Heirs to the throne?

[Jerryaki]

not fair. while i am with most of you in that i think adelman was very key to our winning, what bonzi did in houston amounted to little more than what potapenko did for us. you cant use bonzis year in houston whatsoever

i'm not focused on bonzi's talent, i'm focused on how the two coaches (rick and van gundy) have used him. it's to underscore my point that coaches are very important to the game, and that rick's coaching was particularly important to the kings. bonzi is still a talented individual, but he hasn't done much in houston; rick got the most out of him, but really, bonzi is not the reason we are in the lotto this year.

 

[CruzDude]

Sam Smith had an interesting observation in the Chicago Tribune today regarding the Kings coaching need:

Fallen Kings

Eric Musselman's demise in Sacramento was expected with the team going down and Musselman unable to control Artest. Former assistant and Bucks coach Terry Porter could be a candidate, though they could take a look at Bulls assistant Jim Boylan, who has been key in the Bulls' turnaround the last three years. Also, former Bulls coach Bill Cartwright, now a Nets assistant, is a Sacramento native and popular in the area, where his family still lives.

Terry Porter good possibility. Not so sure about Cartwright as a coach, an assistant maybe for the "bigs". Boylan has done wonders for the Bulls. Getting interestinger and interestinger, eh?

 

[nbrans]

Cartwright is actually an interesting possibility that I hadn't thought of if the Kings are thinking of keeping Artest -- isn't he basically a father figure to Artest from his days with Chicago? Cartwright wasn't particularly successful as a head coach, and he might be a tad too softspoken for that role, but I agree with CruzDude, he could be a great assistant.

 

[Bricklayer]

Sam = Chicago gossip columnist, so everyboyd he mentioend has Bulls connections. Until I see more not really worried about any of them being the guy.

 

[VF21]

Cartwright is actually an interesting possibility that I hadn't thought of if the Kings are thinking of keeping Artest -- isn't he basically a father figure to Artest from his days with Chicago? Cartwright wasn't particularly successful as a head coach, and he might be a tad too softspoken for that role, but I agree with CruzDude, he could be a great assistant.

Bill Cartwright is not someone I want to see on the Kings bench. I lived through the first Cartwright era; we don't need to go back again.

 

[PurpleHaze]

Bill Cartwright is not someone I want to see on the Kings bench. I lived through the first Cartwright era; we don't need to go back again.

I agree. He's old hat and so what he was a super-star at Elk Grove H.S. He was a mediocre NBA player who lucked out to have 2-3-4 super-stars and stars around him playing with the Bulls. He then became a mediocre Head Coach and later mediocre Asst. Coach. It all reminds me of the Peter Principle.

 

[VF21]

Exactly. I liked him well enough but he is NOT anything like the type of person I hope to see as the next occupant of the office with the "head coach" sign on the door.

We're gonna have to live through this, however, for a while. I suspect every person who has ever written a sports article will weigh in on this sooner or later. And most likely none of them will have it right - especially not before Petrie returns from Europe.

 

[nbrans]

I agree. He's old hat and so what he was a super-star at Elk Grove H.S. He was a mediocre NBA player who lucked out to have 2-3-4 super-stars and stars around him playing with the Bulls. He then became a mediocre Head Coach and later mediocre Asst. Coach. It all reminds me of the Peter Principle.

I don't think this is fair at all. I don't think Cartwright would be a great coach because he may be too nice of a guy, but this is someone who averaged over twenty points a game for two consecutive seasons and was a really good player for the Knicks before being a solid player for the Bulls during their first three championships much later in his career. When he took over for the Bulls as head coach he was an improvement over Tim Floyd, and now he's with the Nets. To say this all is a mediocre run is completely unfair and unfounded.

