Fire Paul Westphal

Last year Kings won 25 games and lineup was juggled almost as much but I don't remember griping by so many about it. Remember Westphal's starting center for first few games of last season- Scott May!! Hawes was then put back in but later dumped when he got into a ***** session with coach, then back in again. I really think overkill of hundreds of "Fire Westphal" posts just reflect disappointment with the poor play this season by the Kings, which I think is MUCH more about the players than the head coach.
 
I have heard Westphal praised as a coach by the following people in my memory: Coach Calipari, Dalembert, DMC, and Charles Barkley. The only instances that I can think of when a player was anything approaching upset with the coaches were with Kevin Martin and Spencer Hawes.

As much as I've been baffled by why Donte was not in the first game against Memphis to guard Rudy Gay for example, it must have been for good reason. I'm tempted to trust the sources of praise more than the sources of ridicule in this instance.
I think I've heard about enough of "he's the coach he must know what he's doing." Not playing Donte is just plain dumb. There are times when Omri isn't on, Francisco's in foul trouble and we badly need a defensive 3. Donte still doesn't get minutes. This is inexcusable.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
Come on, there isn’t anything more objective about your opinion that he’s doing a poor job than there is an opinion that he’s doing a decent or good job given what he has to work with. Both opinions (as opinions are by nature) are wholly subjective.



That something is widely practiced or widely believed to be true does not make it correct. To suggest or imply it does is a form of argumentum ad populum.

Furthermore, the entire team isn’t failing. They’ve been playing better and even in their losses there’s always a few guys who had really good games. They’re a work in progress, and lately, they’ve been showing progress. To expect more than that from them at this point is unreasonable my opinion.



That sounds an awfully lot like an “I’m an expert so I’m right and you’re wrong" type of argument. The problem with those type of arguments is that there’s always an equal or greater expert that will have the opposite view. Grant Napear and Charles Barkley surely have as much, if not more knowledge about basketball as you do, yet neither one of them thinks Westphlal is the problem.

So when players suck, it’s Westphal’s fault but when they improve, it’s in spite of him? That seems incredibly biased and unfair to me.



The problem with those types of observations, is that they only look bad if they lose the game. It’s very easy to say, oh, they lost because the coach played this guy and not that guy. All fan bases do this and all fans bases have a sizable subsection that think it’s the coach’s fault when their team doesn’t do well. Just recently, I’ve seen it on the Phoenix and Memphis forums when those teams lost to the Kings. Many fans of both those teams blamed the losses on the coaches and had ideas about how they would have won had the coach just done this or that. Coaches make very convenient scapegoats. That’s why they’re so often fired from bad teams.



Players have to earn a coach’s trust to become solidified starters. There isn’t 5 Kings players who’ve done that with any type of consistency yet. Part of that is due to young players who are wildly inconsistent and part of it is due to the team simply lacking starting caliber players. Westphal was basically given a team with 3 starting caliber players (2 of who play he same position) and about 9 or 10 bench caliber players, and people expect him to come up with a concrete starting 5 out of that. It’s not the coaches fault that he wasn’t given sufficient tools to work with. He’s given a roster that comprises the lowest payroll in the league, lacks veteran leadership, and that’s most consistent player is Bedo Udrih, and he’s expected to work miracles.

I have a question for you, and anyone else who think Westphal’s lineups are the main problem with this team.

If Westphal had started the season with one lineup and consistent rotation, and at this point, the record was the same as it is now, would you be saying why doesn’t he try a different lineup, why does he keep playing the same lineup when they don’t win?
As my grandmother used to say, "If is for children". And yes, I do know a lot about basketball, and I'm going to make my decisions on how a player or a coach is preforming based on that knowledge. If that offends you, then too freaking bad. I would love to be wrong about Westphal, and hope to god that I'am. I don't have an agenda. But when I see stupid decisions made during the game, I'm sorry, I'm going to point them out. You have yet to explain to me why Casspi was playing PF while three of our bigs were sitting on the bench. Please do!!!!! Oh Im sorry, he must have had a good reason, because he's a good coach. I'm sure Custer had good reasons for heading into the Little Big Horn as well. After all, he was a good general. You offer no reasons at all as to why Westphal is a good coach other than Landry has found his game.

Lets assume that he's finally figured out his rotations and starting lineup. You and I agreed some time ago on who we would have started from the get go. But it took Westphal 25 games to come to the same conclusion we came to on day one. Please explain how both you and I and probably many others on this fourm happen to be smarter than Westphal. The man can't help himself. He can't resist tinkering with lineups. He did it in Phoenix and he did it in Seattle, and he did it in college. This isn't anything new. At the beginning of the season around game three, he put Jackson into the lineup over Thompsom, who had been a starter at both Center and PF for two years. So he went from starter, to playing behind Jackson, a player that was a throw in for a looksee.

