Joerger's future with the Kings

Should the Kings retain Joerger?


  • Total voters
    92
#31
I am temporarily fed up with the lack of grit so I voted no even though I’ve been outspoken in my support of him.

I don’t agree with the second-guessing of his rotations. But ... they are playing like sissies and GRIT is supposed to be Dave’s calling card. The LACK of grit makes me think he has lost them or even that he’s given up himself.

Hope they come out and prove me wrong and show some darn FIGHT. But the last three games have been a disgrace.
 
#32
How many rookies or young guys league wide are replicating what they did in college? I'd say WCS has improved in his 3rd year...he's one of the few from that draft playing at a respectable level.

And just focusing on rookies, some are playing well, most aren't. Fox has had moments, Mason has hit a wall but had moments, Jackson had a few moments early but has been struggling. I'd say year 3 is where you see if a guy is worth continuing to invest time in or not.....not at the end of year 1. If you stick with that as your measuring stick, and it's your choice, you probably will be disappointed.
I said they aren't even remotely replicating what they did in college. Which means they aren't even close. I don't expect them to be the same players they were in college or have the same impact but I'd like to at least see them look like that guy at least once every 5 games or so, even if it's just in limited minutes.

What moments has Fox had? A few games back in October? Fox has statistically been considered the worst player in the NBA nearly all year. No one will ever convince me that it's ok that Fox is the worst player in the league because he's young. There's a bunch of other young, less talented players out there than Fox that are doing much better than Fox because their coaches have them in the right role in the offense. Why is this such a foreign concept to this coach? There is no point in having him do what he can't do out there when he could be doing the things he can do. Mitchell, Markkanen, Smith and Tatum are all out there thriving in roles that play to their strengths. Hell, even Ball has had a handful of games that have been more productive than any single game Fox has played in. That is all on Joerger because he isn't even giving our most talented prospect a chance at utilizing his talents.

I'm not expecting Rome to be built in a day but it's never going to be built if these guys are going to continue playing in the roles that Joerger has them playing.

I mean, Malachi, Skal and Papa were all better players last year after coming from Reno than they have been this year with the big club. Seemed to me like they were
better players when Joerger wasn't coaching them as often. Why were they better players when we were purposely tanking at the end of last year? Now that Joerger has his hands on them and they're all implemented into the offense, they are all much worse now. There's a reason for that and it's because the system sucks for anyone that isn't a 36 year old that's built like a brick s*** house.
 
#33
I think it's fair to say that Joerger will be here this season and probably next, but I wouldn't be shocked to see him fired at the end of the 2019 season or not extended at the end of the 2020 season. NBA coaches actually don't have that long of a shelf life with one particular franchise, and that's especially true for bad teams. Better coaches than Joerger have succumbed to short stints with bad teams; it's nothing new. It's a minor miracle Brett Brown has lasted as long as he has with the Sixers, but I guess he was brought in to oversee exactly what happened with them. Joerger was brought in primarily for a Cousins team, has straddled two different directions the team has gone in, has questionable fit and methods for a rebuilding team, won't make them a contender by the time his contract is up, has a twitchy, unpredictable GM AND owner, and has been the engineer of a team that is 29th in Ortg and 30th in Drtg based on his system (save me the roster argument; that's 2012 Bobcats bad.) You can easily see why he may not have a future here.

People have brought up the end of the next season to see if things have improved; they will not record wise. We may see the emergence of a core and a star player (which is what I'm primarily looking for), but the record won't be anything approaching respectable.
That is your interpretations, the one I don't necessarily agree with.

Based on all the comments since Jorger's appointment, from both Joerger and Divac, he was brought in with both directions in mind.

I think describing Vivek as twitchy is fair enough but Vlade??? Seriously?!?!?! If anything he is not twitchy enough! He is more from the Geoff Petrie school on giving it time and seeing how it fits than the twitchy type that you are describing.
 
#34
I am temporarily fed up with the lack of grit so I voted no even though I’ve been outspoken in my support of him.

