Kings interview Del Negro, Jackson and Mitchell for Head Coach position (Yahoo News)
- Thread starter Geoff
- Start date
Yeah, I've been meaning to raise that about McMillan. He was a very stern very unimaginative figure. Seemed like a grinder of a coach . Given personnel he could get a team from point X to point Y, but didn't seem to have the spark for more. Given our personnel though....also a way to guarantee rondo did not return, or if he did that it would be a fight.
Seems to me that there are these older school guys available as teams have turned to pace driven coaches. I think it's going to be beneficial to us as we land a good fitting, defense first coach. Besides Malone, when is the last time we had a coach who emphasized defense strongly....as in, you have to play defense if you want to win and not try to outscore your opponent with offensive, gimmicky, pace driven ball?
I'm down with Woodson
McMillan would worry me a bit
I'm down with Del Negro
I'm assuming Blatt is not an option
The only inexperienced guys I'd want to take a chance on are Elston Turner and then Udoka based on what I've read here on him and his Spurs ties. That Spurs coaching tree has produced some good head coaches.
I'm down with Woodson
McMillan would worry me a bit
I'm down with Del Negro
I'm assuming Blatt is not an option
The only inexperienced guys I'd want to take a chance on are Elston Turner and then Udoka based on what I've read here on him and his Spurs ties. That Spurs coaching tree has produced some good head coaches.
Well, Walton may not be an option anyway.
https://twitter.com/sam_amick/status/725759768267091968?lang=en
https://twitter.com/sam_amick/status/725759768267091968?lang=en
Nice article on Mike Woodson. He seems to be a players coach and players seem to play hard for him.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...out-new-york-knicks-coach-mike-woodson/page/2
His teams offense has been pretty solid and defense has been middle of the road. He even got Carmelo and Josh Smith to play hard for him. He looks like a stable and respected authority figure as coach and demands accountability.
He has also been learning under Doc Rivers the last 2 years.
Starting to warm up to Mike Woodson.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...out-new-york-knicks-coach-mike-woodson/page/2
His teams offense has been pretty solid and defense has been middle of the road. He even got Carmelo and Josh Smith to play hard for him. He looks like a stable and respected authority figure as coach and demands accountability.
He has also been learning under Doc Rivers the last 2 years.
Starting to warm up to Mike Woodson.
I didn't list 5 white guys as the only qualified coaches in the league. I said the league is dominated by those coaches, which is something completely different. Every coach on college or NBA level is qualified. And I don't really understand why the colour of the skin has anything to do with coaching an NBA team or with anything else in life. I know, what you are trying to hint, I don't understand why you are doing it and I think this has no place in a sports related discussion between strangers.
Mike D'Antoni had 4 seasons with over 50 wins with the Suns. George Karl never missed the Playoffs. How much are achievements of the past worth today?
I wrote "It feels like" right? Is this a hint, that I use statistical measurements to make up my mind, who is the best coach available? I don't think so. Stats are just Stats and people read way too much into them from my point of view (most of the time to back their claims in sports related discussions, where they want to sound more scientific and objective, which is not my goal as I stated often enough. I'm a fan. I don't want to be objective and I don't want to provide some kind of analytics.) NBA teams are coached not only by the head coach but also by quite a few assistant coaches. How do you measure the individual contribution of each coach by looking at wins and losses or offensive rating?
I watch a lot of basketball. I watched Mike Woodson coach the Knicks. I watched McMillan coach the Blazers and VDN coach the Clippers.
Out of those three I like McMillan the most, but none of them strikes me as a elite coach and potential next great basketball mind.
And maybe I'm crazy but I as a fan am tired of bad to mediocre coaches. I don't want to look at the Warriors, Spurs, Hawks, Celtics, Pistons and so on and get depressed, because those teams play good to great basketball on both ends, while patiently building their teams in a certain way that fits the vision of the FO AND coaching staff and my team is a mess.
Now maybe I'm wrong and Woodson or VDN are in fact great basketball innovators, that lead the Kings into the promised land and start a new dynasty in SAC.