You say players have to first earn the coaches trust. If you believe that then you liviing in La La land. Its a two way street, and the players know it. All they have to do is quit on the coach and he's history. Respect has to be equally given, and should be given from the get go. Its there not to be earned, but to be lost. I respect every person I meet until he or she does something to lose my respect. I certainly don't start off a relationship by saying a person has to earn my respect or trust. Thats for kids in gradeschool.

And by the way, yes, my opinion is subjective. But, it is my opinion, and you don't have to pay any attention to it if your don't agree. Also, I don't claim to be the only knowledgeable person on this fourm, but I'm not going to plead stupid, and pretend I don't know what the hell I'm taking about. As I said, I hope to hell I'm wrong about Westphal, but my gut tells me that I'm not.
 
Last year Kings won 25 games and lineup was juggled almost as much but I don't remember griping by so many about it. Remember Westphal's starting center for first few games of last season- Scott May!! Hawes was then put back in but later dumped when he got into a ***** session with coach, then back in again. I really think overkill of hundreds of "Fire Westphal" posts just reflect disappointment with the poor play this season by the Kings, which I think is MUCH more about the players than the head coach.
I think that, right there, emphasizes your point :D.
 
As my grandmother used to say, "If is for children". And yes, I do know a lot about basketball, and I'm going to make my decisions on how a player or a coach is preforming based on that knowledge. If that offends you, then too freaking bad. I would love to be wrong about Westphal, and hope to god that I'am. I don't have an agenda. But when I see stupid decisions made during the game, I'm sorry, I'm going to point them out. You have yet to explain to me why Casspi was playing PF while three of our bigs were sitting on the bench. Please do!!!!! Oh Im sorry, he must have had a good reason, because he's a good coach. I'm sure Custer had good reasons for heading into the Little Big Horn as well. After all, he was a good general. You offer no reasons at all as to why Westphal is a good coach other than Landry has found his game.

Lets assume that he's finally figured out his rotations and starting lineup. You and I agreed some time ago on who we would have started from the get go. But it took Westphal 25 games to come to the same conclusion we came to on day one. Please explain how both you and I and probably many others on this fourm happen to be smarter than Westphal. The man can't help himself. He can't resist tinkering with lineups. He did it in Phoenix and he did it in Seattle, and he did it in college. This isn't anything new. At the beginning of the season around game three, he put Jackson into the lineup over Thompsom, who had been a starter at both Center and PF for two years. So he went from starter, to playing behind Jackson, a player that was a throw in for a looksee.

You say players have to first earn the coaches trust. If you believe that then you liviing in La La land. Its a two way street, and the players know it. All they have to do is quit on the coach and he's history. Respect has to be equally given, and should be given from the get go. Its there not to be earned, but to be lost. I respect every person I meet until he or she does something to lose my respect. I certainly don't start off a relationship by saying a person has to earn my respect or trust. Thats for kids in gradeschool.

And by the way, yes, my opinion is subjective. But, it is my opinion, and you don't have to pay any attention to it if your don't agree. Also, I don't claim to be the only knowledgeable person on this fourm, but I'm not going to plead stupid, and pretend I don't know what the hell I'm taking about. As I said, I hope to hell I'm wrong about Westphal, but my gut tells me that I'm not.
It takes a lot more than someone playing the expert to offend me. As for what he's done to improve the team, I pointed to their much better play as of late but you don't want to give him credit for that, either. There's not much I can do if you're just going to claim that any positive is in spite of rather than because of him. We did agree on a lineup but many other folks had different ideas about what lineups they'd use. And respect is your word, I never said anything about respect. I said trust. Trust and respect are two different things. As for his lineups in Phoenix, did he juggle them to the extent he has in Sac? Or was it more of a Bynum/Artest/Odom type of thing where they're not always starters but always get good minutes?
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
It takes a lot more than someone playing the expert to offend me. As for what he's done to improve the team, I pointed to their much better play as of late but you don't want to give him credit for that, either. There's not much I can do if you're just going to claim that any positive is in spite of rather than because of him. We did agree on a lineup but many other folks had different ideas about what lineups they'd use. And respect is your word, I never said anything about respect. I said trust. Trust and respect are two different things. As for his lineups in Phoenix, did he juggle them to the extent he has in Sac? Or was it more of a Bynum/Artest/Odom type of thing where they're not always starters but always get good minutes?
I did mention trust as well, but I don't want to belabor the point. As for credit. If you want me to give him credit for the better play, I'm willing to do that. Most of my bitching at the moment are about the little things I mentioned, like having Casspi guard a PF and get killed when we had three bigs sitting on the bench. Its not having a timeout left at the end of a game. Although I'll concede that most of the time he's OK in that dept. There may be a method to his maddness thats eluding me. So even if I concede that perhaps he knows what he's doing in developing the team, which I don't, but if I did, then I would still think he's not a very good game coach. Its just the little things. For instance, were getting killed by Paul Pierce and Donte sits on the bench. From all appearances, it looks like Donte will be no more than an afterthought for the rest of the season, or perhaps he'll be traded.

