Is Dave Joerger a good coach?

How do you rate Dave Joerger?

  • A

  • B

  • C

  • D

  • F

  • Not sure


Results are only viewable after voting.
#31
Kangz is the easy answer. But why did he come here if he refused to work with Cousins. Cousins as a talent deserved a coach that would work with him. Unfortunately the clock ran out for us and Cousins because with no talent surrounding him we just couldn't sign him to his market value. I hated that we had to move him, but it became make or break time and we never came close to moving the needle. It's a shame the organization had to blow 4 straight drafts after his because I think if we had hit in 2 of 4 of those drafts and not played the coaching carousel we'd be in great shape right now.

As for your later point, I think Joerger needs to stick with a system while developing young talent and then adjust to their needs once their limitations and roles are better defined. I just feel like it's too easy to just turn young talent loose and let them learn bad habits and then they fail long term. It's why I think good clubs with systems in place seem to always draft better than their position while some teams (us at the end of the Maloof era and PDA era) can't do jack with their picks.
I'm sure arrogance and $$$ played a factor. He also probably thought that the FO would eventually see the light.

And if that's what he is doing than great, but time will tell if that is the case or not. I seem to recall one of the supposed reasons the Grizz showed Dave the door had to do with his dealings with their young players and how he handled their development and rotation management which isn't too unlike what we've seen with the Kings rotation management this year.
 
#33
I'm sure arrogance and $$$ played a factor. He also probably thought that the FO would eventually see the light.

And if that's what he is doing than great, but time will tell if that is the case or not. I seem to recall one of the supposed reasons the Grizz showed Dave the door had to do with his dealings with their young players and how he handled their development and rotation management which isn't too unlike what we've seen with the Kings rotation management this year.
When you look at Memphis's draft history this decade it is not very impressive. I don't think that's on Joeger. Their highest picks were Xavier Henry at 12 in 2010 and Wade Baldwin at 17 in 2016. I would say he's shown a pretty good ability to work with the kids in Sacramento so far.
 
#35
When you look at Memphis's draft history this decade it is not very impressive. I don't think that's on Joeger. Their highest picks were Xavier Henry at 12 in 2010 and Wade Baldwin at 17 in 2016. I would say he's shown a pretty good ability to work with the kids in Sacramento so far.
How they were utilized is and his ability to work with the kids is up for a debate that circles back around to much of the earlier discussion about system and rotation management.
 
#36
How they were utilized is and his ability to work with the kids is up for a debate that circles back around to much of the earlier discussion about system and rotation management.
They sort of have one of the worst GMs in the league. I love this from the Chris Wallace wiki page:
Some of Chris' more stand out accomplishments are drafting Tony Wroten, trading first round picks for baggage, the blown OJ Mayo trade, Kyle Lowry for Adonal Foyle, Mike Wilks, DeMarre Carroll, cash and finally the decision to retain Tyreke Evans after sitting him out and saying he would be traded.
 
#37
Joerger is not perfect, but he and Malone are the best we've had since RA. And we need stability as much as anything at this point, so Joerger's the guy we win or lose with. Hopefully, some of his outdated characteristics will fade away and he'll improve as the youngsters improve.
We didn't get Karl anywhere near his prime. So there is no comparison. Nuff said. Please don't let this thread become a Karl revisited thread for the three people who think Karl walked on water while in Sacramento.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#38
Joerger is not perfect, but he and Malone are the best we've had since RA. And we need stability as much as anything at this point, so Joerger's the guy we win or lose with. Hopefully, some of his outdated characteristics will fade away and he'll improve as the youngsters improve.
We didn't get Karl anywhere near his prime. So there is no comparison. Nuff said. Please don't let this thread become a Karl revisited thread for the three people who think Karl walked on water while in Sacramento.
tell me, what coach is perfect? How many are out there to be had? This nitpicking is exactly why the Kings were in the coaching carousel circle for a decade trying to find the right fit.
 
#39
I voted "not sure".

Let's look at it from this perspective:

Why did Memphis fire him?

