So says the majority. I'm questioning the rationale which produces that opinion though because I don't think there's anything objectively meh about either one's resume. In fact, very much the opposite. I'm also a little taken aback that a fanbase who's seen exactly one head coach lead this team to a winning record in 30 years would turn up their nose at anyone who's been there and done that for two different teams already.
Kings interview Del Negro, Jackson and Mitchell for Head Coach position (Yahoo News)
- Thread starter Geoff
- Start date
Like I said it isn't necessarily bad, but this guys just aren't exciting- if you saw something special in VDN or Woodson maybe you are seeing something I don't.
At the end of the day wheather or not someone is considered exciting or not is about a majority feeling more than anything, and some coaches generate more hype and promise than others- look at Malone here for example, you can say he hasn't led us to anything significant during his tenure and back it up with win-loss records but most people feel very different about him.
About his resume Woodson was released from both his former coaching jobs, never went further then the 2nd round and was swept twice in a row there with Atlanta, he didn't get a head coaching job the last 2 seasons and his last HC season he missed the playoffs and was fired.
It always circle back to that but I think the "been there done that" argument has taken a hit with this fanbase after George Karl- I mean look at Malone VS Karl, one was a promising up and comer and the other is a classic "been there done that" guy (with far better credentials than Woodson)- I don't believe a singal member on this board will take Karl over Malone now- so I'm not sure why you are so "taken aback" about the fanbase response.
At the end of the day wheather or not someone is considered exciting or not is about a majority feeling more than anything, and some coaches generate more hype and promise than others- look at Malone here for example, you can say he hasn't led us to anything significant during his tenure and back it up with win-loss records but most people feel very different about him.
About his resume Woodson was released from both his former coaching jobs, never went further then the 2nd round and was swept twice in a row there with Atlanta, he didn't get a head coaching job the last 2 seasons and his last HC season he missed the playoffs and was fired.
It always circle back to that but I think the "been there done that" argument has taken a hit with this fanbase after George Karl- I mean look at Malone VS Karl, one was a promising up and comer and the other is a classic "been there done that" guy (with far better credentials than Woodson)- I don't believe a singal member on this board will take Karl over Malone now- so I'm not sure why you are so "taken aback" about the fanbase response.
Oh yeah, I think the whole Malone/Karl debacle is actually a big factor. And believe me, nobody is angrier about it than I am. But I think it points in the exact opposite direction. The odds of us plucking another Mike Malone from the assistant coaching ranks and having him transform us into a defensive team while forming a special bromance with DeMarcus Cousins are slim and none. That was a unique opportunity that we completely botched. We're not going to be re-living the past. Lightning is not striking twice. Just do the safe thing and sign an experienced defensive coach. I actually don't care all that much if the new head coach is McMillan, Woodson, Del Negro, Mitchell, E. Turner, or McHale. All of them have their own pluses and minuses and it's Vlade's job to choose the best fit. Get Doug Christie on the bench as an assistant coach, hire the best medical staff in the league, plot operation Al Horford. Good to go. 
K
Than he should have just said better than they were afterwards which is 100% true (I would take Malone over the Karl we got) and you could back up, but saying they would have no doubt made the playoffs when Cousins as a player has never made them and Mike as a head coach has not either is not really the right thing to say imo
K
(NOTE: I have no issue with Woodson and am just raising this issue purely as a potential red flag)
Same thing we saw with Karl
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1933165-what-tyson-chandler-knows-that-mike-woodson-doesnt
.
Again sounds like Karl
http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/knicks/post/_/id/51765/udrih-tired-of-criticism-from-woody
Woodson did not leave on good terms with quiet a few Knicks players. As a matter of fact the Knicks final year was a lot like the Kings final year with Karl
Losing cause of poor switching defences despite not having the roster to do it (never adjusting) , trouble connecting with there big man (Cousins/Chandler), misusing there back up combo/PG (Seth/Beno), not making the playoffs, calling players out in the media there's so many similarities between the two and yet cause one preaches defense we forget about it or ignore it .
Same thing we saw with Karl
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1933165-what-tyson-chandler-knows-that-mike-woodson-doesnt
.