Then today, Cisco can't go because of an injury. Logic would tell you that Casspi would become the starter since he's the first player off the bench behind Cisco at the SF position. But alas no! Donte goes once again from DNP or very few minutes, to wa la, the starter again. Now I'm not complaining about Donte starting. I simply don't understand how Westphal's mind works. Too many of his moves don't make any sense. Now I suspose that some of you can ignore these things. I can't! Call me a traditionalist, or perhaps an old fuddy duddy. But I'm used to things being done is a tradition fashion. In other words, proven methods. So perhaps your right. Perhaps Westphal is one of the most innovative coaches of all time. And perhaps I'm right. I guess we'll see. But I'll say it again. I hope I'm wrong.

By the way. I don't think bringing your personal experience into a conversation means your trying to paint yourself as an expert. It just means that you do have some knowledge of what you speak. Its not meant to be intimidating to anyone. But it does mean don't try and blow smoke up you know where. And I'm not referring to you. There are many very knowledgeable posters on this fourm and I have the greatest respect for their knowledge. Doesn't mean I agree with them all the time. And if we all did agree, it wouldn't be very interesting..
 
Then today, Cisco can't go because of an injury. Logic would tell you that Casspi would become the starter since he's the first player off the bench behind Cisco at the SF position. But alas no! Donte goes once again from DNP or very few minutes, to wa la, the starter again. Now I'm not complaining about Donte starting. I simply don't understand how Westphal's mind works. Too many of his moves don't make any sense.
I don't mind this and it's something that Adleman did too. Your basically keeping people in their roles, ie players off the bench. It's how Wallace got a few starts when the starter went out.
 
How is keeping people in their roles related to Westphal?...
Tyreke - obvious role
Cousins - obvious role
Dalembert - obvious role
Casspi - settled into 6th manish role
Thompson - settled into marginal starter role
Landry - settled into 6th manish role
Udrih - obvious role
Donte - WTF
Garcia - not sure

Really, outside Donte; the roles have been reasonably static. This team's talent is to broad. I'd rather have 4 good players over 8 OK players. I'm not sure another coach makes this bunch look brilliant. I'm happy with the way they've been playing lately.
 
Tyreke - obvious role
Cousins - obvious role
Dalembert - obvious role
Casspi - settled into 6th manish role
Thompson - settled into marginal starter role
Landry - settled into 6th manish role
Udrih - obvious role
Donte - WTF
Garcia - not sure

Really, outside Donte; the roles have been reasonably static. This team's talent is to broad. I'd rather have 4 good players over 8 OK players. I'm not sure another coach makes this bunch look brilliant. I'm happy with the way they've been playing lately.
Oh rearry?

In ~40 games

Donte -Starter-Doghouse-Starter-DNP-Starter-Doghouse-Starter
Omri - 6th man-Starter-Doghouse-Bench w/<10min-Bench w/30+min - Bench w/<10min - SF-SG-PF(wtf?)
JT - C-PF-SF(wtf?)-PF-Bench-DNP-Starter
Landry-Starter-6th man-Starter - PF- SF-PF
Jackson-Pooh-Head-Taylor

And you're telling me that PW is actually concerned with helping players settle into their role?
 
I did mention trust as well, but I don't want to belabor the point. As for credit. If you want me to give him credit for the better play, I'm willing to do that. Most of my bitching at the moment are about the little things I mentioned, like having Casspi guard a PF and get killed when we had three bigs sitting on the bench. Its not having a timeout left at the end of a game. Although I'll concede that most of the time he's OK in that dept. There may be a method to his maddness thats eluding me. So even if I concede that perhaps he knows what he's doing in developing the team, which I don't, but if I did, then I would still think he's not a very good game coach. Its just the little things. For instance, were getting killed by Paul Pierce and Donte sits on the bench. From all appearances, it looks like Donte will be no more than an afterthought for the rest of the season, or perhaps he'll be traded.

Then today, Cisco can't go because of an injury. Logic would tell you that Casspi would become the starter since he's the first player off the bench behind Cisco at the SF position. But alas no! Donte goes once again from DNP or very few minutes, to wa la, the starter again. Now I'm not complaining about Donte starting. I simply don't understand how Westphal's mind works. Too many of his moves don't make any sense. Now I suspose that some of you can ignore these things. I can't! Call me a traditionalist, or perhaps an old fuddy duddy. But I'm used to things being done is a tradition fashion. In other words, proven methods. So perhaps your right. Perhaps Westphal is one of the most innovative coaches of all time. And perhaps I'm right. I guess we'll see. But I'll say it again. I hope I'm wrong.