 

[VF21]

I don't think this is fair at all. I don't think Cartwright would be a great coach because he may be too nice of a guy, but this is someone who averaged over twenty points a game for two consecutive seasons and was a really good player for the Knicks before being a solid player for the Bulls during their first three championships much later in his career. When he took over for the Bulls as head coach he was an improvement over Tim Floyd, and now he's with the Nets. To say this all is a mediocre run is completely unfair and unfounded.

I don't think being better than Tim Floyd is much of a selling point. And I don't think he'd fit back in a head coaching role.

His player stats are, IMHO, totally immaterial.

If Petrie is going to look for a long-term head coach for the Kings, he needs to look further than Bill Cartwright.

 

[nbrans]

I don't think being better than Tim Floyd is much of a selling point. And I don't think he'd fit back in a head coaching role.

His player stats are, IMHO, totally immaterial.

If Petrie is going to look for a long-term head coach for the Kings, he needs to look further than Bill Cartwright.

The player stats were specifically in response to PurpleHaze's off-base comments about his mediocrity as a player.

And maybe Bill Cartwright is more suited for a mentor/assistant coach position, but Artest said Cartwright was "like a father to me." Cartwright may not be the screaming and yelling type of coach, but he commands respect, he has three championship rings, and he was respected as he coached with a ridiculously bad roster. He's not my first choice, but I also don't feel like he should inspire such ill-feelings. If Artest is on the roster, maybe you start with someone you know Artest is going to respect.

I mean, the year he was fired the Bulls started 4-10. Skiles took over midway through the season and they still went 19-47 under Skiles. That roster just really sucked. Jamal Crawford was their best player. Somewhat unfair to regard Cartwright's tenure as a total failure.

 

[VF21]

The player stats were specifically in response to PurpleHaze's off-base comments about his mediocrity as a player.

And maybe Bill Cartwright is more suited for a mentor/assistant coach position, but Artest said Cartwright was "like a father to me." Cartwright may not be the screaming and yelling type of coach, but he commands respect, he has three championship rings, and he was respected as he coached with a ridiculously bad roster. He's not my first choice, but I also don't feel like he should inspire such ill-feelings. If Artest is on the roster, maybe you start with someone you know Artest is going to respect.

I bear Bill Cartwright no ill will. My feelings are just that he would not be a good long-term solution to the problem and I really don't think we need another revolving-door hiring.

I do not believe you hire a coach to match one player, so the "start with someone you know Artest is going to respect" is immaterial to me. Primarily, we don't know if Artest will even be here in a year or two, so to pick the next coach for the Kings based on that kind of criteria is just not the way I'd go...

Petrie picked Adelman. I suspect he'll look for another coach with the same general outlook, style and potential as Rick with perhaps a slight nod to the more personable traits the Maloofs had hoped for with the Musselman hiring.

 

[BawLa]

I've never said Adelman was a bad coach contrary to everyones opinion. I just happen to think that the talent you are given to work with has alot more to do with how teams perform than the coach.

It's not about just the talent, or just the coach. It is about how they work together. The system the coach employs, and the success or lack-of, getting the players to buy into that system is just as important as the way the specific abilities of those players fits into the system.

Having a good coach or bad coach is no different than having a good or bad player. They won't make or break you alone, but they are a piece to the puzzle.

I was a big advocate of Adelman. I remember all the people on this board that attacked him and his system for what - to me - looked like GP's lack of coming to grips with reality. It makes me wonder how many of those that criticized and rejected Adelman as our coach wish that he was back after this last year of agony.

Of course our team was going to take a fall under Muss. Our players were acquired under the guise of the system Rick ran. No coach in the history of the game, including Rick Adelman, could have delivered our current roster to a championship without divine intervention. This is a reality that many of us have faced.

The vicious cycle that is the life of the NBA coach, and furthermore the coach of any organized sports team, will forever be tragically destroyed by the critics of the masses who desperately need instant gratification.