Again sounds like Karl
http://espn.go.com/blog/new-york/knicks/post/_/id/51765/udrih-tired-of-criticism-from-woody
Woodson did not leave on good terms with quiet a few Knicks players. As a matter of fact the Knicks final year was a lot like the Kings final year with Karl
Losing cause of poor switching defences despite not having the roster to do it (never adjusting) , trouble connecting with there big man (Cousins/Chandler), misusing there back up combo/PG (Seth/Beno), not making the playoffs, calling players out in the media there's so many similarities between the two and yet cause one preaches defense we forget about it or ignore it .
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh please! The lengths you go to just make Cousins look like the bad guy is laughable.
Fact is Karl has had the best roster this franchise has had since Adelman's last season in Sacramento. Malone got the absolute most out of the crap roster he had. Rudy played his career best basketball with Malone as a coach. Collison re-invented himself as good starting PG in the league. Omri rediscovered his swag. You compare that to this season with Karl and good number of proven veterans have had career worse years. There is no doubt that a good coach would have taken this roster to the play offs this year in the West. The team has had more proven veteran talent this year than Malone had in his season and a bit in Sacramento. Hell even in his first season with the Kings, when all 3 of Cousins, IT and Gay played, the team was playing .500 ball in a strong Western Conference.
Last year Malone had the starting line up of Collison-McLemore-Gay-Thompson-Cousins play best defense of any other starting line up in the league. The issue was the lack of depth and quality off the bench.
Cousins is only saying what every other basketball judge would say out there (those that do not have pre-conceived ideas and opinions) and that is that this roster with a good coach would have made the play offs this year and come really close in a "normal" Western Conference year.
Fact is Karl has had the best roster this franchise has had since Adelman's last season in Sacramento. Malone got the absolute most out of the crap roster he had. Rudy played his career best basketball with Malone as a coach. Collison re-invented himself as good starting PG in the league. Omri rediscovered his swag. You compare that to this season with Karl and good number of proven veterans have had career worse years. There is no doubt that a good coach would have taken this roster to the play offs this year in the West. The team has had more proven veteran talent this year than Malone had in his season and a bit in Sacramento. Hell even in his first season with the Kings, when all 3 of Cousins, IT and Gay played, the team was playing .500 ball in a strong Western Conference.
Last year Malone had the starting line up of Collison-McLemore-Gay-Thompson-Cousins play best defense of any other starting line up in the league. The issue was the lack of depth and quality off the bench.
Cousins is only saying what every other basketball judge would say out there (those that do not have pre-conceived ideas and opinions) and that is that this roster with a good coach would have made the play offs this year and come really close in a "normal" Western Conference year.
So you want him to be politically correct instead of speaking what he feels in response to a direct question? Your assessment of what he should or should not have said is irrelevant. I'd rather he (or anyone else being interviewed) be honest than to spin their comment so that a few fans don't get their panties in a bunch.
DeMarcus Cousins said the Kings would be a playoff team if Michael Malone were still here. Didn't hesitate.
First of all: If you don't want to pick on me, you shouldn't hint some kind of racist bias. That's just utterly ridiculous and drags the discussion down on a very personal level.
What's the sense in doing that other than discrediting someone during a discussion? The thing is, it's impossible for you to know, if I have some kind of racist bias. You definitely can't draw any kind of warrantable conclusion out of 5 names of coaches I mentioned. Now I can tell you via the internet, that I'm a member of the Linkspartei (a left wing political party in Germany) and that I'm a nonviolent member of what's called the ANTIFA (short for anti facist movement) over here. But since we don't know each other personally, you can't validate this information. Therefore we maybe should leave out any kind of coffee cup reading about the others biases or political standpoints. To bring this into the discussion is offending and nothing else. And most likely leads to VF21 activating their Mod Voice once again.......so maybe it's better I stop my tirade right now (Sorry for that but racist bias is something I can't take lightly).
I disagree. Every coach on NBA or college level is qualified. He may not be qualified for the Kings job, because we need someone, who fits the overall vision of the team (if we actually have a vision, which I'm not entirely convinced we have), but this doesn't mean he is unqualified in a way, that he doesn't know enough about basketball.
Your guesses about what we look for in a coach are your own guesses. We actually don't have a lot of young players to develop. The statement about demanding effort and being a hardass might be backed by Cousins claims about wanting accountability, but this doesn't mean our organisation actively looks for such a coach. So you are right - the qualifications I look for differ from those you are looking for.