By the way. I don't think bringing your personal experience into a conversation means your trying to paint yourself as an expert. It just means that you do have some knowledge of what you speak. Its not meant to be intimidating to anyone. But it does mean don't try and blow smoke up you know where. And I'm not referring to you. There are many very knowledgeable posters on this fourm and I have the greatest respect for their knowledge. Doesn't mean I agree with them all the time. And if we all did agree, it wouldn't be very interesting..
I didn't find it intimidating. I'd readily admit that a lot of you here have more extensive knowledge of the game than I do. I'm just a somewhat knowledge/observant fan. I've never studied the game, coached the game, played the game on a serious level, etc. like some of you have. What I was referring to is that often folks will defer to their experience or knowledge in a manner that suggests they may think they're right about something that's a matter of opinion just because they believe they have more experience than someone else. It's just more interesting from a conversational standpoint (I think) if people explain why they think what they think in detail rather than deferring to their expertise about something. No big deal either, though. Just my two cents.
 
Do any of you guys remember how bad the Adelman coached Warrior teams looked? I remember people saying Adelman was done after the Warriors gig was over. But Petrie hired him and it turned out Adelman was a good coach when given good players to work with.

How does this relate to Westphal? Well the first thing is the Kings are rebuilding. The second is they are rebuilding with rookies up to this point. In the NBA rookies make rookie mistakes which cause you to lose most nights. I don't think Red Auerbach could have squeezed any more wins out of this KIngs squad than Westphal has.

As for Greene, he is an OK defensive player who shoots for a low percentage. If he really works hard he might improve enough to be a full time rotation player. I just think Westphal and his staff decided they needed to shorten the rotation and not play so many guys who are still learning the NBA. Greene was the casulty.

Westphal subscribes to the NBA philosphy of bumping the bench guy to starter so the rotation coming off the bench remains the same. He is not unique in that. Some nights it works and some nights it don't.

Sure all us Kings fans are unhappy with the losing. I for one am willing to give Westphal and his staff the rest of this season and next season to develop this team. I'm tired of the coaching changes because I think its counter productive.

Petrie should be able to pick up a solid rotation player in the draft. The Maloofs will hire some veteran talent this off season. There may even be a trade before the dead line this season.

Bottom line is I think given the players Westphal can win in the NBA.

KB
 
Do any of you guys remember how bad the Adelman coached Warrior teams looked? I remember people saying Adelman was done after the Warriors gig was over. But Petrie hired him and it turned out Adelman was a good coach when given good players to work with.
Adelman has been in the finals twice before us and the warriors gig. So yea overall he was already considered to be "pretty" good I guess lorf
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
I don't mind this and it's something that Adleman did too. Your basically keeping people in their roles, ie players off the bench. It's how Wallace got a few starts when the starter went out.
To be honest, I didn't mind him starting either. The part I can't understand is how a player isn't good enough to even get in the game, or if he does get in, he only plays for 5 minutes or less, but he's suddenly good enough to start in place of an injuried player. It appears to me that if he's good enough to start and play 30 some odd minutes, then he must be good enough to be a part of the rotation. I wonder how much more progress Donte might have made if he had remained the starter from day one when he was the starter. All subjective, I know. But one does have to wonder just what Westphal's motivations are.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
I didn't find it intimidating. I'd readily admit that a lot of you here have more extensive knowledge of the game than I do. I'm just a somewhat knowledge/observant fan. I've never studied the game, coached the game, played the game on a serious level, etc. like some of you have. What I was referring to is that often folks will defer to their experience or knowledge in a manner that suggests they may think they're right about something that's a matter of opinion just because they believe they have more experience than someone else. It's just more interesting from a conversational standpoint (I think) if people explain why they think what they think in detail rather than deferring to their expertise about something. No big deal either, though. Just my two cents.
I understand where your coming from. I do tend to put more value on the remarks of the more experienced posters, and perhaps I'm wrong in doing that, since I don't really know how much experience a new poster might have. Just because he's new here, doesn't mean he doesn't know basketball. However, for example, I'm going to give more weight to remarks by Coachie, than I'am Grant Napier. While Napier is obviously knowledgeable, I think we can all agree that Coachie might know a little bit more about basketball. So I don't necessarily think that because you have a lot of knowledge about any given sport, that it makes you right in your assessments, the chances of your being right are better than someone with little or no knowledge.