It then becomes apparant that maybe we need to start over with new ownership. Unfortunately for us, as fans, we can't just demand new owners. We can overreact publicly to their actions, and slowly drive them away, but where will that get us. Recently we drove away the best coach in the history of our franchise, by far. Do we want to make the same mistake with the best owners in the history of our franchise? I'm not quite decided on that topic just yet, but the more that the Maloofs act as managers, and the less that they act as rabid fans, the more I want them ousted.



Like many more articulate writers than myself have said, there are ebbs and flows to making a run at a championship. Let us hope that some day soon, we will return to and surpass the bar set by the Adelman era.

 

[Geoff]

I give up.

It's all about the Coach and Coaches win or lose games regardless of the talent they are given.

I've never said Adelman was a bad coach contrary to everyones opinion. I just happen to think that the talent you are given to work with has alot more to do with how teams perform than the coach.

Er...what?

Your second paragraph and third paragraph directly contradict each other. Either it's the coach that wins/loses games (directly related to team performance) or the talent you have is more important to performance than the coach. Which is more important?

At any rate, if you've never said that Adelman was a bad coach, why do you dog him so much? The facts speak for themselves; Rick Adelman was the best coach that Sacramento has had in its history, and while a change may have been required, that change came about for the wrong reasons and he was not given the respect due to him. RA plus the talent may not have been enough to win the big one, but they got respect from everyone they played against, even the g.d. lakers. Jerry Sloan hasn't won the big one either, but you think Utah is going to not re-sign him because he doesn't schmooze often enough with Larry Miller? Even Jerry Sloan missed the playoffs for the past 3 years. RA got the Kings to the playoffs 8 years straight, in the Western Conference. Is that something to sneeze at?

I don't know why it gets me worked up like this, since I don't know the man and I don't even live in Sacramento. I guess I just hate it when people do great jobs and are not appreciated for it. I hate it even more when those people are blamed for things beyond their control.

Talent can only take you so far. Inspired leadership and vision is what's needed to properly harness talent and take it further. Maybe Rick was no Phil Jackson, but he damned sure was no Eric Musselman either. Give the man the ****ing respect he deserves.

 

[Kingster]

we can sit here and speculate all day long (as we will), but who of the players that adelman coached wanted him gone?

Maybe they couldn't want him to be gone because they hardly knew he even existed. I think he was the invisible man for Bibby on several occasions.

 

[Kingster]

I don't know why it gets me worked up like this, since I don't know the man and I don't even live in Sacramento. I guess I just hate it when people do great jobs and are not appreciated for it. I hate it even more when those people are blamed for things beyond their control.

Talent can only take you so far. Inspired leadership and vision is what's needed to properly harness talent and take it further. Maybe Rick was no Phil Jackson, but he damned sure was no Eric Musselman either. Give the man the ****ing respect he deserves.

Pluuueese. The Adelman worship is hilarious. The guy had a terrible record in Golden State with terrible talent, a very good record in Sacto with very good talent. He mirrored the talent of his team. Is that "great"? Heck, no. This term "great" is thrown around more often than average, even though average is a lot more common than great. The thing that's gets me about the Adelman worship is that he wasn't even the one to design the passing offense that made the Kings successful. Coachie, a truly great coach, was the guy who designed it, and he was brought in by Petrie. Adelman would have probably been running the same stuff he had been running, thereby diminishing the potential of his team, if it hadn't been for Carrill. The thing that kills me about Adelman is Peja, who was coached by Adelman during his entire tenure with the Kings. After 3 years, Peja was done - no improvement. He never developed an inside game, which allowed Bruce Bowen to abuse him every time they played instead of vice-versa. If Adelman did a great job, why couldn't he get the guy over SEVEN YEARS to develop an inside game?