What have all 5 names I mentioned in common? On very different levels of roster based talent they coached this talent to overachieve and have shown the ability to mold players, that are barely out of the league into valuable contributors for their system.
Of course the success of the Warriors is bound to their superstar talent. But how many coaches would bench an All-Star for a tweener PF/SF, who most analyst labeled as a draft bust, because he had no clear cut position in the NBA. How many coaches would be courageous enough to play Green at center, Barnes at PF for extended stretches? How many coaches would be able to imagine offensive and defensive schemes to be successful playing like that and to crack the Bulls record, that widely was regarded as an All-Time-record? And we don't need to limit the praise of Kerr to guys like Barnes and Green. Barbosa? Rush? Holiday last season? Speights? Kerr has those guys overachieving all the time.
I don't think we really need to debate Pop do we? Every year the Spurs come out with new players nobody expected and they get solid to great minutes out of those players. Every year defensive and offensive schemes of the Spurs are great and for the most part the 2013/14 NBA championship was a masterpiece of team play and a true indicator, that a team without otherwordly superstars like Lebron can win it all.
The same remarks about team play can be applied to Budenholzer, Joerger and Stevens. All three are relatively successful without any superstars. All three develop players well and get contributions out of guys, who were afterthoughts on their previous teams.
Where would guys like Carroll, Bazemore, Scott, Teague, Crowder, Jerebko, Turner, Stephenson, Green, Lee be without Budenholzer, Joerger or Stevens?
All coaches I mentioned are guys, where the system is the true star of the team. That for me is one major criteria for superior coaching. Any coach can teach basic principles and simply give the ball to a superstar like Cousins, Melo or Lebron. As long as he is a solid psychologist he will get a good amount of wins by doing so. But how many coaches can do more than that? And can do more than that on both ends?
I always thought of Doc Rivers as a great coach. But his recent years with the Clippers changed my mind. He has the best PG of the league, a Top 3 PF, a great athletic center (who he never developed on the offensive end to the detriment of the team) and a knock down shooter. He even has full control over the team from the GM standpoint. But still his team somewhat underachieves from my point of view. Even worse his GM moves show, that he doesn't really know, how to get the team to the next level. So despite his achievements I wouldn't qualify Doc Rivers as an elite coach right now or someone, who dominates the league.
Same with Thibodeau. Yes he made some great runs with the Bulls. But I always felt, that something is missing on offense. Of course his roster was depleted and he could win regardless, so somehow I'm divided about him. Great defensive mastermind, great competitor, but also the guy, whose Bulls were severely outplayed by a Wizards squad coached by Randy Wittman in 2014.
Do Byron Scott, Mike Brown, Sam Mitchell, Mike Woodson fit the description of an elite coach I tried to give above? I personally don't think so.
And I definitely want a basketball innovator. I don't want another coach, who doesn't think out of his box. I don't want a coach, that will be severely outcoached come playoff time, because all he knows is one style of play. And I most of all don't want a coach, who is only here for a couple of seasons. I want the Kings to hire a coach, who can create a future for the Kings.
Discipline and defense are not enough. You do win games by outworking the other team, but this approach only leads that far. Hard work is the foundation of success, but when your opponent works hard too, the solution is not to work even harder but to be smarter.
Once again - I don't claim to be a Know-it-all. Maybe McMillan, Woodson or VDN are coaches, that could make things happen in SAC. You don't know it for sure. I don't know it for sure.
All we can do is to exchange opinions. And please don't confuse my opinion with something posted by another person or on SACTOWNRoyalty. I don't sprinkle magic pixie dust on unproven coaches. I never posted an opionion on Messina or any college coach, because I don't know anything about these guys.
What's the sense in doing that other than discrediting someone during a discussion? The thing is, it's impossible for you to know, if I have some kind of racist bias. You definitely can't draw any kind of warrantable conclusion out of 5 names of coaches I mentioned. Now I can tell you via the internet, that I'm a member of the Linkspartei (a left wing political party in Germany) and that I'm a nonviolent member of what's called the ANTIFA (short for anti facist movement) over here. But since we don't know each other personally, you can't validate this information. Therefore we maybe should leave out any kind of coffee cup reading about the others biases or political standpoints. To bring this into the discussion is offending and nothing else. And most likely leads to VF21 activating their Mod Voice once again
.......so maybe it's better I stop my tirade right now (Sorry for that but racist bias is something I can't take lightly).I disagree. Every coach on NBA or college level is qualified. He may not be qualified for the Kings job, because we need someone, who fits the overall vision of the team (if we actually have a vision, which I'm not entirely convinced we have), but this doesn't mean he is unqualified in a way, that he doesn't know enough about basketball.