Having said all that. Making a judgement on how a coach is performing is purely subjective in every way except results. Its hare to argue with the win/loss record. But even that can become subjective from person to person, depending on each individuals assessment of the talent on the team. Which is where you and I probably bump heads from time to time. I happen to think there's talent on the team. Perhaps not enough to make the playoffs, but good enough to have a better win/loss record than the team currently has. I think some of the losses are due to youthfull inexperience, and some are due to mistakes made by the coach. I expected the youthful inexperienced mistakes. I didn't expect the coaching mistakes. When the two are combined, you get what we have now.

So while I agree that the team is finally starting to make progress, I think that progress could have been accelerated with better choices earlier. Just my opinion... I do enjoy discussing it with you by the way..
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
Do any of you guys remember how bad the Adelman coached Warrior teams looked? I remember people saying Adelman was done after the Warriors gig was over. But Petrie hired him and it turned out Adelman was a good coach when given good players to work with.
At the time Adelman took a lot of flack, but when you put things in prespective, it doesn't seem quite as bad. First off, Petrie and Adelman had worked together in Portland, so Petrie knew what he was getting in Adelman. Petrie even took a bullet for Adelman in Portland, quiting his position rather than fire Adelman.

That aside, the team Adelman took over had gone 26 and 56 the year before under Don Nelson and an assistant coach whose name eludes me at the moment. Adelman took that team and guided them to a 36 and 46 record. A ten game improvement. The following year, with a couple of roster changes he went 30 and 52, and was fired at seasons end. He was replaced by P.J. Carlesimo who then took the same team and went 19 and 63. Of course he ended up being fired as well. Probably to save his life from being strangled to death by Sprewell.

So while it was a bad team, I think we can safely say that Adelman got more out of that team than the coaches that preceded him and followed him. So maybe he was just a little better than people thought. I don't think the argument here is whether a coach, any coach could come in and suddenly transform this team into some sort of competitive and contending team. The question is whether the current coach is doing as well as he should, and would a different coach, one thought of as a better coach, make a significant difference in the growth, and the speed of that growth?
 
And you're telling me that PW is actually concerned with helping players settle into their role?
Yes, that has been our whole point of searching for some consistent performers amongst our fine crew of players. What the heck did you think Petrie, Westphal and a whole array of talented coaches have been doing out there all year? And I'm not sure they're done yet. After all they have only won nine.

Does the coach have to give you some guarantee that a certain player or players must play thus and so. Give me a break, Westphal isn't near the biggest problem this team has.
 
Yes, that has been our whole point of searching for some consistent performers amongst our fine crew of players. What the heck did you think Petrie, Westphal and a whole array of talented coaches have been doing out there all year? And I'm not sure they're done yet. After all they have only won nine.

Does the coach have to give you some guarantee that a certain player or players must play thus and so. Give me a break, Westphal isn't near the biggest problem this team has.
How can you search for consistent performers when you don't give the a chance to perform consistently?
 
How can you search for consistent performers when you don't give the a chance to perform consistently?
I think the rotation lately has been pretty consistent. Early on it was preposterously inconsistent. I doubt we'd be having this discussion if Casspi or Donte was able to step their game up from last year. Neither of them really has. They're both young and we're asking a lot out of them.

Thompson at SF
Greene/Casspi Starter to DNP to Starter when injuries aren't at play

Those are the issues that bugged the hell out of me. They're been playing well lately and losing close games. I'd prefer more W's, but they're playing better than their record. I can't ask for much beyond that.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
Yes, that has been our whole point of searching for some consistent performers amongst our fine crew of players. What the heck did you think Petrie, Westphal and a whole array of talented coaches have been doing out there all year? And I'm not sure they're done yet. After all they have only won nine.

Does the coach have to give you some guarantee that a certain player or players must play thus and so. Give me a break, Westphal isn't near the biggest problem this team has.
This will probably be the last thing I have to say on this subject. I think we've beat it to death, and our opinion isn't going to change anything anyway. As you probably know, I watch tons of college basketball. And my major rule is not to judge any player on just one game. Or two games. I prefer to have seen a player play at a minimun of 6 or 7 games, and in most instances, like Cousins and Wall last year, I've see all the top prospects over 20 times, and in the case of someone like Blake Griffin who played more than one year of college basketball, over 40 times.

The reason for that is there is no way to tell how good a player really is, or how consistent he is by just watching a few games. You might get lucky and happen to see his best games, or the opposite is possible. The only way to tell how consistent a player is, is to put him in a role. Whether its coming off the bench or starting, and leave him there. Let him play long enough in that position to make an honest judgement on that players abilities. When the same group of players play together for a long enough period of time, they stop thinking and just react to whatever the situation is, and they trust their teammates to have their backs.

