that hadn't made the playoffs in nearly a decade, to the playoffs... And took them within 1 game of the NBA finals a few years later.
There are so many factors when looking at coaches... But you can't single out one and not apply the same to the others. ALL winning coaches have good players. All winning coaches have ups and downs. All great coaches lose. I think there is clearly enough done in George Karl's storied career, to prove his greatness as a coach.
Now if you want to make this into a Demarcus v Karl thing... go ahead. I doubt you'll be able to write up something that attests to his worth like I just did. George Karl has just about done it all in the NBA... Few can say that. You spit on his legacy, you spit on guys like Adelman who this franchise adores. You can keep believing this false reality where George Karl is somehow a bad coach and somehow had a hall of fame career despite this, and that he's apparently outdated as a coach despite winning 57 games and COTY not even a half decade ago... Or you can objectively look at his career, clearly see how great a coach he is, understand all the numerous variables that goes into winning (Which Karl probably has the most of along with guys like Lenny Wilkens and Rick Adelman (Multiple teams/different players/different eras/long coaching tenure)
Was Adelman a bad coach in Minnesota or Golden State?
I
1. No you won't be able to bring up any stats that would prove Kobe is the best player in the league
2. Was Rick Adelman a bad coach in Golden State and Minnesota? Was Phil Jackson a bad coach in 2005? Was Gregg Popovich a bad coach in his first year? Did he magically become the "best coach ever" in one year? Was Pat Riley a bad coach in 2003 and 2008? Was Jerry Sloan a bad coach in 2005? Was Larry Brown a bad coach in 2006/98/89? Did he magically become a great coach in 1990? Was Don Nelson a bad coach in 98? The same coach who had won COTY 3 times before that year?
Take a good hard long think. Maybe just maybe, you might realize that there could be larger issues for this team than George Karl.
2. Was Rick Adelman a bad coach in Golden State and Minnesota? Was Phil Jackson a bad coach in 2005? Was Gregg Popovich a bad coach in his first year? Did he magically become the "best coach ever" in one year? Was Pat Riley a bad coach in 2003 and 2008? Was Jerry Sloan a bad coach in 2005? Was Larry Brown a bad coach in 2006/98/89? Did he magically become a great coach in 1990? Was Don Nelson a bad coach in 98? The same coach who had won COTY 3 times before that year?
Take a good hard long think. Maybe just maybe, you might realize that there could be larger issues for this team than George Karl.
This season is not about Karls legacy.
This team sadly only goes as far as Cousins can carry it.
A great coach should have found a way to win games even without Cousins but with a well thought out system.
Karl couldn't achieve that.
What's makes things worse is that he allowed for a gap to built between his star player and himself. He suspended Cousins without communicating afterwards. What is this supposed to fix?
Karl needs Cousins to win, but he isn't even trying to get him back on track.
That's not impressive coaching....
This stupid my court, my rules game is so middle school.
Sports franchises are at the mercy of the players. Cousins was extremely loyal this far. You don't win players with childish authority games, but with competence and guidance and ideas, that lead to wins.
Karl has lost Cousins and while Cousins sure has played his part a good head coach can't allow that to happen, because it hurts the teams chances to win.
This team sadly only goes as far as Cousins can carry it.
A great coach should have found a way to win games even without Cousins but with a well thought out system.
Karl couldn't achieve that.
What's makes things worse is that he allowed for a gap to built between his star player and himself. He suspended Cousins without communicating afterwards. What is this supposed to fix?
Karl needs Cousins to win, but he isn't even trying to get him back on track.
That's not impressive coaching....
This stupid my court, my rules game is so middle school.
Sports franchises are at the mercy of the players. Cousins was extremely loyal this far. You don't win players with childish authority games, but with competence and guidance and ideas, that lead to wins.
Karl has lost Cousins and while Cousins sure has played his part a good head coach can't allow that to happen, because it hurts the teams chances to win.
I
If this team only goes as far as Cousins takes it
Then I suggest we trade him, because he's not taking us very far. He hasn't taken us very far.