Your guesses about what we look for in a coach are your own guesses. We actually don't have a lot of young players to develop. The statement about demanding effort and being a hardass might be backed by Cousins claims about wanting accountability, but this doesn't mean our organisation actively looks for such a coach. So you are right - the qualifications I look for differ from those you are looking for.
What have all 5 names I mentioned in common? On very different levels of roster based talent they coached this talent to overachieve and have shown the ability to mold players, that are barely out of the league into valuable contributors for their system.
Of course the success of the Warriors is bound to their superstar talent. But how many coaches would bench an All-Star for a tweener PF/SF, who most analyst labeled as a draft bust, because he had no clear cut position in the NBA. How many coaches would be courageous enough to play Green at center, Barnes at PF for extended stretches? How many coaches would be able to imagine offensive and defensive schemes to be successful playing like that and to crack the Bulls record, that widely was regarded as an All-Time-record? And we don't need to limit the praise of Kerr to guys like Barnes and Green. Barbosa? Rush? Holiday last season? Speights? Kerr has those guys overachieving all the time.
I don't think we really need to debate Pop do we? Every year the Spurs come out with new players nobody expected and they get solid to great minutes out of those players. Every year defensive and offensive schemes of the Spurs are great and for the most part the 2013/14 NBA championship was a masterpiece of team play and a true indicator, that a team without otherwordly superstars like Lebron can win it all.
The same remarks about team play can be applied to Budenholzer, Joerger and Stevens. All three are relatively successful without any superstars. All three develop players well and get contributions out of guys, who were afterthoughts on their previous teams.
Where would guys like Carroll, Bazemore, Scott, Teague, Crowder, Jerebko, Turner, Stephenson, Green, Lee be without Budenholzer, Joerger or Stevens?
All coaches I mentioned are guys, where the system is the true star of the team. That for me is one major criteria for superior coaching. Any coach can teach basic principles and simply give the ball to a superstar like Cousins, Melo or Lebron. As long as he is a solid psychologist he will get a good amount of wins by doing so. But how many coaches can do more than that? And can do more than that on both ends?
I always thought of Doc Rivers as a great coach. But his recent years with the Clippers changed my mind. He has the best PG of the league, a Top 3 PF, a great athletic center (who he never developed on the offensive end to the detriment of the team) and a knock down shooter. He even has full control over the team from the GM standpoint. But still his team somewhat underachieves from my point of view. Even worse his GM moves show, that he doesn't really know, how to get the team to the next level. So despite his achievements I wouldn't qualify Doc Rivers as an elite coach right now or someone, who dominates the league.
Same with Thibodeau. Yes he made some great runs with the Bulls. But I always felt, that something is missing on offense. Of course his roster was depleted and he could win regardless, so somehow I'm divided about him. Great defensive mastermind, great competitor, but also the guy, whose Bulls were severely outplayed by a Wizards squad coached by Randy Wittman in 2014.
Do Byron Scott, Mike Brown, Sam Mitchell, Mike Woodson fit the description of an elite coach I tried to give above? I personally don't think so.
And I definitely want a basketball innovator. I don't want another coach, who doesn't think out of his box. I don't want a coach, that will be severely outcoached come playoff time, because all he knows is one style of play. And I most of all don't want a coach, who is only here for a couple of seasons. I want the Kings to hire a coach, who can create a future for the Kings.
Discipline and defense are not enough. You do win games by outworking the other team, but this approach only leads that far. Hard work is the foundation of success, but when your opponent works hard too, the solution is not to work even harder but to be smarter.
Once again - I don't claim to be a Know-it-all. Maybe McMillan, Woodson or VDN are coaches, that could make things happen in SAC. You don't know it for sure. I don't know it for sure.
All we can do is to exchange opinions. And please don't confuse my opinion with something posted by another person or on SACTOWNRoyalty. I don't sprinkle magic pixie dust
on unproven coaches. I never posted an opionion on Messina or any college coach, because I don't know anything about these guys.