Most of the bickering you see between the players on defense comes from one player rotating to help, and the player that was suspossed to rotate to pick up his man, not rotating, therefore making the first player look like the culprit. Its happens all the time to the Kings, and its to be expected, because you never have the same guys out there together for any period of time. Its one thing to change your mind on how you want to use a player. But you can't do it game by game and expect consistency. The reason there's been an improvement of late is because Westphal finally settled on a starting five and barring injuries, stuck with them.

Now I suspose you could say that it took him that long to figure it out. But I'm not buying that, because thats the starting five I would have had from day one, with the only flexable position being SF. I still would have had Greene there from day one, and see how he could grow into the role. Greene absolutely stinks on offense, but when he's on the floor with Beno, Tryeke, Cousins, and Thompson, there's enough offense to be gotten from the other positions. The only players he should have had questions about were Greene, and Cousins. Cousins because he was still an unknown factor at the point, and Greene because he's been one of the most inconsistent players on the team on the offensive side of the ball, and sometimes he has defensive letdowns. But Thompson, Beno, and Tyreke were known commodities. All three were starters the year before. All three were familiar with each others games. But instead Thompson went from starter to the bench to DNP, to back to the bench to back to starter to injuried to the bench to another DNP to back to starter. Add in that he has to play two positions on a regular basis. I'll ask again, since no one has answered it. How do you leave Thompson who had already scored 22 pt's and grabbed 8 boards and only had one foul, sit on the bench with Cousins with 4 fouls, and Dalembert with 5 fouls, while the other teams PF is having his way with Casspi, whose playing out of position at PF?

Did he forget that he had those three bigs just sitting there, or did he think that Casspi would just become superman and and stop a guy that out weighted him by about 40 or 50 pounds. It was hard to watch Villanueva out there laughing as he scored at will.

Now if all of you that support Westphal think this is just the normal way of things with a young rebuilding team, then enjoy. But I'd advise you to go back and see what happened when the Thunder suddenly turned the corner and took off. I'll give you a clue. New coach came in and created a set starting lineup and at the same time put players in their proper positions where they would have the best chance to succeed. Prior to that, they had been jerked around and too many times they were playing out of position. He knew that Durant wasn't a shooting guard and he moved him to SF and left him there. And once he established that starting lineup, barring injuries, he didn't change it. He let them grow together.
 
Having said all that. Making a judgement on how a coach is performing is purely subjective in every way except results. Its hare to argue with the win/loss record. But even that can become subjective from person to person, depending on each individuals assessment of the talent on the team. Which is where you and I probably bump heads from time to time. I happen to think there's talent on the team. Perhaps not enough to make the playoffs, but good enough to have a better win/loss record than the team currently has. I think some of the losses are due to youthfull inexperience, and some are due to mistakes made by the coach. I expected the youthful inexperienced mistakes. I didn't expect the coaching mistakes. When the two are combined, you get what we have now.
I see a coach as similar in some regards to a mayor, only on an obviously much smaller scale. As mayor, you can hand out assignments, implement plans, come up with solutions to problems, etc. but you can't accomplish them on your own. You're ultimately relying on the people working under you to carry out your plans in a competent manner. If they do that and the desired results are achieved, you look like a good mayor and everyone sings your praises. If the people under you bumble your plans though, you look like a bad mayor and folks are calling for you to be tarred and feathered.

In the Atlanta game, in the 3rd or 4th quarter (I don't recall which) Westphal was screaming at the team because they weren’t running the play he wanted them to run. Normally we can’t hear the coach that clearly (that’s one advantage of a crowd that’s as quiet as The Hawks’ crowd is) but I suspect Westphal is having to do that on a regular basis.

A lot of what I've seen player's on The Kings do this season would fall under the category of bumbling (or ignoring) the gameplan and making the mayor look bad. Were they carrying out their assignments consistently and effectively, they may have about 10 more wins right now and no one would be wanting the mayor tarred and feathered.

That brings us to the point where some would say that if they’re not carrying out their assignments consistently and effectively, that it’s Westphal’s fault. That’s where I disagree. There’s only so much a coach can do. Players have to be willing and able to do what he wants them to do, or it isn’t much use.

You could say that if they aren’t doing what he wants, that it’s because they’ve “tuned him out” but I don’t see that being the case here.
 
Oh rearry?