But those names certainly don't get my hopes up, which was the whole, simplistic and shallow point of my previous post.
Mike D'Antoni had 4 seasons with over 50 wins with the Suns. George Karl never missed the Playoffs. How much are achievements of the past worth today?
I wrote "It feels like" right? Is this a hint, that I use statistical measurements to make up my mind, who is the best coach available? I don't think so. Stats are just Stats and people read way too much into them from my point of view (most of the time to back their claims in sports related discussions, where they want to sound more scientific and objective, which is not my goal as I stated often enough. I'm a fan. I don't want to be objective and I don't want to provide some kind of analytics.) NBA teams are coached not only by the head coach but also by quite a few assistant coaches. How do you measure the individual contribution of each coach by looking at wins and losses or offensive rating?
I watch a lot of basketball. I watched Mike Woodson coach the Knicks. I watched McMillan coach the Blazers and VDN coach the Clippers.
Out of those three I like McMillan the most, but none of them strikes me as a elite coach and potential next great basketball mind.
And maybe I'm crazy but I as a fan am tired of bad to mediocre coaches. I don't want to look at the Warriors, Spurs, Hawks, Celtics, Pistons and so on and get depressed, because those teams play good to great basketball on both ends, while patiently building their teams in a certain way that fits the vision of the FO AND coaching staff and my team is a mess.
Now maybe I'm wrong and Woodson or VDN are in fact great basketball innovators, that lead the Kings into the promised land and start a new dynasty in SAC.
But those names certainly don't get my hopes up, which was the whole, simplistic and shallow point of my previous post.
At this point I'm just going to trust that Vlade & co make the best hire available to them.
No matter which coach is signed some fans will like the hire and some won't. And some of those who won't like it will complain that coach X or coach Y should've been the guy but clearly there are a number of guys that Vlade expressed interest in who did not have interest being the head coach of the Kings.
So without knowing who was actually on the list for Vlade to choose from, I'm just going to roll with his choice and wait until the roster moves are made and training camp rolls around before I get too excited or upset over the choice.
Unless it's Mark Jackson. Then I'd be pissed.
No matter which coach is signed some fans will like the hire and some won't. And some of those who won't like it will complain that coach X or coach Y should've been the guy but clearly there are a number of guys that Vlade expressed interest in who did not have interest being the head coach of the Kings.
So without knowing who was actually on the list for Vlade to choose from, I'm just going to roll with his choice and wait until the roster moves are made and training camp rolls around before I get too excited or upset over the choice.
Unless it's Mark Jackson. Then I'd be pissed.
I don't think so either. I'm just struggling to see what separates Budenholzer, Stevens, Joerger, and Kerr from other coaches who've had success in the league. Brad Stevens isn't some kind of offensive genius, he emphasizes defense and teamwork which puts him in the same category as Woodson and McMillan. Dave Joerger inherited a 50 win team and kept them at about the same level. Budenholzer's Hawks had one exceptional season but otherwise they've been no better than Woodson's Hawks and he didn't have to build that team up from nothing. I suppose it was an unnecessary connection to make but I can't help feeling there's some kind of subconscious bias when the prospect of interviewing Luke Walton generates more favorable reactions than Woodson, McMillan or Mitchell -- all eminently qualified head coaches -- while Walton has coached (on an interim basis) for only 43 games.
K
DeMarcus Cousins said the Kings would be a playoff team if Michael Malone were still here. Didn't hesitate.
No, you're right. There are no differences in the quality of the coaches you mentioned. There may be some perception bias in general and I'm not speaking to any one person. We're all guilty of looking at someone and saying they look the part.
I'm happy that Vlade doesn't appear to be letting any perception bias into his decision making.
I'm happy that Vlade doesn't appear to be letting any perception bias into his decision making.
I saw that. I remain convinced that Udoka would be the better Spurs assistant coach to hire for the Kings than Messina anyway. Walton both interests and scares me as a coaching prospect. McMillan doesn't seem like a good fit. I would definitely be on board with a McHale signing. But again, none of us know exactly who Vlade is interested in and we don't know how many of those guys are interested in the job.