He inherited a veteran (aging) team that became less than the sum of it's parts.

When you have one of the best centers and one of the best point guards, shouldn't you advance in the playoffs?

Especially when you have Zach Randolph and Tony Allen still in their primes (barely).

For a number of years, anyone could see that Memphis was going to need to rebuild.

The first guy they brought in was JaMychal Green.

When I saw him as a rookie, I thought he was really going to be a player.

That has not happened.

But why, with a team that had to be rebuilt, did they decide that Joerger was not the guy to do it?

On the one hand, maybe that is a diseased franchise, since they didn't stick with his successor either.

On the other hand, he was there for a decade, so, who knew him better?"

We don't know how others judge him, because Vlade snapped him up the second he was available.

Would he have gotten another head coaching job? Was he rumored to be considered anywhere else? As I recall, his firing came as a total surprise.

I don't have any real faith in Vlade's judgement. To me, he is a riverboat gambler, always drawing to the inside straight, hoping to hit the long shot (Papa, Skal, Giles - he may have hit one with Bogi but a lot of teams passed on him too).

I'd like to hear what Jerry West or Hubie Brown think of Joerger, although I am not certain that their times in Memphis overlapped.

He was replaced by someone from the Popovich coaching tree (who himself was from the Don Nelson coaching tree, who himself was from the Red Auerbach coaching tree).

Does anyone know if Dave Joerger has that kind of attachment to any coaching tree? (Lionel Hollins really does not count).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, a strategy question:

Why does Bogi foul Rubio here?

http://official.nba.com/last-two-minute-report/?gameNo=0021701043&eventNum=1071

It looks to me like he is looking to the coach for guidance, but maybe he did it on his own.

It just seems like the wrong move. Rubio is shooting 84% this year (83% career) at the line.

And they COULD have played good D and still had time to win or tie (or waited until Gobert touched the ball and fouled).

This just seems like a bad decision that did not HAVE to be made.
 
Last edited:
#41
I do remember that Indiana was looking for a coach and the way I heard it, Larry Bird had not been considering assistant Nate McMillan until the Kings requested permission to interview him - at which point Bird saw his value to others. Obviously a good decision although I think Bird left shortly after.

But I don't know that Indiana requested permission to interview Joerger (you always have to wonder if agents are planting these rumors). So, do we know if any other team actually requested an interview with Joerger? Do we know if any of his assistants has ever interviewed for a head job?

By the way, if judging the Kings rebuild, Indiana is the comparison. Their GM should be executive of the year. Imagine your star telling you he is leaving for LA in a year. You have almost no leverage. Yet you get two solid players for him (Oladipo, Sabonis) and are in contention for the third slot in the east (Vegas over/under odds for total season wins this year were Kings - 28 1/2, Pacers - 31 1/2). Compare that to the Cousins trade (and do we know if Joerger had any input on that, pro or con?). AND the trade works out for OKC too, so, no one should be saying, "I'm not making any trades with THAT guy again" (as at least Cleveland probably feels about Vlade).
 
#42
Yes, an over .500 team that made the playoffs is comparable to the Kings because they had stars leave.

I'm just going to politely disagree. Indiana basically did what we were to chicken to do 10 years prior, which was reboot a playoff team on the slide. Their current state of affairs is nothing like ours.
 
#43
Part of every scouting report on the Kings is going to be to overplay the lob from Bogdanovic to Cauley-Stein. Similarly, it will say to go under screens against Fox, to play Cauley-Stein to spin when coming down the lane, to expect Hield to shoot more off the dribble than off the screen, to not let Randolph square up from the elbow three, to play physical with Skal and push him off his spot, to play Mason to drive all the way to the hoop rather than pull up, to get into Jackson inside the arc because otherwise he'll hit that floater, etc etc. And then obviously adjustments are made during the game at time outs, halftime etc.