In ~40 games

Donte -Starter-Doghouse-Starter-DNP-Starter-Doghouse-Starter
Omri - 6th man-Starter-Doghouse-Bench w/<10min-Bench w/30+min - Bench w/<10min - SF-SG-PF(wtf?)
JT - C-PF-SF(wtf?)-PF-Bench-DNP-Starter
Landry-Starter-6th man-Starter - PF- SF-PF
Jackson-Pooh-Head-Taylor

And you're telling me that PW is actually concerned with helping players settle into their role?
Yes he is. Most of the tinkering happened in the first months of the season. Since then only Cisco and Rekes injuries have resulted in any changes. The roles are defined now and were playing with a steady rotation
 
I guess my biggest problem with WP is that it took him 30+ games to finally put together the lineup we were expecting the day after the draft. We talked about it we speculated about cousins ability to start this year from the start or after the trade deadline. I don't think we were expecting him to act like he had never seen any of the players before. he coached most of these guys for a full year he knew what he had he knew most of what they could do solo he needed to start molding it into a team and instead he spent 1/2 the season trying to figure out what we all saw we had last summer.

Its like in the pre-season starting M. Landry and then cutting him 2 or 3 days later. He wanted a look at him to see what he had but he didn't play casspi or greene and when the season started is when he started looking at them to see what he had..... For a long while he had his players scared of screwing up. They knew that they would register dnp cd if they messed up at all and it affected their play. He broke sammys streak for no reason did he not think that streak of played games was important to Dally 30 sec 1 min couldn't be spared, put in on a foul shot for the def rebound? His decisions affected the growth of the individuals, the growth of the multi year players together, and the morale of the team and none of it was really needed, cause he found out exactly what he did in the scouting report and from coaching the kids last year.
 
I see a coach as similar in some regards to a mayor, only on an obviously much smaller scale. As mayor, you can hand out assignments, implement plans, come up with solutions to problems, etc. but you can't accomplish them on your own. You're ultimately relying on the people working under you to carry out your plans in a competent manner. If they do that and the desired results are achieved, you look like a good mayor and everyone sings your praises. If the people under you bumble your plans though, you look like a bad mayor and folks are calling for you to be tarred and feathered.

In the Atlanta game, in the 3rd or 4th quarter (I don't recall which) Westphal was screaming at the team because they weren’t running the play he wanted them to run. Normally we can’t hear the coach that clearly (that’s one advantage of a crowd that’s as quiet as The Hawks’ crowd is) but I suspect Westphal is having to do that on a regular basis.

A lot of what I've seen player's on The Kings do this season would fall under the category of bumbling (or ignoring) the gameplan and making the mayor look bad. Were they carrying out their assignments consistently and effectively, they may have about 10 more wins right now and no one would be wanting the mayor tarred and feathered.

That brings us to the point where some would say that if they’re not carrying out their assignments consistently and effectively, that it’s Westphal’s fault. That’s where I disagree. There’s only so much a coach can do. Players have to be willing and able to do what he wants them to do, or it isn’t much use.

You could say that if they aren’t doing what he wants, that it’s because they’ve “tuned him out” but I don’t see that being the case here.
Here's a question from David Thorpe's chat last week that explains why a good coach is important.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/36491/nba-insider-david-thorpe

Sunny (Queens, NY)




Can you give us some insight into Tom thibs defense because from the outside I can't believe how he has improved defenses so much? Secondary question: Are thibs teams better because of the actual theory or simply preaching defense first?
David Thorpe (12:57 PM)





Strategy is great, practice sessions are great, game adjustments are great. Yep, that'll do it. Remember how I always says it's a coaches league? Now you see why.
Westfail Strategy: Does he have any?
Practice: Who knows?
Game adjustments: Now thats funny a funny one. Only thing he does is go to a zone.
 
K

Kingsguy881

Guest
Here's a question from David Thorpe's chat last week that explains why a good coach is important.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/36491/nba-insider-david-thorpe



Westfail Strategy: Does he have any?
Practice: Who knows?
Game adjustments: Now thats funny a funny one. Only thing he does is go to a zone.
You also have to have a team that either buys in or is veteran enough to execute. I don't think the entire team has bought in and the only veteran I have seen trying to execute (outside of rookie Pooh) is Beno.
 
This will probably be the last thing I have to say on this subject. I think we've beat it to death, and our opinion isn't going to change anything anyway. As you probably know, I watch tons of college basketball. And my major rule is not to judge any player on just one game. Or two games. I prefer to have seen a player play at a minimun of 6 or 7 games, and in most instances, like Cousins and Wall last year, I've see all the top prospects over 20 times, and in the case of someone like Blake Griffin who played more than one year of college basketball, over 40 times.

The reason for that is there is no way to tell how good a player really is, or how consistent he is by just watching a few games. You might get lucky and happen to see his best games, or the opposite is possible. The only way to tell how consistent a player is, is to put him in a role. Whether its coming off the bench or starting, and leave him there. Let him play long enough in that position to make an honest judgement on that players abilities. When the same group of players play together for a long enough period of time, they stop thinking and just react to whatever the situation is, and they trust their teammates to have their backs.