Walton should never have been a serious candidate for us. We have a confusing roster with a boatload of different personalities (as currently constructed). We need a coach that can manage that. Karl couldn't and it ended up ruining this season. I just don't trust a brand new coach to manage all of that. That's asking a lot, even for a very seasoned coach. I would prefer someone with real head coaching credentials. I really like the idea of McHale, mostly because he's a big man coach and I have faith he would know what to do with this roster. As far as I'm concerned, our coach needs to be able to handle our players from a mental standpoint and have a clue or two on how to use our players to the best of their abilities. The X's and O's are secondary to me in importance.
Just a hunch, but I think Vlade hires someone with Sacramento ties.
I get a feeling that he has Elston Turner at the top of his list.
Turner has been a top assistant for a long time and I think he could be a very successful Head Coach and Vlade knows him well from his Kings days. He has been second in command in Memphis the last few years and has a strong defensive background.
I think the pecking order (because I think McHale is not really interested) is 1) Elston Turner 2 )Vinnie Del Negro 3 ) Mike Woodson
I get a feeling that he has Elston Turner at the top of his list.
Turner has been a top assistant for a long time and I think he could be a very successful Head Coach and Vlade knows him well from his Kings days. He has been second in command in Memphis the last few years and has a strong defensive background.
I think the pecking order (because I think McHale is not really interested) is 1) Elston Turner 2 )Vinnie Del Negro 3 ) Mike Woodson
No let's really hope not.
I cannot stress enough what an utter disaster that could be. Its the riskiest name of all the remaining names, even including Jackson.
In the U.S., Messina should be a college coach. Someplace where you can be absolute dictator of your little world with no blowback. I can't tell how much humility his time with the Spurs may have taught him, but we of all franchises don't want to be the one finding out the hard way we just hired another PJ Carlesimo and our best player just strangled him.
I cannot stress enough what an utter disaster that could be. Its the riskiest name of all the remaining names, even including Jackson.
In the U.S., Messina should be a college coach. Someplace where you can be absolute dictator of your little world with no blowback. I can't tell how much humility his time with the Spurs may have taught him, but we of all franchises don't want to be the one finding out the hard way we just hired another PJ Carlesimo and our best player just strangled him.
First of all: If you don't want to pick on me, you shouldn't hint some kind of racist bias. That's just utterly ridiculous and drags the discussion down on a very personal level.
What's the sense in doing that other than discrediting someone during a discussion? The thing is, it's impossible for you to know, if I have some kind of racist bias. You definitely can't draw any kind of warrantable conclusion out of 5 names of coaches I mentioned. Now I can tell you via the internet, that I'm a member of the Linkspartei (a left wing political party in Germany) and that I'm a nonviolent member of what's called the ANTIFA (short for anti facist movement) over here. But since we don't know each other personally, you can't validate this information. Therefore we maybe should leave out any kind of coffee cup reading about the others biases or political standpoints. To bring this into the discussion is offending and nothing else. And most likely leads to VF21 activating their Mod Voice once again.......so maybe it's better I stop my tirade right now (Sorry for that but racist bias is something I can't take lightly).
I disagree. Every coach on NBA or college level is qualified. He may not be qualified for the Kings job, because we need someone, who fits the overall vision of the team (if we actually have a vision, which I'm not entirely convinced we have), but this doesn't mean he is unqualified in a way, that he doesn't know enough about basketball.
Your guesses about what we look for in a coach are your own guesses. We actually don't have a lot of young players to develop. The statement about demanding effort and being a hardass might be backed by Cousins claims about wanting accountability, but this doesn't mean our organisation actively looks for such a coach. So you are right - the qualifications I look for differ from those you are looking for.
What have all 5 names I mentioned in common? On very different levels of roster based talent they coached this talent to overachieve and have shown the ability to mold players, that are barely out of the league into valuable contributors for their system.
Of course the success of the Warriors is bound to their superstar talent. But how many coaches would bench an All-Star for a tweener PF/SF, who most analyst labeled as a draft bust, because he had no clear cut position in the NBA. How many coaches would be courageous enough to play Green at center, Barnes at PF for extended stretches? How many coaches would be able to imagine offensive and defensive schemes to be successful playing like that and to crack the Bulls record, that widely was regarded as an All-Time-record? And we don't need to limit the praise of Kerr to guys like Barnes and Green. Barbosa? Rush? Holiday last season? Speights? Kerr has those guys overachieving all the time.