Point being, the Kings can be successful with something early in the game and then have that taken away by the opponent shifting on defense. That's not evidence of Joerger being a bad coach, but of the opposing coach making an adjustment. As for Wille launching jumpers, that's more about WCS than coaching IMO. He's been pulled from a number of games this season for deciding to be an offensive hero vs playing to his strengths. I'd go so far as to say that Willie figuring out how to be as effective as possible is going to determine what kind of career he has overall. When he's locked in and engaged on defense and on the glass and focuses on rolling hard to the hoop he makes the team better. When he decides that he's more Porzingis than DeAndre Jordan he often leaves me frustrated.

Is Joerger a good coach? Sure. His sets are solid - lots of high post action, princeton action, triangle concepts etc. He also runs some Horns stuff from time to time and what looks to be modified Flex action. Not a lot of isolation sets (which I like and which the Kings are really set up to use anyway) and a fair amount of pick and rolls. He's definitely not a "pace and space" coach and I can take some issue with the fact that he doesn't seem to be adjusting to the "new" NBA of focusing on threes and layups/dunks while banishing the midrange shot, but that doesn't mean the Kings can't win playing the way they are. Or that Joerger wouldn't adjust if the team DID have more guys capable of shooting from outside beyond their SGs (Hield, Bogie and Temple are the only guys with over 150 attempts on the season).

I also don't always agree with his rotations, but then I doubt many losing teams like their coach's rotations. It's a talent issue more than anything, but also to a degree what the plan is. Are you trying to win games? Or are you trying to develop young players? The Kings have shifted from one to the other during this season and have done reasonably well at it. Joerger is also fantastic at situational coaching as witnessed by his ability to constantly draw up successful out of bounds plays. And while the results are still mixed (to be expected given the combination of very young and raw kids and older, less athletic veterans, Temple being the exception) Joerger gets the team to buy in and play hard on the defensive end.

So while I don't always agree with how he does things, yes, I think Joerger is a good coach. And I'm in favor of giving him more time to establish a culture and a tradition instead of constantly cycling through coaches. A good coach given plenty of time and support is always (to me) going to be a better path than burning through mediocre to good coaches in search of a great coach.
 
#44
I voted C but he really needs more time to be properly graded.

I give him kudos because the players seem to really like him, he says the right things and the players play hard for him up until the final buzzer.

My complaints are his archaic offense, love of ZBo and player utilization.

Whether or not he can change will be a question that will be asked in the future. Like one poster pointed out, they're one of the best 3 point shooting teams in the league, yet rarely take them. Allowing a ton of 3 pointers is something I can be ok with for now with all the young guys on the team but at some point the philosophy of cheating off of deep shooters needs to be tweaked. Also the high post stuff needs to be lessened by a ton. He wasted the first month trying to have WCS be Jokic at the high post and we all knew that would fail since he couldn't even succeed with that in two summer leagues. It's not ran as much as it was earlier in the season but you might as well just run with a 10 second shot clock if you have Koufos out there looking for cutters.

If Joerger doesn't change and the kids do develop, I could see a scenario happening where they get to the 8th seed for a year or two but can't advance. Then Joerger is fired and a coach with a modern offensive philosophy gets hired and all the sudden the Kings are battling for 4th with nearly the same roster. Hopefully Joerger adapts and starts playing with his players strengths and not for the strengths of players he had in the past.
 
#45
He coaches one of the worst teams in the league its as simple as that.

He has put structure around our kids and they seem to be trending in the right direction. The real value and measure will be seen in a few seasons from now if they continue to develop and remain part of a high performing roster.

Could end up like Scott Brooks in OKC or could be here until the end of the next kings dynasty like Rick.

I think he's doing a good solid job thus far. Keeping Malone (and Cousins) would have been preferable.
 
#46
tell me, what coach is perfect? How many are out there to be had? This nitpicking is exactly why the Kings were in the coaching carousel circle for a decade trying to find the right fit.
I was acknowledging for the benefit of those who continue to believe in the perfect coach myth that Joerger isn’t perfect, but he’s really good. Maybe you read what you wanted to read.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#47
As a matter of fact, Joerger was hot after he was released and was rumored to at least two other teams (Orlando, Houston and Indy were all looking for a coach at that time) I can't remember but we actually got him before one or two of those teams had made a hire and it was considered quite a coup.
There were posters on here who felt Frank Vogel was the better candidate over Joerger but I'm not so sure about that, which shouldn't take away from the fact that Vogel is a quality coach.
 