 

[nbrans]

Pluuueese. The Adelman worship is hilarious. The guy had a terrible record in Golden State with terrible talent, a very good record in Sacto with very good talent. He mirrored the talent of his team. Is that "great"? Heck, no. This term "great" is thrown around more often than average, even though average is a lot more common than great. The thing that's gets me about the Adelman worship is that he wasn't even the one to design the passing offense that made the Kings successful. Coachie, a truly great coach, was the guy who designed it, and he was brought in by Petrie. Adelman would have probably been running the same stuff he had been running, thereby diminishing the potential of his team, if it hadn't been for Carrill. The thing that kills me about Adelman is Peja, who was coached by Adelman during his entire tenure with the Kings. After 3 years, Peja was done - no improvement. He never developed an inside game, which allowed Bruce Bowen to abuse him every time they played instead of vice-versa. If Adelman did a great job, why couldn't he get the guy over SEVEN YEARS to develop an inside game?

Because he's not Peja's mom. Also Adelman couldn't teach Peja to clean up his room and do the dishes.

 

[fnordius]

Maybe they couldn't want him to be gone because they hardly knew he even existed. I think he was the invisible man for Bibby on several occasions.

I would agree that Bibby's attitude has deteriorated a little in the last couple of years. He snapped at Adelman a few times in Adelman's last year, then ignored Muss for a season during which he played about 75 lousy games.

I think he's just tired of trying to carry a slowly decaying team. Sick of the mediocrity, just like the rest of us.

 

[Bricklayer]

Pluuueese. The Adelman worship is hilarious. The guy had a terrible record in Golden State with terrible talent, a very good record in Sacto with very good talent. He mirrored the talent of his team. Is that "great"? Heck, no. This term "great" is thrown around more often than average, even though average is a lot more common than great. The thing that's gets me about the Adelman worship is that he wasn't even the one to design the passing offense that made the Kings successful. Coachie, a truly great coach, was the guy who designed it, and he was brought in by Petrie. Adelman would have probably been running the same stuff he had been running, thereby diminishing the potential of his team, if it hadn't been for Carrill. The thing that kills me about Adelman is Peja, who was coached by Adelman during his entire tenure with the Kings. After 3 years, Peja was done - no improvement. He never developed an inside game, which allowed Bruce Bowen to abuse him every time they played instead of vice-versa. If Adelman did a great job, why couldn't he get the guy over SEVEN YEARS to develop an inside game?

These simple little logical exercises are sometimes hard for Adleman bashers to accept, but follow the bouncing ball:

1988 Portland: 39-43
1989 Portland: 59-23 (+20)

1994 Golden State: 26-56
1995 Golden State: 36-46 (+10)

1997 Sacramento: 27-55
1998 Sacramento: 27-23 (strike year, pace to win 44-38) (+17)


1993 Portland: 47-35
1994 Portland: 44-38 (-3)

1996 Golden State: 30-52
1997 Golden State: 19-63 (-11)

2006 Sacramento: 44-38
2007 Sacrmaneto: 33-49 (-11)


those of course being the before and afters of Rick arriving/leaving. Odd how every team he joins takes this giant step forward, every team he leaves takes a hop backward.

The simplified version of this argument for the truly stubborn would simply be "scoreboard!".

People do not accidentally win 700 games in the NBA, let alone while winning 60% of their games. They do not accidentally make the playoffs 14 of 16 years in the NBA. Rick Adelman is about one successful return in the league from having a chance to pass up Red Aurebach on the all time wins list. Winning 1000 games is not out of his reach.

And people do not make limited talents on the level of Peja into players they are not. And only people used to arguing with very little in the way of competition attempt to get away with blaming a coach for not improving a player after his third year when the same coach was there for every bit of improvement from Yr 1-3.

P.S. as an aside, know your history if you're going to start this debate. Rick Adelman's offensive teams in Portland were more explosive than anything we put together in Sacto -- the very worst of them averaged 107ppg. Three times they were over 114. Hell, Coachie may have been holding us back.

 

[fnordius]

And people do not make limited talents on the level of Peja into players they are not.