I don't think we really need to debate Pop do we? Every year the Spurs come out with new players nobody expected and they get solid to great minutes out of those players. Every year defensive and offensive schemes of the Spurs are great and for the most part the 2013/14 NBA championship was a masterpiece of team play and a true indicator, that a team without otherwordly superstars like Lebron can win it all.
The same remarks about team play can be applied to Budenholzer, Joerger and Stevens. All three are relatively successful without any superstars. All three develop players well and get contributions out of guys, who were afterthoughts on their previous teams.
Where would guys like Carroll, Bazemore, Scott, Teague, Crowder, Jerebko, Turner, Stephenson, Green, Lee be without Budenholzer, Joerger or Stevens?
All coaches I mentioned are guys, where the system is the true star of the team. That for me is one major criteria for superior coaching. Any coach can teach basic principles and simply give the ball to a superstar like Cousins, Melo or Lebron. As long as he is a solid psychologist he will get a good amount of wins by doing so. But how many coaches can do more than that? And can do more than that on both ends?
I always thought of Doc Rivers as a great coach. But his recent years with the Clippers changed my mind. He has the best PG of the league, a Top 3 PF, a great athletic center (who he never developed on the offensive end to the detriment of the team) and a knock down shooter. He even has full control over the team from the GM standpoint. But still his team somewhat underachieves from my point of view. Even worse his GM moves show, that he doesn't really know, how to get the team to the next level. So despite his achievements I wouldn't qualify Doc Rivers as an elite coach right now or someone, who dominates the league.
Same with Thibodeau. Yes he made some great runs with the Bulls. But I always felt, that something is missing on offense. Of course his roster was depleted and he could win regardless, so somehow I'm divided about him. Great defensive mastermind, great competitor, but also the guy, whose Bulls were severely outplayed by a Wizards squad coached by Randy Wittman in 2014.
Do Byron Scott, Mike Brown, Sam Mitchell, Mike Woodson fit the description of an elite coach I tried to give above? I personally don't think so.
And I definitely want a basketball innovator. I don't want another coach, who doesn't think out of his box. I don't want a coach, that will be severely outcoached come playoff time, because all he knows is one style of play. And I most of all don't want a coach, who is only here for a couple of seasons. I want the Kings to hire a coach, who can create a future for the Kings.
Discipline and defense are not enough. You do win games by outworking the other team, but this approach only leads that far. Hard work is the foundation of success, but when your opponent works hard too, the solution is not to work even harder but to be smarter.
Once again - I don't claim to be a Know-it-all. Maybe McMillan, Woodson or VDN are coaches, that could make things happen in SAC. You don't know it for sure. I don't know it for sure.
All we can do is to exchange opinions. And please don't confuse my opinion with something posted by another person or on SACTOWNRoyalty. I don't sprinkle magic pixie dust on unproven coaches. I never posted an opionion on Messina or any college coach, because I don't know anything about these guys.
What's the sense in doing that other than discrediting someone during a discussion? The thing is, it's impossible for you to know, if I have some kind of racist bias. You definitely can't draw any kind of warrantable conclusion out of 5 names of coaches I mentioned. Now I can tell you via the internet, that I'm a member of the Linkspartei (a left wing political party in Germany) and that I'm a nonviolent member of what's called the ANTIFA (short for anti facist movement) over here. But since we don't know each other personally, you can't validate this information. Therefore we maybe should leave out any kind of coffee cup reading about the others biases or political standpoints. To bring this into the discussion is offending and nothing else. And most likely leads to VF21 activating their Mod Voice once again
.......so maybe it's better I stop my tirade right now (Sorry for that but racist bias is something I can't take lightly).I disagree. Every coach on NBA or college level is qualified. He may not be qualified for the Kings job, because we need someone, who fits the overall vision of the team (if we actually have a vision, which I'm not entirely convinced we have), but this doesn't mean he is unqualified in a way, that he doesn't know enough about basketball.
Your guesses about what we look for in a coach are your own guesses. We actually don't have a lot of young players to develop. The statement about demanding effort and being a hardass might be backed by Cousins claims about wanting accountability, but this doesn't mean our organisation actively looks for such a coach. So you are right - the qualifications I look for differ from those you are looking for.