#48
I am going to (as usual) focus on what needs improvement, assuming that what is going well needs no help or advice.

First, something nice:

I recall a recent home game (not crunch time) where Joerger designed a play coming out of a timeout.

The play was as amazing as it was unexpected.

Seriously, if we were sitting around during the timeout asking each other, "what do you think he will design?" NO ONE would have come up with what he came up with.

It was Justin Jackson at the top of the key with the ball lobbing to Garret Temple slashing to the basket for thunderous a slam dunk - simply amazing.

Anyone remember that play (can't remember the game, but it was after the break)?

Now, the game in Utah (unfortunately, I cannot make it copy from 40.4 to 24.6 the way it looks in the 4th quarter as shown here):

http://www.espn.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=400975789

Anyway, as you know, the new rules limit a coach to no more than two times out in the last three minutes (if you are at the game and a team has three or four left with 3:12 to go in the fourth, AMAZE YOUR FRIENDS by telling them to watch as the number is magically reduced to "two" exactly at the three minute mark).

So, a coach SHOULD save them (in the home Miami game, Spoelstra basically gave away the game by calling a T.O. with 1:19 left - big mistake).

Anyway, if you use the link and go to the fourth quarter, 40.1 seconds left, Kings have the ball down two when Joeger takes one of his two remaining times out.

Now, I don't fault him in the least because Bogi got a shot blocked - crap happens.

BUT

During that time out, shouldn't Joerger have also been articulating team strategy if Bogi missed the shot?

It was blocked and Rubio snuck in for the rebound. You can watch that play and what happenbed next here:

http://official.nba.com/last-two-minute-report/?gameNo=0021701043&eventNum=1071

Bogi appears to be looking to the other end towards Joerger as he decides to foul Rubio.

Rubio is an 84% free thrower this year (83% career).

But there are 32 seconds left and the Kings are down just two.

The RIGHT strategy there is to play defense for 24 seconds, hope they don't score and have a chance (and a timeout left) to tie or even win the game.

The secondary strategy is to wait for Gobert to touch the ball, foul him, hope he misses one and use your T.O. to set up a trey to tie.

The WRONG strategy is to foul Rubio.

But Bogi fouls Rubio and he makes 2. Now Joerger uses his last time out to set up a three for Buddy (to bring them within 1).

As seen here:

http://official.nba.com/last-two-minute-report/?gameNo=0021701043&eventNum=1072

Buddy misses. They foul Gobert but it's basically over. Does anyone think that was a well designed play out of a time out?

(Note that on both of those inbound attempts in the frontcourt, the inbounder was Temple - I will discuss that in relation to Joerger when I have more time).

I fault Joeger for not preparing the team in CASE Bogi missed at 32 seconds left.

Maybe it was Bogi's mistake, but the guy has been a pro for 9 years - hard to believe he would foul Rubio on his own in that situation.

That was a winnable game and Joerger did not win it. Elsewhere, I have already described (in what I thought might be "Situational Tanking" how Joerger made the wrong strategic decisions in the home games against OKC and the Lakers to lose games we might well have won.

Does anyone want to describe multiple end-of-game situations where Joerger made brilliant strategic decisions that worked?
 
Last edited:
#49
He coaches one of the worst teams in the league its as simple as that.

He has put structure around our kids and they seem to be trending in the right direction. The real value and measure will be seen in a few seasons from now if they continue to develop and remain part of a high performing roster.

Could end up like Scott Brooks in OKC or could be here until the end of the next kings dynasty like Rick.

I think he's doing a good solid job thus far. Keeping Malone (and Cousins) would have been preferable.
Malone is in the process of losing the Nuggets locker room...not exactly the most volatile roster in the league. I don’t want to re-litigate Malone’s firing, but I’d rather have Joerger. Dave can connect with any player, from ZBo and Tony Allen to Conley and Gasol.
 