I don’t agree with the second-guessing of his rotations. But ... they are playing like sissies and GRIT is supposed to be Dave’s calling card. The LACK of grit makes me think he has lost them or even that he’s given up himself.

Hope they come out and prove me wrong and show some darn FIGHT. But the last three games have been a disgrace.
To not second guess is to ignore history because history dictates a very clear path as to how things will turn out with your team by running rotations like this. It's not a question of right or wrong, it just is. In the NBA it's almost a natural reflex even under the best intended circumstances. You will lose value in your trade assets, you will anger your players, you will create an us or them scenario in your locker room, and you will eventually have to turn to the direction you should have been facing in the first place as soon as things started unraveling.

Toughness and grit is a good sign but will only take you so far. Like any rebuilding team in order to sneak in wins you have to play 5 times harder than the opponent every night and even then it's a temporary reprieve. Playing hard sounds great and looks great but it's fairly obvious when the substance is missing because that's what makes teams good.
 
#35
To not second guess is to ignore history because history dictates a very clear path as to how things will turn out with your team by running rotations like this. It's not a question of right or wrong, it just is. In the NBA it's almost a natural reflex even under the best intended circumstances. You will lose value in your trade assets, you will anger your players, you will create an us or them scenario in your locker room, and you will eventually have to turn to the direction you should have been facing in the first place as soon as things started unraveling.

Toughness and grit is a good sign but will only take you so far. Like any rebuilding team in order to sneak in wins you have to play 5 times harder than the opponent every night and even then it's a temporary reprieve. Playing hard sounds great and looks great but it's fairly obvious when the substance is missing because that's what makes teams good.
You're very certain on your take re the rotations but I'm not a believer in what you are so sure about. I don't think it is likely that a segment of the internet fan base or even the press knows certainties about rotations that Joerger doesn't know... so I still think second guessing rotations is dumb. But second guessing the heart that you see displayed in front of your eyes makes more sense. Just agree to disagree on that. I remember Karl said point blank "I'm not going to defend my rotations to you" to somebody in the press (I don't remember who). I'm pretty sure most coaches feel the same.

Playing hard sounds great and looks great because it is great. No "but" about it.
 
#36
On one hand, I'm not at all thrilled with him. I'd probably grade him in the D range. I don't think he's maximizing his young guys, the team doesn't give effort more often than not, I'm thinking he's not a rebuilding coach.

On the other hand? He's probably better than Corbin. Or Kenny Natt. Or any other coach We've recently had not named Malone.
 
#37
Totally different situation. Joeger isn't dealing with an injured HOF big man and Pop didn't have a team comprised of almost 90% rookies who should have been playing. Their situation didn't necessitate a rebuild, the Kings just traded their HOF (potentially) big to re-start theirs.
The hot take of my Spurs fan housemate of the day was that Pop was a megalomaniac and marginal coach who fired a popular and superior coach, made bad trades (Rodman) and tanked the year and lucked into a can't lose lineup. Even after they won the first title, it was in the strike shortened year after Jordan's retirement and he didn't give him any credit.

I'm not saying Joerger is remotely the same level, but he's clearly more competent than anyone we've had here since Adelman with the possible exception of Malone. The fact that in that time the next most competent coach on that list might be Eric friggin Musselman tells me how dopey it would be to let him go unless you have a functional crystal ball.
 
#39
I think Joerger is a good coach. He's a guy who could coach the Cavs to a ring this year. However, I don't know how well he coaches a rebuilding team. He didn't sign up for a rebuild, so it's unfair to thrust 8 1st and 2nd year players and expect him to make something out of it.

With all this being said, I don't like his approach to this rebuilding team. There's no reason to build your entire offense around Randolph. There's no reason for Joerger to say he wants to increase the pace, yet still have the team playing at a bottom 5 pace. There's no reason for a team as young as ours to play at this pace. He's changed his approach lately, maybe he's adjusting to his own coaching? I don't put this all on him. Vlade did a poor job constructing this roster as it is.
 