I've often wondered if this hasn't been part of Petrie's problem on the trading block. The only guys who have left Sacramento and looked better elsewhere were ones who got no minutes here. Matt Barnes, Gerald Wallace. That's about it. And it wasn't like they were all damaged goods, either. Mobley, for example... of the last 6 seasons, his highest scoring year was as a King. Scot Pollard has played 10 years. His 5 best were the 5 he spent here.

Adelman was very good at squeezing everything possible out of players.

 

[ParniValjak]

Adelman was very good at squeezing everything possible out of players.

Which part of what very good coaches do!

Anyone who doesn't believe Adelman to be a VERY VERY good coach doesn't have a good understanding of basketball.

 

[Kingster]

These simple little logical exercises are sometimes hard for Adleman bashers to accept, but follow the bouncing ball:

1988 Portland: 39-43
1989 Portland: 59-23 (+20)

1994 Golden State: 26-56
1995 Golden State: 36-46 (+10)

1997 Sacramento: 27-55
1998 Sacramento: 27-23 (strike year, pace to win 44-38) (+17)


1993 Portland: 47-35
1994 Portland: 44-38 (-3)

1996 Golden State: 30-52
1997 Golden State: 19-63 (-11)

2006 Sacramento: 44-38
2007 Sacrmaneto: 33-49 (-11)


those of course being the before and afters of Rick arriving/leaving. Odd how every team he joins takes this giant step forward, every team he leaves takes a hop backward.

The simplified version of this argument for the truly stubborn would simply be "scoreboard!".

People do not accidentally win 700 games in the NBA, let alone while winning 60% of their games. They do not accidentally make the playoffs 14 of 16 years in the NBA. Rick Adelman is about one successful return in the league from having a chance to pass up Red Aurebach on the all time wins list. Winning 1000 games is not out of his reach.

And people do not make limited talents on the level of Peja into players they are not. And only people used to arguing with very little in the way of competition attempt to get away with blaming a coach for not improving a player after his third year when the same coach was there for every bit of improvement from Yr 1-3.

P.S. as an aside, know your history if you're going to start this debate. Rick Adelman's offensive teams in Portland were more explosive than anything we put together in Sacto -- the very worst of them averaged 107ppg. Three times they were over 114. Hell, Coachie may have been holding us back.

Your statistical exercise means absolutely nothing, unless it is connected to the talent that was or was not there at the time. Prior to the Artest "fix" I didn't see Adelman motivate anybody on the Kings team in his last year with the Kings. None. It was the walking dead. Remember: "They're not listening to me."? I stand by my Peja comment. A great coach bends the will of his players to his own. I didn't see that with Adelman's 7-year project. Your comment about Coachie makes no sense. It's not about having an explosive offense in Portland. It's about the fact that the Kings' personnel in prime time was an excellent passing team, and Adelman's Portland offense didn't fit it. It took Coachie's offense to make it go, not Adelman's. It cracks me up that a year after Adelman leaves people on this board are still worshiping at the altar. You would think it was John Wooden that had retired. Same kind of feel - What would Rick have done in the same situation?...Rick would have had them winning... Rick would have controlled Artest (LOL!) yada, yada. I say, GET OVER IT. HE'S GONE.

 

[CaminoChaos]

Pluuueese. The Adelman worship is hilarious. The guy had a terrible record in Golden State with terrible talent, a very good record in Sacto with very good talent. He mirrored the talent of his team. Is that "great"? Heck, no. This term "great" is thrown around more often than average, even though average is a lot more common than great. The thing that's gets me about the Adelman worship is that he wasn't even the one to design the passing offense that made the Kings successful. Coachie, a truly great coach, was the guy who designed it, and he was brought in by Petrie. Adelman would have probably been running the same stuff he had been running, thereby diminishing the potential of his team, if it hadn't been for Carrill. The thing that kills me about Adelman is Peja, who was coached by Adelman during his entire tenure with the Kings. After 3 years, Peja was done - no improvement. He never developed an inside game, which allowed Bruce Bowen to abuse him every time they played instead of vice-versa. If Adelman did a great job, why couldn't he get the guy over SEVEN YEARS to develop an inside game?