Maybe it's the same thought process that goes into the whole "I wouldn't trade the 1st pick in the draft for veteran X, because veteran X is only a fringe allstar, and draft pick Y is potentially the next Durant!"
If they're unproven, maybe they're better than the guys who are "just" solid.
This post is regarding the Luke vs other guys convo btw. Shoulda quoted somebody.
If they're unproven, maybe they're better than the guys who are "just" solid.
This post is regarding the Luke vs other guys convo btw. Shoulda quoted somebody.
Last edited:
What posturing? I don't really hear McHale's name in connection with any other openings.
And I can GUARANTEE you that he isn't going to be hired by the Lakers.
So, if he interviewed for the Kings job, he is definitely interested.
And I can GUARANTEE you that he isn't going to be hired by the Lakers.
So, if he interviewed for the Kings job, he is definitely interested.
First of all, not every coach in college or the NBA is qualified. Many of them are not qualified, that's exactly the point of this coaching search. Qualifications are: coaching style, reviews from former players, team record, and perhaps most tellingly the system their teams ran and how successful they were about maximizing the talent available to them. I think we're looking for someone who can develop young players not dismiss them and let them figure it out on their own and we're looking for someone who is going to be a hardass about demanding effort and defensive intensity from everyone. That narrows the list down quite a bit doesn't it? Your qualifications might not be the same as mine but I know you're not going to take any available coach either.
I'm not sure what you mean by "dominated". Steve Kerr has been a head coach for only two years (more like one and a half if you want to get technical). Budenholzer, Joerger, and Stevens have only been coaching for three years. One of them has already seen their team get swept in the first round and another one will be going home soon too. What about Doc Rivers? What about Tom Thibodeau? What about Sam Mitchell, Byron Scott, and Mike Brown who've all won Coach of the Year awards in the last 10 years and are all looking for jobs right now? I don't know why you picked those 5 coaches as the cream of the crop right now. I just asked a question to see if you could qualify it more. I know you wrote "feels like" but you also casually dismissed a 5 page article detailing Mike Woodson's coaching style with a meaningless one-liner with no basis in anything at all but your own apparent bias. Excuse me for attempting to impart something of substance into the discussion. In point of fact, I was not intending to pick on you at all. It was an open question directed at the entire coaching discussion which seems bizarrely focused (both here and on Sactownroyalty) with mocking successful NBA coaches and sprinkling magic pixie dust on unproven coaches who, what exactly, "feel like" they might be something special? And why? Because they superficially resemble a few buzzworthy coaches? Because they might be the next Brad Stevens or might be the next Mike Budenholzer?
I'm tired of mediocre coaches too but not as much as I'm tired of gimmick offenses and gimmick defenses. I want a basketball coach not a used car salesman. Not an innovative young entrepreneur with their finger on the pulse of whatever the hippest new trend is. Maybe that's not very sexy, but that's the whole point isn't it? We've been bouncing around from one trend to another for the past half decade. Just knock off the nonsense and hire a proven coach who believes in defense and discipline and teamwork right down to the fiber of their being. Get a coach with playoff success on their resume. Get a coach who's been recruited to work for Team USA. Get a coach who players already know and respect. I don't think you need gimmicks to win basketball games, you need to outwork the other team. We have players who seem willing to work and seem frustrated by all the losing. Get somebody who's going to push them harder.
I'm not sure what you mean by "dominated". Steve Kerr has been a head coach for only two years (more like one and a half if you want to get technical). Budenholzer, Joerger, and Stevens have only been coaching for three years. One of them has already seen their team get swept in the first round and another one will be going home soon too. What about Doc Rivers? What about Tom Thibodeau? What about Sam Mitchell, Byron Scott, and Mike Brown who've all won Coach of the Year awards in the last 10 years and are all looking for jobs right now? I don't know why you picked those 5 coaches as the cream of the crop right now. I just asked a question to see if you could qualify it more. I know you wrote "feels like" but you also casually dismissed a 5 page article detailing Mike Woodson's coaching style with a meaningless one-liner with no basis in anything at all but your own apparent bias. Excuse me for attempting to impart something of substance into the discussion. In point of fact, I was not intending to pick on you at all. It was an open question directed at the entire coaching discussion which seems bizarrely focused (both here and on Sactownroyalty) with mocking successful NBA coaches and sprinkling magic pixie dust on unproven coaches who, what exactly, "feel like" they might be something special? And why? Because they superficially resemble a few buzzworthy coaches? Because they might be the next Brad Stevens or might be the next Mike Budenholzer?