Perhaps we could for once, not fire a coach... And instead make a big player personnel change. I don't think we should fire Karl. BUT I understand if we do.
But what I don't understand is, how you can just ignore the issue of Demarcus. It's easily the biggest issue, and it is most definitely an issue. Some of you posters on here are like protective parents.
You talk about patience and competence... You haven't a clue. We've been patient, we've been competent on Demarcus. Yet as soon as things go south you want to throw out a tried and tested hall of fame coach? Not even give him a second chance? The incompetence.
The worst move we could make is to fire a Hall of fame coach, and retain Demarcus, like maybe this time things will be better. Like a girl in an abusive relationship.
Then I suggest we trade him, because he's not taking us very far. He hasn't taken us very far.
Perhaps we could for once, not fire a coach... And instead make a big player personnel change. I don't think we should fire Karl. BUT I understand if we do.
But what I don't understand is, how you can just ignore the issue of Demarcus. It's easily the biggest issue, and it is most definitely an issue. Some of you posters on here are like protective parents.
You talk about patience and competence... You haven't a clue. We've been patient, we've been competent on Demarcus. Yet as soon as things go south you want to throw out a tried and tested hall of fame coach? Not even give him a second chance? The incompetence.
The worst move we could make is to fire a Hall of fame coach, and retain Demarcus, like maybe this time things will be better. Like a girl in an abusive relationship.
First of all, nice try. George Karl was a very good coach for most of his career, didn't once say he was a bad coach. This is just taking what I said and taking the extreme argument. It would be like me saying, "Peyton Manning put up great regular season numbers, but struggled in the playoffs numerous times". With you responding, "So you're saying manning is a bad QB given his whole career??? Let me write a novel showing you other wise. Don't forget Favre didn't make the playoffs his last year in Minnesota. Are you telling me he is a bad QB?".
Never spat on Adelman, I pointed out he had a better winning percentage than Karl in playoffs. So please go ahead and "write up something" that show's when i spit on Adelman. George Karl excelled at getting his teams to the playoffs earlier in his career, and then failed numerous times to ever take advantage of that opportunity. So yes, Karl was a great coach at leading very good talent to the playoffs. But as your numbers show, once there, didn't get to the prize.
Winning in playoffs is the difference from a really good coach to a great coach. Coaches are able to lead there teams thru different variables, obstacles and seeds.
And if all you saw was "good players" when I brought up Gary Payton, Melo, AI, Ray Allen and Shawn Kemp, I do not need to try to talk sense into you.
Karl before Sacramento= Very good coach, HOF career. Nobody argues that.
Karl in Sacramento= Former shell of himself as a coach. Nobody argues that.
P.S. man you had to stretch with that example of Jackson in 05. Smush, Kwame, Lamar, Mihm and others say thanks for the reference. Jackson was what a 9 time champion when he went back to the Lakers? And look how quickly he turned that around in L.A.
Never spat on Adelman, I pointed out he had a better winning percentage than Karl in playoffs. So please go ahead and "write up something" that show's when i spit on Adelman. George Karl excelled at getting his teams to the playoffs earlier in his career, and then failed numerous times to ever take advantage of that opportunity. So yes, Karl was a great coach at leading very good talent to the playoffs. But as your numbers show, once there, didn't get to the prize.
Winning in playoffs is the difference from a really good coach to a great coach. Coaches are able to lead there teams thru different variables, obstacles and seeds.
And if all you saw was "good players" when I brought up Gary Payton, Melo, AI, Ray Allen and Shawn Kemp, I do not need to try to talk sense into you.
Karl before Sacramento= Very good coach, HOF career. Nobody argues that.
Karl in Sacramento= Former shell of himself as a coach. Nobody argues that.
P.S. man you had to stretch with that example of Jackson in 05. Smush, Kwame, Lamar, Mihm and others say thanks for the reference. Jackson was what a 9 time champion when he went back to the Lakers? And look how quickly he turned that around in L.A.