What have all 5 names I mentioned in common? On very different levels of roster based talent they coached this talent to overachieve and have shown the ability to mold players, that are barely out of the league into valuable contributors for their system.
Of course the success of the Warriors is bound to their superstar talent. But how many coaches would bench an All-Star for a tweener PF/SF, who most analyst labeled as a draft bust, because he had no clear cut position in the NBA. How many coaches would be courageous enough to play Green at center, Barnes at PF for extended stretches? How many coaches would be able to imagine offensive and defensive schemes to be successful playing like that and to crack the Bulls record, that widely was regarded as an All-Time-record? And we don't need to limit the praise of Kerr to guys like Barnes and Green. Barbosa? Rush? Holiday last season? Speights? Kerr has those guys overachieving all the time.
I don't think we really need to debate Pop do we? Every year the Spurs come out with new players nobody expected and they get solid to great minutes out of those players. Every year defensive and offensive schemes of the Spurs are great and for the most part the 2013/14 NBA championship was a masterpiece of team play and a true indicator, that a team without otherwordly superstars like Lebron can win it all.
The same remarks about team play can be applied to Budenholzer, Joerger and Stevens. All three are relatively successful without any superstars. All three develop players well and get contributions out of guys, who were afterthoughts on their previous teams.
Where would guys like Carroll, Bazemore, Scott, Teague, Crowder, Jerebko, Turner, Stephenson, Green, Lee be without Budenholzer, Joerger or Stevens?
All coaches I mentioned are guys, where the system is the true star of the team. That for me is one major criteria for superior coaching. Any coach can teach basic principles and simply give the ball to a superstar like Cousins, Melo or Lebron. As long as he is a solid psychologist he will get a good amount of wins by doing so. But how many coaches can do more than that? And can do more than that on both ends?
I always thought of Doc Rivers as a great coach. But his recent years with the Clippers changed my mind. He has the best PG of the league, a Top 3 PF, a great athletic center (who he never developed on the offensive end to the detriment of the team) and a knock down shooter. He even has full control over the team from the GM standpoint. But still his team somewhat underachieves from my point of view. Even worse his GM moves show, that he doesn't really know, how to get the team to the next level. So despite his achievements I wouldn't qualify Doc Rivers as an elite coach right now or someone, who dominates the league.
Same with Thibodeau. Yes he made some great runs with the Bulls. But I always felt, that something is missing on offense. Of course his roster was depleted and he could win regardless, so somehow I'm divided about him. Great defensive mastermind, great competitor, but also the guy, whose Bulls were severely outplayed by a Wizards squad coached by Randy Wittman in 2014.
Do Byron Scott, Mike Brown, Sam Mitchell, Mike Woodson fit the description of an elite coach I tried to give above? I personally don't think so.
And I definitely want a basketball innovator. I don't want another coach, who doesn't think out of his box. I don't want a coach, that will be severely outcoached come playoff time, because all he knows is one style of play. And I most of all don't want a coach, who is only here for a couple of seasons. I want the Kings to hire a coach, who can create a future for the Kings.
Discipline and defense are not enough. You do win games by outworking the other team, but this approach only leads that far. Hard work is the foundation of success, but when your opponent works hard too, the solution is not to work even harder but to be smarter.
Once again - I don't claim to be a Know-it-all. Maybe McMillan, Woodson or VDN are coaches, that could make things happen in SAC. You don't know it for sure. I don't know it for sure.
All we can do is to exchange opinions. And please don't confuse my opinion with something posted by another person or on SACTOWNRoyalty. I don't sprinkle magic pixie dust
on unproven coaches. I never posted an opionion on Messina or any college coach, because I don't know anything about these guys.
What I don't get is why you dismiss the coaches that we're actually interviewing without putting in any work at all to tell me why. You just wrote an enormous essay which included not even one line about why Mike Woodson is ill equipped to coach against Popovich, Stevens, Joerger, or Budenholzer. And I never accused you of racism either openly or indirectly. I don't equate confirmation bias with racism. But something is going on when three coaches with impressive resumes are repeatedly labeled boring, uncreative, unccoperative hardasses, who are incapable of coaching offense. Maybe you don't want to actually read quotes from players who played for them or check if your feelings about their coaching prowess are backed up by the available evidence but don't expect that to win you any arguments. The challenge I put out there is for anyone who thinks McMillan, Woodson, or Mitchell are mediocre coaches to come up with a reason why.