In that case so did Phil Jackson and Red Aurbach.

 

[sloter]

I said this before and I will say this again: It was not Adelman era, it was not Webber era, it was no Pedja's era, it was Vlade Divac's era. The Kings were successful while he was on the team. The moment he arrived everything came together, the moment he left everything fell apart. It was a very similar situation with him in Charlotte before the Kings (and chemistry-wise it was similar when he was with the Lakers, but they were not as good talentwise). The same thing for the Yugoslav/Serbian national team. The guy glued everything and everyone together.

 

[VF21]

It cracks me up that a year after Adelman leaves people on this board are still worshiping at the altar. You would think it was John Wooden that had retired. Same kind of feel - What would Rick have done in the same situation?...Rick would have had them winning... Rick would have controlled Artest (LOL!) yada, yada. I say, GET OVER IT. HE'S GONE.

And it cracks me up that some people still cannot admit just how much an impact Rick Adelman had on the Sacramento Kings.

Was he the only reason for the success? No, of course not. There had to be additional factors involved.

But was he a primary reason? Of course.

You can "yada, yada, yada" all you like but it won't change the cold hard fact that with Rick Adelman at the helm, this franchise mattered. When Artest appeared, the entire team was revitalized and you could see in the playoffs that they wanted to make a mark. They responded very well to Adelman and, if the personality clash between Adelman and the Maloofs hadn't determined Rick's future, we could easily have been witness to another decent season.

If people want to argue about Adelman's departure, perhaps they should go from the angle that despite everything he had done it was time for him to go so we could get bad enough for even the Maloofs to recognize the need to blow up the clown...

 

[Kingster]

I said this before and I will say this again: It was not Adelman era, it was not Webber era, it was no Pedja's era, it was Vlade Divac's era. The Kings were successful while he was on the team. The moment he arrived everything came together, the moment he left everything fell apart. It was a very similar situation with him in Charlotte before the Kings (and chemistry-wise it was similar when he was with the Lakers, but they were not as good talentwise). The same thing for the Yugoslav/Serbian national team. The guy glued everything and everyone together.

There is a lot of truth to that. Also, he was the key to the offense, not Webber, Bibby, Peja. The hardest slot to fill on the Carill offense is center. He was the best passing center since Bill Walton. Once the hub feel of the wheel, the spokes became much less significant.

 

[Kingster]

And it cracks me up that some people still cannot admit just how much an impact Rick Adelman had on the Sacramento Kings.

Was he the only reason for the success? No, of course not. There had to be additional factors involved.

But was he a primary reason? Of course.

You can "yada, yada, yada" all you like but it won't change the cold hard fact that with Rick Adelman at the helm, this franchise mattered. When Artest appeared, the entire team was revitalized and you could see in the playoffs that they wanted to make a mark. They responded very well to Adelman and, if the personality clash between Adelman and the Maloofs hadn't determined Rick's future, we could easily have been witness to another decent season.

If people want to argue about Adelman's departure, perhaps they should go from the angle that despite everything he had done it was time for him to go so we could get bad enough for even the Maloofs to recognize the need to blow up the clown...

Just keep it up. We'll set a record for length of time debating about a coach who isn't even here anymore. Unfortunately, by commenting on your post I continue to add the pointless Adelman blather. That said, one last comment. We should take bets on the over-under for how long people will continue to bring up Adelman on this board, not as a historical reference, but the pining that is associated with the jilted lover . I figure that as soon as this team starts winning, the talk will be OVER. The new love affair will have started with the new coach. Probably only then will the yada, yada, about Adelman stop.