#50
I can not forget when Denver came in to Sac and got spanked by something like 124-118. It might have been that first game after "The Trade" last year. Anyway, Denver lost, but in his postgame interview, Malone was bitterly CROWING (remember, they lost), something like, "I wonder how Kings management feels now that they dumped me because they said I couldn't run an uptempo offense and now we are the second highest scoring team in the league."

But Coach, you freakin' LOST. It was a strange time to vent.

Still, parting ways with that kind of rancor (DMC to Killer V's: "You have no courage") are reasons why this team as a franchise has such a bad reputation.

However, regarding your assertion that Joerger can "connect" with any player.

In your opinion, is that through Love, Fear or Respect?

Jerry Reynolds tried to be Mr. Nice guy - Fail

But Frank Layden succeeded with that Love philosophy.

Don Nelson ruled through Fear.

Greg Popovich also uses fear (he is from the Nelson school)

Doc Rivers rolls with "Respect". George Karl did not get that respect in Sacto (Vlade cut his legs out from under after DMC's locker room tirade).

I think there is some Nelson in Joerger.

Point #1: Early in the season and everyone is clamoring for Fox to start (I don't know if Fox was his own advocate, but Joeger was under some pressure to "Play the Kids").

So, instead of picking a soft spot, he sends him out for his first start against JOHN WALL (at home). AND he "rests" BOTH Z-Bo AND Hill (at a time when we had no offense anyway). Fox got his pee pee slapped hard.

Point #2: Kings IN Washington getting blown out by 25. Fans in cheap seats (hundreds of them, probably every Boys and Girls club baller who ever stepped on the court with a young Frank Mason) are chanting, "We Want Frank" so loud that Gary Gerold had to ask someone what was going on and told the audience when he found out. Mason, from D.C suburbs was back for his first (and maybe only - certainly for THIS year) time to show and shine: "I made it, guys - I'm in the NBA" and Joerger NEVER PUTS HIM IN (in an absolute blowout).

Are these coincidences? Or rookies being taught "their place" by a Coach trying to instill some fear (YOUR career depends on ME!)
 
Last edited:
#52
Point #2: Kings IN Washington getting blown out by 25. Fans in cheap seats (hundreds of them, probably every Boys and Girls club baller who ever stepped on the court with a young Frank Mason) are chanting, "We Want Frank" so loud that Gary Gerold had to ask someone what was going on and told the audience when he found out. Mason, from D.C suburbs was back for his first (and maybe only - certainly for THIS year) time to show and shine: "I made it, guys - I'm in the NBA" and Joerger NEVER PUTS HIM IN (in an absolute blowout).
I'm really confused the point of this story. Does the head coach exist to serve the whims of the away fans in the cheap seats? Does a second round rookie deserve this kind of respect? This is pro basketball not pro wrestling.

In answer to your earlier questions, it seems pretty clear that Joerger is not a big softy "player's coach" to the point of being a pushover, he has his rotations and his plan and he sticks to them for better or worse (I think this is for the better given the amount of players in their first and second NBA seasons). Despite being no pushover, the locker room seems to have more harmony than it has had since the Adelman years, and with all due respect to Rick, if there was one thing he could be criticized for it may have been being too player friendly.

It seems like you have quite the bone to pick with the coach, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am really curious who you think would actually come coach here that's better after what had been done to the franchise under the stewardship of the previous front offices?

Vivek and Vlade both had a learning curve but they seem to understand that steadying the ship is the key to moving forward, but that is also the subject of other threads and not our coach.
 
#55
Well, EVERY single successful coach in the NBA had to work hard to get to the point where he was a success. I think Joerger has all the right tools and a good chance at success if the front office can give him the personnel he needs.