Here's what I see...
Nate McMillan walked into a situation in Portland that was worse than ours is right now. It had gotten so bad that the fans were boycotting the games. He completely transformed them into a model franchise. Before Brandon Roy's knees went out he was easily a top 10 player in the league playing for McMillan and nobody expected that from him when he was drafted 6th overall in a weak draft after playing 4 years at Washington. He managed to get consistent production out of Travis Outlaw which no coach before or after him could do. He had the #1 ranked offense in the league in 08/09 with Steve Blake starting at PG, rookie Nic Batum starting at SF and Joel Przyzbilla starting at C.
Mike Woodson doesn't get a lot of credit for being an elite coach but he transformed Atlanta from one of the worst teams in the league to a perennial playoff team and he did it with only 1 succesful lotto pick. He's the only coach to get All-Star level production from Josh Smith. He was the first coach to move Jamal Crawford to the bench and he won his first 6th man of the year award playing for Woodson in Atlanta. The two best seasons in Carmelo Anthony's career were playing for Woodson in New York. Tyson Chandler made the All-Star team 1 time in his 15 year career and it was Woodson's first full season in New York. He was the first coach since Jeff Van Gundy to win 50+ games in New York and he did it with JR Smith leading the team in minutes played and Raymond Felton starting at PG. He got important contributions from 35 year old rookie Pablo Prigioni and 28 year old rookie Chris Copeland and the team set a record for most three point shots made in a season (since broken by the Rockets last year and the Warriors this year).
Sam Mitchell did an excellent job developing young players this year in Minnesota and an excellent job getting production out of career journeymen in Toronto. He inherited a Toronto team whose only star player demanded a trade before the season even started. In three years they were in the playoffs and Chris Bosh had developed into an All-Star averaging 22 points per game. Career journeyman Mike James inexplicably catapulted up to 20 points and 6 assists per game at age 30 in his one year playing for Mitchell. The Raptors won only 27 games that year but had the 5th ranked offense in the league. In fact, in his 4 years as the head coach they never ranked worse than 11th in offense. The following year they won 47 games and the defense improved from 29th to 12th.
These three coaches may not be the top buzzworthy names right now but you know what? If Tom Thibodeau and Scott Brooks don't want to coach in Sacramento there's no shame in hiring the best coach who does. Would you have taken Terry Stotts after he was fired from his previous two head coaching jobs? Portland did and they made it to the second round of the playoffs with a team most picked to be in the bottom 5 of the league. Sometimes the less obvious pick ends up being the right one. Maybe none of them get your hopes up, which is fine. I'm not trying to convince you anyway. I'm just trying to find what information I can on our current coaching candidates so that other fans can digest it and make up their own minds.
Last edited:
Woj: Kings to interview Ewing.
Also says that Vivek is most intrigued by McHale, who "has been cautious in his approach to the job."
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/source...ob-023700080-nba.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
Also says that Vivek is most intrigued by McHale, who "has been cautious in his approach to the job."
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/source...ob-023700080-nba.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
There comes a point where Vivek maybe the one who needs to open up the possibilities for McHale and offer him what he really wants. If it's as simple as money opening up the purse, it may also be something less tangible that Vlade may not be able to offer by himself. Up until that stay out of it and let your man get the job done.
Of all the guys interview Ewing is number 1 to me. He wa a hard nosed player that wa great and played under JVG. He has payed his do's like no other coaching under JVG and now Charlotte (forgot his name right now). This shows he will be a defensive minded coach and no doubt will command the respect of Boogie.
There is absolutely no reason for Vivek to publically have his name attached to anything that Vlade should be handling at this point. I get this awful "here we go again" feeling. Please, oh please, don't tell me that Vivek has a money leash on Vlade to the extent that Vlade has to get public permission to spend money. Sure Vivek has the final say but why does he need to let it be known he is an active part of hiring a coach. Who's in charge?
The article said that Vlade would bring three names to the owner but before they even get to that point, Vivek is expressing interest in McHale. What if the three names do not include McHale?
The article said that Vlade would bring three names to the owner but before they even get to that point, Vivek is expressing interest in McHale. What if the three names do not include McHale?