#40
I was pleased when they hired Joerger, I am pleased with the wrk he has done withe team. I want him to stay and I fully expect to feel the same way in the future. Give him some journeyman NBA players if you expect a 50 win season. If he had 5 yong players in development it would take at least two years to expect much quality and consistency. Since he has twice that in young new players I would expect that timeline to extend to at least 3 years. If you want to move faster then trade a handful of young ones for experienced vets. For a young team like ours Joerger seems like the ideal coach.
 
#41
I do not have an issue with Dave Joerger coaching this time at this time. Considering the roster that he has to work with, I actually am very pleased (although at times extremely frustrated) with the way things are playing out for the team. This team was never supposed to compete for a playoff spot this season. Those fans who thought they were going to compete are just living a pipe dream, in my honest opinion. This year was never supposed to be about "winning now", but rather about "building for the future". I've thoroughly enjoyed watching the young kids play every night. Fox has been fun to watch. Bogie has been exceptional. WCS has shown a slight glimmer of hope. I can't wait to see Giles get out there and play some minutes.

When it comes to the vets...George Hill hasn't done much for me, yet. At least not enough to make me want to rave about his presence on the team. VC and ZR have been ok, more so VC than ZR, but I don't mind seeing both out there on the floor. Especially if they're taking the young kids under their wings and mentoring them and teaching them the ropes as the season goes along.

I think Dave Joerger definitely has the ability to take us back to the playoffs, and even go as deep as the Western Conference Finals. However, I am afraid (for Mr. Joerger) that a coaching change might be needed to get us over the final two hurdles...
 
#43
To those of you calling for Joerger to be replaced (all 6 of you:) I have one question. Can you explain why? Also please describe who you would replace him with and some facts on why this new coach would be successful in your eyes would help.

I have read on here a couple of times that Joerger is not a "rebuilding coach". Can anyone splain to me what that is and cite some examples around the association?

And last what should this "rebuilding coach" do with the current Kings team?
 
#44
I think Joerger is a good coach. He's a guy who could coach the Cavs to a ring this year. However, I don't know how well he coaches a rebuilding team. He didn't sign up for a rebuild, so it's unfair to thrust 8 1st and 2nd year players and expect him to make something out of it.

With all this being said, I don't like his approach to this rebuilding team. There's no reason to build your entire offense around Randolph. There's no reason for Joerger to say he wants to increase the pace, yet still have the team playing at a bottom 5 pace. There's no reason for a team as young as ours to play at this pace. He's changed his approach lately, maybe he's adjusting to his own coaching? I don't put this all on him. Vlade did a poor job constructing this roster as it is.
I think Randolph is used in case of an emergency, where the other players got nothin' in their offensive set. This happens too often, then he blows up and now you have to give him the ball or lose the game. It's kind of a double edged sword but it was never intended to be the offense lol.
 
#45
You're very certain on your take re the rotations but I'm not a believer in what you are so sure about. I don't think it is likely that a segment of the internet fan base or even the press knows certainties about rotations that Joerger doesn't know... so I still think second guessing rotations is dumb. But second guessing the heart that you see displayed in front of your eyes makes more sense. Just agree to disagree on that. I remember Karl said point blank "I'm not going to defend my rotations to you" to somebody in the press (I don't remember who). I'm pretty sure most coaches feel the same.

Playing hard sounds great and looks great because it is great. No "but" about it.

It's has nothing to do with me or my opinions, I'm certain because I've seen the results of this type of management before and I can see what is happening now. If the team were winning, all things good in the locker room, and players performing to expectation levels then it would be a different story. It would also be shirking historical basis if it lasted for any significant amount of time even under those ideal conditions. Good moments will still happen from time to time, but it's not a way to go about roster management ever, let alone at the start of a rebuild.

Second guessing heart is too simple. No player makes it to the NBA if they have no heart or talent. It's the same reason why some players get to Sacramento all of a sudden "suck" then move on to a better situation for their game and unbelievably reappear. Role is almost everything in the NBA and when you have a team mostly comprised of young scoring talent it could severely damage careers if not handled properly. That's not good for the Kings because they are in the midst of a rebuild where they are losing value on almost every asset they have at the same time.