I'm tired of mediocre coaches too but not as much as I'm tired of gimmick offenses and gimmick defenses. I want a basketball coach not a used car salesman. Not an innovative young entrepreneur with their finger on the pulse of whatever the hippest new trend is. Maybe that's not very sexy, but that's the whole point isn't it? We've been bouncing around from one trend to another for the past half decade. Just knock off the nonsense and hire a proven coach who believes in defense and discipline and teamwork right down to the fiber of their being. Get a coach with playoff success on their resume. Get a coach who's been recruited to work for Team USA. Get a coach who players already know and respect. I don't think you need gimmicks to win basketball games, you need to outwork the other team. We have players who seem willing to work and seem frustrated by all the losing. Get somebody who's going to push them harder.
You know, you're right. It may be as simple as this. One thing that connects all of them is that they're all new to the job. We'll see how their reputation changes over time as they inevitably have to deal with players getting injured, traded, retiring, or simply tuning them out or front offices unintentionally (or in some cases intentionally) sabotaging their own teams.
Well it might have something to do with the fact that both Woodson's HC jobs thus far ended up with Atlanta letting him go and the Knicks firing him after missing the playoffs (which was is last HC job and the last thing on our mind in regards to him)...
He never made it out of the 2nd round, and got swept twice in the 2nd round with Atlanta at it's peak.
At the end of the day Woodson, a lot like VDN, is just not an exciting name, it's a meh signing (which isn't necessarily bad), you can take the discussion to race if you want but it's more likely imo that he's just been around and there was never anything that exciting or impressive about him- Ime Udoka and Kevin Ollie are exciting names that get a lot of buzz, Alvin Gentry was probably the biggest head-coaching free agent last year and Doc Rivers is one of the most respected coaches out there (terrible GM though).
He never made it out of the 2nd round, and got swept twice in the 2nd round with Atlanta at it's peak.
At the end of the day Woodson, a lot like VDN, is just not an exciting name, it's a meh signing (which isn't necessarily bad), you can take the discussion to race if you want but it's more likely imo that he's just been around and there was never anything that exciting or impressive about him- Ime Udoka and Kevin Ollie are exciting names that get a lot of buzz, Alvin Gentry was probably the biggest head-coaching free agent last year and Doc Rivers is one of the most respected coaches out there (terrible GM though).
Yeah, we would go from being one of the fastest in pace in the league to one of the slowest. He is and has always been a grind it out type of coach that likes to use the entire shot clock. If Rondo were to return I doubt it would take long for the police to arrive and take one of them away on a murder charge.
Actually, I think Stevens comes close to being a genius. IT stated that he thought that Stevens will eventually go down as one of the all time great NBA coaches. He loves playing for him. Stevens consistently took a Butler team made up of players that no one heard of, and got them into the tourney, and several times into the final four. He is a coach that pays attention to the smallest details. If the other team has a weakness, he'll find it, and exploit it. I suspect that if he were to take over the Warriors, they wouldn't miss a beat. But who knows, you might be able to say the same thing about Woodson.
What posturing? I don't really hear McHale's name in connection with any other openings.
And I can GUARANTEE you that he isn't going to be hired by the Lakers.
So, if he interviewed for the Kings job, he is definitely interested.
And I can GUARANTEE you that he isn't going to be hired by the Lakers.
So, if he interviewed for the Kings job, he is definitely interested.
He is my #1 choice but if he is not all in, then there is no point in hiring him.