Most of the bickering you see between the players on defense comes from one player rotating to help, and the player that was suspossed to rotate to pick up his man, not rotating, therefore making the first player look like the culprit. Its happens all the time to the Kings, and its to be expected, because you never have the same guys out there together for any period of time. Its one thing to change your mind on how you want to use a player. But you can't do it game by game and expect consistency. The reason there's been an improvement of late is because Westphal finally settled on a starting five and barring injuries, stuck with them.

Now I suspose you could say that it took him that long to figure it out. But I'm not buying that, because thats the starting five I would have had from day one, with the only flexable position being SF. I still would have had Greene there from day one, and see how he could grow into the role. Greene absolutely stinks on offense, but when he's on the floor with Beno, Tryeke, Cousins, and Thompson, there's enough offense to be gotten from the other positions. The only players he should have had questions about were Greene, and Cousins. Cousins because he was still an unknown factor at the point, and Greene because he's been one of the most inconsistent players on the team on the offensive side of the ball, and sometimes he has defensive letdowns. But Thompson, Beno, and Tyreke were known commodities. All three were starters the year before. All three were familiar with each others games. But instead Thompson went from starter to the bench to DNP, to back to the bench to back to starter to injuried to the bench to another DNP to back to starter. Add in that he has to play two positions on a regular basis. I'll ask again, since no one has answered it. How do you leave Thompson who had already scored 22 pt's and grabbed 8 boards and only had one foul, sit on the bench with Cousins with 4 fouls, and Dalembert with 5 fouls, while the other teams PF is having his way with Casspi, whose playing out of position at PF?

Did he forget that he had those three bigs just sitting there, or did he think that Casspi would just become superman and and stop a guy that out weighted him by about 40 or 50 pounds. It was hard to watch Villanueva out there laughing as he scored at will.

Now if all of you that support Westphal think this is just the normal way of things with a young rebuilding team, then enjoy. But I'd advise you to go back and see what happened when the Thunder suddenly turned the corner and took off. I'll give you a clue. New coach came in and created a set starting lineup and at the same time put players in their proper positions where they would have the best chance to succeed. Prior to that, they had been jerked around and too many times they were playing out of position. He knew that Durant wasn't a shooting guard and he moved him to SF and left him there. And once he established that starting lineup, barring injuries, he didn't change it. He let them grow together.
I'm just going to copy and paste this, and every time someone new comes on the boards to say that we should keep Westfail, I'll show them this. Much easier that way. :cool:
 
Absolutely true in every sense that post. It does look like we have roles and rotations set now though, yes its taken an age but i think we might be finally there. Onwards and upwards
 
I see a coach as similar in some regards to a mayor, only on an obviously much smaller scale. As mayor, you can hand out assignments, implement plans, come up with solutions to problems, etc. but you can't accomplish them on your own. You're ultimately relying on the people working under you to carry out your plans in a competent manner. If they do that and the desired results are achieved, you look like a good mayor and everyone sings your praises. If the people under you bumble your plans though, you look like a bad mayor and folks are calling for you to be tarred and feathered.

In the Atlanta game, in the 3rd or 4th quarter (I don't recall which) Westphal was screaming at the team because they weren’t running the play he wanted them to run. Normally we can’t hear the coach that clearly (that’s one advantage of a crowd that’s as quiet as The Hawks’ crowd is) but I suspect Westphal is having to do that on a regular basis.

A lot of what I've seen player's on The Kings do this season would fall under the category of bumbling (or ignoring) the gameplan and making the mayor look bad. Were they carrying out their assignments consistently and effectively, they may have about 10 more wins right now and no one would be wanting the mayor tarred and feathered.

That brings us to the point where some would say that if they’re not carrying out their assignments consistently and effectively, that it’s Westphal’s fault. That’s where I disagree. There’s only so much a coach can do. Players have to be willing and able to do what he wants them to do, or it isn’t much use.

You could say that if they aren’t doing what he wants, that it’s because they’ve “tuned him out” but I don’t see that being the case here.
When almost all the people working under the mayor can't execute their assignments, maybe, just maybe that mayor don't know how to assign them correctly? I mean this people have credential to be capable of doing certain things. It's not like you picked them from the street.

All I know is that if a classroom full of students and almost all of them unable to learn what the teacher teaches, then I would point my finger at the teacher.

Also our kids played BB almost all their lives, they don't get to where they are by having low BB IQ (like some suggested).
 

Spike

Subsidiary Intermediary
Staff member
All I know is that if a classroom full of students and almost all of them unable to learn what the teacher teaches, then I would point my finger at the teacher.
Or last year's teacher who didn't give them the fundamentals needed to succeed in next year's class. I agree with your first analogy, though. I feel that one applies more directly to this situation.