George Karl had his own issues but platooning wasn't it. Look at his minutes distribution under per game:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAC/2016.html

Now look at Joegers:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAC/2018.html

Playing players in the low to mid 20's on average as opposed to having some players getting real starters minutes makes a huge difference to players. Not only that but stability on the floor as well. George Karls issue was putting in a bad fit system around his talent. Right now Joerger is not only doing that but he's also cutting off players abilities to solidify themselves in a true starters role.

Now the specific instance recently that I can recall mirroring this and eventually having the same results is also the same circumstance that allowed the Kings to trade for Bonzi Wells. The Mike Fratello helmed Grizzlies in 2005-2006. Look at their minutes distribution chart:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MEM/2005.html

The per game chart doesn't even look as bad as the Kings! The team was still winning but the staggered rotation patterns and lack of major minutes caused a revolt. The answer for Fratello to save his own hide was to go the total opposite route after iirc Gasol started to pipe up. Next year Gasol played 39 minutes a game. Fratello was a Hubie Brown disciple that took over for Brown who was also known for his platooning strategy. It's a style of coaching that historically works at the college level and sinks the ship in the NBA. The Grizz held on for a few years doing it, but they were winning and experienced. The Kings are not, it's showing, and the end result will hurt twice as bad in the end.
 
#46
I think the Hill thing is separate from the coach is good and/or coach is frustrating his team.

If this were business. Hill worked a job that was rewarding and not super hard because his coworkers made him better. He stayed at high end hotels and drank his favorite high end IPAs.

Chasing a big check, he went to work for another company. He does not find the work rewarding. His job his much harder. He's at the motel 6 and his room is only stocked with Natty Lite. And he hates it. He hates his new job and regrets his decision.

(Not bagging on Kings lodging or food choices, just making an example.)

That speaks more to the work conditions in Sacramento, to which coach is a factor but not controlling. The STANK and dysfunction over this team just won't come off. We've changed everything. Owners, gms, coaches, all of the players. All of them.

This thing was run deep into the ground. It's screwed up. And the players know it. Zach is happy because late in life he's a go to guy and getting numbers. That's just not possible in most places. Vince is a pro and cool with his role. But, Hill is not much different than a lot of the vets who come to town. They figure it can't be that bad, find out it's PRETTY bad, struggle because they get less support and accountability then they are accustomed to from the players, coaches, and organization. And they don't like it. It impacts performance and moral. Many leave and do better.
 
#47
The hot take of my Spurs fan housemate of the day was that Pop was a megalomaniac and marginal coach who fired a popular and superior coach, made bad trades (Rodman) and tanked the year and lucked into a can't lose lineup. Even after they won the first title, it was in the strike shortened year after Jordan's retirement and he didn't give him any credit.

I'm not saying Joerger is remotely the same level, but he's clearly more competent than anyone we've had here since Adelman with the possible exception of Malone. The fact that in that time the next most competent coach on that list might be Eric friggin Musselman tells me how dopey it would be to let him go unless you have a functional crystal ball.

Then I guess he wasn't a Pop fan? The results speak for themselves. My hot take is the same one that most tend to agree with in the NBA, the only thing a coach needs to worry about is not screwing things up. No coach I've seen in the modern era other than maybe Don Nelson, who is the literal forefather of todays gimmick laden game, could coach a garbage team to relative success. And I totally agree with the bolded, but I would also say that doesn't make him immune to the eventual outcome of what he's doing, nor should it.

Rebuilds are hard for coaches because the most profitable payoff for the team also most likely means sacrifice for the coach himself. That's why you typically see rookie coaches or retreads heading up a rebuild team because you're really just waiting for the experience to turn into something. The truth is when it does is sometimes after that coach is long gone. Joerger isn't a world beater name on the market and coaches like him only have so many shots at the big chair. I get it. That's why it's Vlades call at some point. Take some of his toys away, tell him what's what, or give in to his desires. Sitting in the middle waiting for sunshine doesn't cut it. It's hopefully also why they picked up his 3rd year. The same rules that go for George Hill go for Dave Joerger. Don't be crying for a coach who proved to be a bad fit that got paid more than any other team was willing to pay and on top of it picked up an option they didn't have to.