I don't doubt it, but it's a scary proposition giving someone the keys to the kingdom if his preferred style of play likely means such a massive shift in personnel in order for it to work. I think it's more plausible for him to adapt a play style to the players he has, or for the team to find the right coach. In the end those are the only logical options. We still don't have a real grasp on what the long term plans are and I think that next year might be graded a bit different than this year.
 
#57
Did anyone notice Joerger had dyed his hair this weird shade of ruby red to cover the grey on his temples? :p

Then he cut his hair short to expose the grey? Something I do NOT like about a man dying his hair! It's feminine and vain. Most coaches are trying to win games. Ours is getting Loreal treatment. Besides when you have a scrub like Willie Cauley Stein running around missing rebounds throwing up weak sh*t and setting phantom picks, no one is going to blame you for having grey hair!

This is my roundabout way of saying he is about as good at coaching as he is at hair-related decisions. :p
 
#58
pdxKingsFan said this:

I'm really confused the point of this story. Does the head coach exist to serve the whims of the away fans in the cheap seats? Does a second round rookie deserve this kind of respect?

and

It seems like you have quite the bone to pick with the coach, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am really curious who you think would actually come coach here that's better after what had been done to the franchise under the stewardship of the previous front offices?

---------------------------------------------------

May I take the second part first?

I have no bone to pick. I am agnostic about the coach and I have no one in mind who would be superior. Why would I, since it isn't my decision anyway?

I make judgments about the DECISIONS he makes. As I pointed out earlier, A) I selected "not sure" in the poll (rather than a "low grade") and B) although my nature is to point out existing problems (which need to be solved) rather than praising that which is already going acceptably well (and needs no corrective focus), I occasionally "praise" (see "Jackson lob to Temple for slam dunk out of timeout").

Your "who would come here?" point is well taken but, if accepted as written, you seem to be suggesting that Joerger is a second tier coach who had no other options.

So, who WOULD come here?

Well, George Karl was a guy who was never going to get any other offers (as was true at the time of Bill Russell, Dick Motta and even Rick Adelman).

Adelman, who had been dumped by Portland, then failed miserably at Golden State, turned out to be a good choice, for awhile.

Despite his obvious lack of drive and energy (the result of two cancer battles), George Karl might have been the same had Vlade not emasculated him (presumably because he "inherited" him - not "his guy").

In fact, I can make a case that had the referees not blown a key call, George Karl (and DMC) might still be here, entering their third straight playoff year, with Vlade in the rearview mirror - but that is not how things turned out.

I remember when Karl came into a dysfunctional system (Malone dumped midseason, Corbin as interim) late in the season, in preparation for a full season the next year. It was an impossible task, but valuable for him to "evaluate personnel for the future". As such, that first half season, he was not all about "winning" (that season's ship had already sailed) and there was a lot of fan criticism on khtk. Napear used to defend him, saying, "the guy is going into the hall of fame - do you think he suddenly forgot how to coach?" However, the following season (with his buddy Vlade in the GM seat and having undercut Karl after the DMC locker room tirade) Napear turned on Karl, hastening his departure.

Now Grant gushes over "ice fishing with Dave" as though that has anything to do with coaching ability.

Ironically, both Karl and Joerger (and Phil Jackson) made their bones coaching in the CBA, a route former players usually do not have to take.

But the premise of the second part of your question is wrong.

Here is that part that I think is incorrect:

-----------------------------------------------

"... after what had been done to the franchise under the stewardship of the previous front offices?

----------------------------------------------

Actually, the previous misadventures made this job MORE attractive.

1) ANYONE who just stopped the bleeding would look good in comparison.

2) Other than Cousins (who turned out to be expendable - do you think Vlade and Joerger discussed his eventual phaseout before the hiring?), a new coach was coming in with very few long term contracts - in fact, every coach probably dreams about "shaping his own roster", but usually that is not fully possible. Had the "stewardship of the previous front offices?" left a new coach facing eight long term guaranteed contracts for players the new coach did not want, that would be a very different thing.

Now, to explain my "Frank Mason" point, you are playing the "straw man" game when you say this:

----------------------------------------

Does the head coach exist to serve the whims of the away fans in the cheap seats?

