Mike Woodson took over a last place Hawks team that won 13 games in his first season at head coach and 53 games in his last. They had the second best offensive rating in the league that year. He took over a dysfunctional Knicks team that was 6 games under .500 with D'Antoni and they went 18-6 to finish the season and made the playoffs. The following year he won 54 games and made it the second round (losing to Indiana in 6). That team had the third best offensive rating in the league. The point has never been that offense doesn't matter. The point has always been that if you can't defend than you can't win. And the head coach has to set the tone.
Intentionally or not you just listed 5 white guys as the only qualified coaches in the league. Can you actually quantify what it is about the guys that you listed which makes them more qualified than veteran coaches like McMillan, Woodson, or Mitchell (excepting Coach Pop of course who's on a whole other level)? These guys aren't retreads, they're respected assistant coaches in their own right who happen to have (successful) head coaching stints on their resume as well. Mike Woodson has coached two teams and led both of them to 50+ win seasons and playoff series wins. Nate McMillan has a winning record in 12 seasons as a head coach. He led Seattle to 52 wins and Portland to 54 wins. Sam Mitchell had Chris Bosh, TJ Ford, and a bunch of nobodies and led them to 47 wins in Toronto. Certainly there are some young up-and-coming coaches worthy of the opportunity, but I'm not in a hurry to hand over the future of our team to another unproven head-coaching gamble when there are more qualified options available.
Here is an interesting read from about a year ago contrasting Nate McMillan with Mike Malone: http://www.denverstiffs.com/2015/3/21/8254259/coachs-resume-examining-nate-mcmillan-and-mike-malone
Excerpt from the linked article"
"McMillan isn’t the type of guy to go out of his way to appease players or change his style to fit their preference.That strict style of leadership clashed with players like Zach Randolph, Darius Miles, and Andre Miller. Miller in particular hated McMillan's inflexible offense which didn't allow any room for his creative playmaking."
Yeah, I've been meaning to raise that about McMillan. He was a very stern very unimaginative figure. Seemed like a grinder of a coach . Given personnel he could get a team from point X to point Y, but didn't seem to have the spark for more. Given our personnel though....also a way to guarantee rondo did not return, or if he did that it would be a fight.Oops and no.
Was reading this and was just about to post it.
Don't like that he goes ISO heavy with the stars that won't cut it.
Also I think Blatt/Messani have told vlade No
Mike Woodson took over a last place Hawks team that won 13 games in his first season at head coach and 53 games in his last. They had the second best offensive rating in the league that year. He took over a dysfunctional Knicks team that was 6 games under .500 with D'Antoni and they went 18-6 to finish the season and made the playoffs. The following year he won 54 games and made it the second round (losing to Indiana in 6). That team had the third best offensive rating in the league. The point has never been that offense doesn't matter. The point has always been that if you can't defend than you can't win. And the head coach has to set the tone.
Intentionally or not you just listed 5 white guys as the only qualified coaches in the league. Can you actually quantify what it is about the guys that you listed which makes them more qualified than veteran coaches like McMillan, Woodson, or Mitchell (excepting Coach Pop of course who's on a whole other level)? These guys aren't retreads, they're respected assistant coaches in their own right who happen to have (successful) head coaching stints on their resume as well. Mike Woodson has coached two teams and led both of them to 50+ win seasons and playoff series wins. Nate McMillan has a winning record in 12 seasons as a head coach. He led Seattle to 52 wins and Portland to 54 wins. Sam Mitchell had Chris Bosh, TJ Ford, and a bunch of nobodies and led them to 47 wins in Toronto. Certainly there are some young up-and-coming coaches worthy of the opportunity, but I'm not in a hurry to hand over the future of our team to another unproven head-coaching gamble when there are more qualified options available.
Drat. Vivek'd again!
Those are all great points but I don't think he meant to be discriminatory by listing only white coaches.
I really wish players on the Sacramento Kings would just for once actually prove something before talking about how they would have done this and that under different circumstances. There's no way of knowing what he said, there is almost no evidence to back that claim up either.Tony Xypteras @TonyXypteras 1h1 hour ago
DeMarcus Cousins said the Kings would be a playoff team if Michael Malone were still here. Didn't hesitate.
I suppose it was an unnecessary connection to make ...
I don't think so either. I'm just struggling to see what separates Budenholzer, Stevens, Joerger, and Kerr from other coaches who've had success in the league. Brad Stevens isn't some kind of offensive genius, he emphasizes defense and teamwork which puts him in the same category as Woodson and McMillan. Dave Joerger inherited a 50 win team and kept them at about the same level. Budenholzer's Hawks had one exceptional season but otherwise they've been no better than Woodson's Hawks and he didn't have to build that team up from nothing. I suppose it was an unnecessary connection to make but I can't help feeling there's some kind of subconscious bias when the prospect of interviewing Luke Walton generates more favorable reactions than Woodson, McMillan or Mitchell -- all eminently qualified head coaches -- while Walton has coached (on an interim basis) for only 43 games.