The Kings have no 2019 pick and Vlade hit it harder than hard on trading down for other picks (also losing value in a sense) in the last two drafts. This is a team that desperately needs to establish it's young assets and isn't doing it. It's like a broken record with the Kings. The young guys may ultimately fail, but they need to know for sure.
 
#48
I also think this is worth talking about as well. Many seem to think the Kings firing another coach would all but sink them with other coaches. Perhaps, if they aren't already, and I think we all know they are. The bigger worry should be this, what about players? They've already had to do serious damage control the last few years and have been shunned/used repeatedly in free agency by agents. They've only compounded that with how Hill is working out. OK, well they were probably DOA with free agents anyway right? Well what about potential draftee's? If you think that the Kings trading Cuz, stacking the roster of mostly rookies, and then inhibiting the performance of almost all of them isn't going to hurt around draft time think again.

It then comes to a point of which one do you attempt to salvage? Coaches, free agents, or draft picks? I think history says the dirt is already so thick on the first two that you better start doing some shining on the third.
 
#49
To those of you calling for Joerger to be replaced (all 6 of you:) I have one question. Can you explain why? Also please describe who you would replace him with and some facts on why this new coach would be successful in your eyes would help.

I have read on here a couple of times that Joerger is not a "rebuilding coach". Can anyone splain to me what that is and cite some examples around the association?

And last what should this "rebuilding coach" do with the current Kings team?
I didn't vote and I can't answer all of your questions but I can throw my hat in on a couple of them.

I don't think there is such thing as a rebuilding coach. I'd say Brett Brown from the 76ers is the closest thing to it in the NBA currently. Normally coaches get fired through a rebuild so I was initially excited (partially confused, but mostly excited) when Joerger got extended because it meant that the team was on the same page. Meaning that the criteria for success was going to be based on player development and not W/L.

Joerger's head coaching career has been fairly short but which young players under Joerger have developed into good players? The best one I can think of is JaMychal Green and he's an average bench guy at best. Now you could place some or all of the blame on the Grizzlies inability to draft good players but so far under Joerger, no player has developed into a solid starter as of yet.

I've posted a lot on what I think a "rebuilding coach" should do with the team and it would start with going to this page. Go to the advanced stats section and click USG%.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAC/2018.html

Moving Zach Randolph from #1 (not counting Cooley) down to about #8 below Bogdan would be a good start for what a rebuilding coach should do. That one simple change right there would loosen up the entire roster and allow these young guys to essentially be set free from this terrible offensive system that doesn't suit nearly any one of them.
 
#50
As much as I'm not a fan of Joerger's fit with this team right now and think he needs a reality check on how to run an offense I just don't see what good getting rid of him does. We are already the Cleveland Browns of the NBA in terms of job attractiveness. Who would even willing to come here that would be worth replacing Joerger for? We also run the risk of players being throw into new roles with a new coach, further stunting their growth. It's a bad situation to be in, but I think we have no choice but to stick with Joerger for the time being.
 
#51
I also think this is worth talking about as well. Many seem to think the Kings firing another coach would all but sink them with other coaches. Perhaps, if they aren't already, and I think we all know they are. The bigger worry should be this, what about players? They've already had to do serious damage control the last few years and have been shunned/used repeatedly in free agency by agents. They've only compounded that with how Hill is working out. OK, well they were probably DOA with free agents anyway right? Well what about potential draftee's? If you think that the Kings trading Cuz, stacking the roster of mostly rookies, and then inhibiting the performance of almost all of them isn't going to hurt around draft time think again.

It then comes to a point of which one do you attempt to salvage? Coaches, free agents, or draft picks? I think history says the dirt is already so thick on the first two that you better start doing some shining on the third.
They're really stuck between a rock and a hard place. Joerger is probably the main reason why ZBo, Vince and Hill signed here. Hill may have anyway for money but he could have probably still gotten a sweet deal somewhere else if we were still on the coaching carousel. Hill looking like garbage and the team losing by 20 every night doesn't bode well for future FA signings. Working Hill more into the offense helps with that but it hinders the development of the youngsters as well as hurts our lottery chances.