 

[VF21]

Just keep it up. We'll set a record for length of time debating about a coach who isn't even here anymore. Unfortunately, by commenting on your post I continue to add the pointless Adelman blather. That said, one last comment. We should take bets on the over-under for how long people will continue to bring up Adelman on this board, not as a historical reference, but the pining that is associated with the jilted lover . I figure that as soon as this team starts winning, the talk will be OVER. The new love affair will have started with the new coach. Probably only then will the yada, yada, about Adelman stop.

People will continue talk about Adelman for a long time. If it bothers you that much, why not just skip over those posts?

I'll grant you the pining for a jilted lover metaphor. That doesn't make it easier to accept, however. It just makes it a bit easier to understand.

While most will embrace a new coach - provided he's not a total bust right out of the gate - we will still fondly remember Rick Adelman. He had an impact; he made a difference.

 

[JoMama]

I was no Adelman fan but his leaving was a blessing for him and the Kings. Yes, forget the "if Adelman was still here, he'd of..." stuff. He ain't here and, hopefully, never will be again. As bad as Muss may have bungled last season, I never once missed Adelman. Or, even thought about him much. That's the way it should be IMHO.

 

[JoMama]

I said this before and I will say this again: It was not Adelman era, it was not Webber era, it was no Pedja's era, it was Vlade Divac's era. The Kings were successful while he was on the team. The moment he arrived everything came together, the moment he left everything fell apart. It was a very similar situation with him in Charlotte before the Kings (and chemistry-wise it was similar when he was with the Lakers, but they were not as good talentwise). The same thing for the Yugoslav/Serbian national team. The guy glued everything and everyone together.

Got to admit, Peja sure fell apart after Vlade left. I tend to agree with you about the importance and positive impact Vlade had on the Kings.

 

[Bricklayer]

Your statistical exercise means absolutely nothing, unless it is connected to the talent that was or was not there at the time. Prior to the Artest "fix" I didn't see Adelman motivate anybody on the Kings team in his last year with the Kings. None. It was the walking dead. Remember: "They're not listening to me."? I stand by my Peja comment. A great coach bends the will of his players to his own. I didn't see that with Adelman's 7-year project. Your comment about Coachie makes no sense. It's not about having an explosive offense in Portland. It's about the fact that the Kings' personnel in prime time was an excellent passing team, and Adelman's Portland offense didn't fit it. It took Coachie's offense to make it go, not Adelman's. It cracks me up that a year after Adelman leaves people on this board are still worshiping at the altar. You would think it was John Wooden that had retired. Same kind of feel - What would Rick have done in the same situation?...Rick would have had them winning... Rick would have controlled Artest (LOL!) yada, yada. I say, GET OVER IT. HE'S GONE.

You know, I rarely cross this line so blatantly, but your posting behavior has reched the point now where you sound flat out ignorant, and its beginning to grate.

You not only bear your sad little hatred for Rick Adleman on your sleeve like a badge of honor, but you couple it was an apparent deepset lack of historical perspective.

Then of course in a crowning achievement we move straight to the "I'm just going to ignore any evidence I don't like so I can continue to pipe on shrilly" portion of the entertainment. And you're right, we can argue about this until the cows come home. Unfortunately as I have an almost endless supply of evidence on my side and you apparently have nothing but a smallminded and oft repeated prejudice, it looks to continue being a long and rather tedious exercise in pummeling the unarmed.

*Spoiler Alert *
So now, having concluded the ritual barely veiled insult portion of the proceedings, it will be time to move on to the setting you up for the fall portion. Just a courtesy warning:

So...at this point I think its fair to say that we have, ahem, "proven" that the coach in question's prior record means nothing, that indeed his record while with the team may be largely accredited to the talent on the team and to a little old assistant who's offense he borrowed, that he failed to "bend to his will" a stubborn major player, and that his failure to inspire his mismatched team in his latter years and/or continue to make deep playoffs runs is an obvious indictment of his overall coaching ability, correct?