-----------------------------------------

That is not the issue at all (and I think you know that).

But when you say THIS:

---------------------------------------

Does a second round rookie deserve this kind of respect?

----------------------------------------

Are you suggesting that it would be different if Mason was a first round pick or a tenured veteran?

Because I believe that the most successful coaches find a way to treat all players in an equal way. Coaches who cater to the whims of stars ("two sets of rules") are ultimately divisive and unsuccesful You have to find a way to hold all players accountable to the same standard.

I would have made this point no matter WHO the player was.

It so happened that this was Mason's hometown. And, as a rookie, he must have had a certain amount of pride at returning home on an NBA roster (with absolutely no guarantee that that would be the case the following season). Maybe the coach did not KNOW that this was Mason's hometown. Maybe he did not care about that basic human emotion of "pride in celebrating an achievement with friends and - probably - former competitors". But even if he did not know beforehand, as Gary Gerold obviously did not, like Gerold, he could not help but notice "something going on here".

Now, if this were a close game, that becomes the last thing on Joeger's mind. But this was one of the most lopsided losses of the season - the game was a blowout and when the fans began chanting for Frank, the game was well past lost. In fact, most other fans were walking out. This was literally the ONLY meaningful thing going on at the end of a dreadful game.

So, what HARM would it have done to give Mason a couple of minutes. That is, "what was the risk?"

And the "reward" might have been a young guy shining in a situation where everything else screamed "epic fail". Some good MIGHT have come out of a bad game. Even just getting a "thanks, coach" from a guy you might very well NEED in your camp as the season went on, THAT possibility would have justified whatever "risk" you might think existed.

But Joerger decided to ignore the emotions of a young player who, to my mind, has been doing everything asked of him with a positive attitude. I just don't see the "positive" in denying him a couple of minutes to shine, the only chance he would get before friends and family this year. For Joerger, opportunity missed and I get all quizzical when I see a coach pass up a chance to bond with players when there is no apparent risk to doing so. Maybe he is just trying to establish a "tough guy boss" persona, but I would have liked to have seen some emotion there - put the kid in and give him a big hug at the end of his two minutes. Is that so wrong?
 
#59
Well, EVERY single successful coach in the NBA had to work hard to get to the point where he was a success. I think Joerger has all the right tools and a good chance at success if the front office can give him the personnel he needs.
I thought of him right after I hit the "post reply" button. :p
I knew Steve Kerr was destined for success as a head coach LLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG before he even became a head coach. He was one of the most knowledgeable broadcasters I've ever heard, in any sport. I even texted some of my Warrior friends the day they hired him as head coach, telling them that HE will be the guy to lead them to a championship (Or 2. Or 3. Or more....). Although it's with the Warriors, I am super stoked that Steve has found success as an NBA head coach. He totally deserved it the day he got hired.
 
#60
Did anyone notice Joerger had dyed his hair this weird shade of ruby red to cover the grey on his temples? :p

Then he cut his hair short to expose the grey? Something I do NOT like about a man dying his hair! It's feminine and vain. Most coaches are trying to win games. Ours is getting Loreal treatment. Besides when you have a scrub like Willie Cauley Stein running around missing rebounds throwing up weak sh*t and setting phantom picks, no one is going to blame you for having grey hair!

This is my roundabout way of saying he is about as good at coaching as he is at hair-related decisions. :p

What In have noticed is that he keeps growing facial hair, then shaving it, then growing it again, then shaving it again, growing, shaving, growing, shaving. But I guess the point is the same - he seems to spend a lot of time in front of the mirror.

Also, there is a disconnect during the "introductions". Joerger always has an impassive semi-gameface look. Then Fox and Bogi are introduced and they are wearing these crap eating grins like it is a charity game or something. But the Skal comes out - total game face. Then back to Justin with a goofy grin.

I wonder why Joerger hasn't said, "Look at me and do what I do - don't look like you are just happy to be here but act like you belong and have a purpose - and make that purpose intensity."