The Kings only have one card. Develop the kids and pray like hell that Fox and either someone else on the team or the guy we draft this year turn into very good players. Otherwise this franchise is going to continue on the hamster wheel of poor coaching, poor free agent signing and poor drafting. There is no other way out of this mess. Vlade and Joerger's futures depend on these kids developing so they better be doing everything in their power to make sure that happens.
 
#52
Then I guess he wasn't a Pop fan?
I'm sure that today if we kept in touch he would say he was better than Red or Phil. The point is we just don't have any metric to judge Coach Joerger on based on what he's working with.

Philosophically some people want to see the kids turned loose. Arguably that is something that Pop would never do - he molds his young talent to his system and if they don't work he cuts them loose - and yet it is the standard some people are holding Joerger to.
 
#53
It's has nothing to do with me or my opinions, I'm certain because I've seen the results of this type of management before and I can see what is happening now. If the team were winning, all things good in the locker room, and players performing to expectation levels then it would be a different story. It would also be shirking historical basis if it lasted for any significant amount of time even under those ideal conditions. Good moments will still happen from time to time, but it's not a way to go about roster management ever, let alone at the start of a rebuild.

Second guessing heart is too simple. No player makes it to the NBA if they have no heart or talent. It's the same reason why some players get to Sacramento all of a sudden "suck" then move on to a better situation for their game and unbelievably reappear. Role is almost everything in the NBA and when you have a team mostly comprised of young scoring talent it could severely damage careers if not handled properly. That's not good for the Kings because they are in the midst of a rebuild where they are losing value on almost every asset they have at the same time.

George Karl had his own issues but platooning wasn't it. Look at his minutes distribution under per game:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAC/2016.html
Now look at Joegers:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAC/2018.html
Playing players in the low to mid 20's on average as opposed to having some players getting real starters minutes makes a huge difference to players. Not only that but stability on the floor as well. George Karls issue was putting in a bad fit system around his talent. Right now Joerger is not only doing that but he's also cutting off players abilities to solidify themselves in a true starters role.

Now the specific instance recently that I can recall mirroring this and eventually having the same results is also the same circumstance that allowed the Kings to trade for Bonzi Wells. The Mike Fratello helmed Grizzlies in 2005-2006. Look at their minutes distribution chart:

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/MEM/2005.html

The per game chart doesn't even look as bad as the Kings! The team was still winning but the staggered rotation patterns and lack of major minutes caused a revolt. The answer for Fratello to save his own hide was to go the total opposite route after iirc Gasol started to pipe up. Next year Gasol played 39 minutes a game. Fratello was a Hubie Brown disciple that took over for Brown who was also known for his platooning strategy. It's a style of coaching that historically works at the college level and sinks the ship in the NBA. The Grizz held on for a few years doing it, but they were winning and experienced. The Kings are not, it's showing, and the end result will hurt twice as bad in the end.
You’ve described one of the game aspects that I believe Joerger has done best - manage his players minutes so that the young - a large group - get playing time both starting and bench minutes. The roster has too many young guys and not enough veterans even for a rebuild team but that is the way it is and that dictates how the coaches have to bring the team along. I enjoy the good moments that you refer to.
 
#55
I didn't vote and I can't answer all of your questions but I can throw my hat in on a couple of them.

I don't think there is such thing as a rebuilding coach. I'd say Brett Brown from the 76ers is the closest thing to it in the NBA currently. Normally coaches get fired through a rebuild so I was initially excited (partially confused, but mostly excited) when Joerger got extended because it meant that the team was on the same page. Meaning that the criteria for success was going to be based on player development and not W/L.

Joerger's head coaching career has been fairly short but which young players under Joerger have developed into good players? The best one I can think of is JaMychal Green and he's an average bench guy at best. Now you could place some or all of the blame on the Grizzlies inability to draft good players but so far under Joerger, no player has developed into a solid starter as of yet.

I've posted a lot on what I think a "rebuilding coach" should do with the team and it would start with going to this page. Go to the advanced stats section and click USG%.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAC/2018.html

Moving Zach Randolph from #1 (not counting Cooley) down to about #8 below Bogdan would be a good start for what a rebuilding coach should do. That one simple change right there would loosen up the entire roster and allow these young guys to essentially be set free from this terrible offensive system that doesn't suit nearly any one of them.
Is this the chart with the correct USG%? if so look at the next 7 players after ZBO:

 
#56
Is this the chart with the correct USG%? if so look at the next 7 players after ZBO:

Good catch on the USG%. The critics on here keep beating this same tired refrain such as Fox is Zbo's ball boy and other such nonsense. It's a sensationalized view born out of frustration. Joerger is doing a good job with an abnormally young and or inexperienced roster. Of course, he's developing the young guys. I'm amazed that he's getting so many young guys quality playing time.
 
#57
Is this the chart with the correct USG%? if so look at the next 7 players after ZBO:


Yeah the gripe has never been that Temple, Hill and Koufos have been hurting the development of the young guys. In football terms, Joerger is basically trying to get his 36 year old running back a 1000 yard season instead of developing his rookie quarterback.

Good catch on the USG%. The critics on here keep beating this same tired refrain such as Fox is Zbo's ball boy and other such nonsense. It's a sensationalized view born out of frustration. Joerger is doing a good job with an abnormally young and or inexperienced roster. Of course, he's developing the young guys. I'm amazed that he's getting so many young guys quality playing time.
Pay attention to it during the 1st quarter tomorrow. Fox is going to take the ball up the court and more often than not he's going to immediately give it to ZBo down on the block or ZBo is going to set something that resembles a screen, but really isn't a screen, and then is going to step back and Fox is going to throw the ball back to him around the 3pt line. Rinse and repeat. We never get to see Fox really run the team like some of the other rookies are allowed to do. It's not sensationalized and it's not nonsense. It's whats happening on the court nearly every game. You just don't notice it because you see Fox bricking a 15ft jumper and you think he's getting his shots in when in reality he could have had a couple of wide open layups if the offense was designed for him, not in spite of him.
 
#58
You’ve described one of the game aspects that I believe Joerger has done best - manage his players minutes so that the young - a large group - get playing time both starting and bench minutes. The roster has too many young guys and not enough veterans even for a rebuild team but that is the way it is and that dictates how the coaches have to bring the team along. I enjoy the good moments that you refer to.
Best? How is it turning out so far? Certain players look like crap one night, not so bad the next and so on, while playing 15 minutes some nights, 30 others, etc. The inconsistency you see is somewhat normal for a rebuilding squad, but all encompassing exaggerated wild swings is purely indicative of the style of play and roster management he's utilizing.
 
#60
Good catch on the USG%. The critics on here keep beating this same tired refrain such as Fox is Zbo's ball boy and other such nonsense. It's a sensationalized view born out of frustration. Joerger is doing a good job with an abnormally young and or inexperienced roster. Of course, he's developing the young guys. I'm amazed that he's getting so many young guys quality playing time.
Getting young guys time on a rebuilding squad? Hardly amazing. It's kind of the point.

Advanced stats have to always be somewhat in check when relating it back to real scenarios and weighted against the results you see. The averaged numbers begin to flatten out, but those numbers right there show how in the end a larger swath of personnel gets lumped into a middle area instead of anyone becoming a focal point. Some players have a higher usage than they should, others not high enough. These also have to related to the fact that on a nightly basis the entire complexity of what those numbers actually represent can be different because no player is getting enough real consistent minutes to produce in any significant way. It's like citing per 36 or 48 numbers. Other teams especially want to see real production consistently. They spread the ball around almost to a fault and it shows that Zbo is the only thing close to what you would expect to see as a focal point offensively and even on the low end for a post centric offense. Buddy for instance one night is used like a go to player then the next he'll take 4 shots the next. They need consistency, that's nothing close.