Amick weighs in
Aaron Bruski @aaronbruski 3m3 minutes ago
Can confirm @sam_amick report that McHale interviewed for the Kings job. Some posturing here; McHale holds the cards, may not have interest
What posturing? I don't really hear McHale's name in connection with any other openings.
And I can GUARANTEE you that he isn't going to be hired by the Lakers.
So, if he interviewed for the Kings job, he is definitely interested.![]()
I don't think so either. I'm just struggling to see what separates Budenholzer, Stevens, Joerger, and Kerr from other coaches who've had success in the league.
I didn't list 5 white guys as the only qualified coaches in the league. I said the league is dominated by those coaches, which is something completely different. Every coach on college or NBA level is qualified. And I don't really understand why the colour of the skin has anything to do with coaching an NBA team or with anything else in life. I know, what you are trying to hint, I don't understand why you are doing it and I think this has no place in a sports related discussion between strangers.
Mike D'Antoni had 4 seasons with over 50 wins with the Suns. George Karl never missed the Playoffs. How much are achievements of the past worth today?
I wrote "It feels like" right? Is this a hint, that I use statistical measurements to make up my mind, who is the best coach available? I don't think so. Stats are just Stats and people read way too much into them from my point of view (most of the time to back their claims in sports related discussions, where they want to sound more scientific and objective, which is not my goal as I stated often enough. I'm a fan. I don't want to be objective and I don't want to provide some kind of analytics.) NBA teams are coached not only by the head coach but also by quite a few assistant coaches. How do you measure the individual contribution of each coach by looking at wins and losses or offensive rating?
I watch a lot of basketball. I watched Mike Woodson coach the Knicks. I watched McMillan coach the Blazers and VDN coach the Clippers.
Out of those three I like McMillan the most, but none of them strikes me as a elite coach and potential next great basketball mind.
And maybe I'm crazy but I as a fan am tired of bad to mediocre coaches. I don't want to look at the Warriors, Spurs, Hawks, Celtics, Pistons and so on and get depressed, because those teams play good to great basketball on both ends, while patiently building their teams in a certain way that fits the vision of the FO AND coaching staff and my team is a mess.
Now maybe I'm wrong and Woodson or VDN are in fact great basketball innovators, that lead the Kings into the promised land and start a new dynasty in SAC.
But those names certainly don't get my hopes up, which was the whole, simplistic and shallow point of my previous post.
That would seem more likely than a desire to stay in broadcasting, although as long as he works for TNT that is money on top of his pay out, but at this point in his life I doubt money is a deciding factor for McHale.Maybe he wants a raise from TNT? Or maybe he wants a say in personnel?
Could it be simply that they haven't been fired yet?
I don't think so either. I'm just struggling to see what separates Budenholzer, Stevens, Joerger, and Kerr from other coaches who've had success in the league. Brad Stevens isn't some kind of offensive genius, he emphasizes defense and teamwork which puts him in the same category as Woodson and McMillan. Dave Joerger inherited a 50 win team and kept them at about the same level. Budenholzer's Hawks had one exceptional season but otherwise they've been no better than Woodson's Hawks and he didn't have to build that team up from nothing. I suppose it was an unnecessary connection to make but I can't help feeling there's some kind of subconscious bias when the prospect of interviewing Luke Walton generates more favorable reactions than Woodson, McMillan or Mitchell -- all eminently qualified head coaches -- while Walton has coached (on an interim basis) for only 43 games.
Yeah, I've been meaning to raise that about McMillan. He was a very stern very unimaginative figure. Seemed like a grinder of a coach . Given personnel he could get a team from point X to point Y, but didn't seem to have the spark for more. Given our personnel though....also a way to guarantee rondo did not return, or if he did that it would be a fight.
I really wish players on the Sacramento Kings would just for once actually prove something before talking about how they would have done this and that under different circumstances. There's no way of knowing what he said, there is almost no evidence to back that claim up either.
I don't think so either. I'm just struggling to see what separates Budenholzer, Stevens, Joerger, and Kerr from other coaches who've had success in the league. Brad Stevens isn't some kind of offensive genius, he emphasizes defense and teamwork which puts him in the same category as Woodson and McMillan. Dave Joerger inherited a 50 win team and kept them at about the same level. Budenholzer's Hawks had one exceptional season but otherwise they've been no better than Woodson's Hawks and he didn't have to build that team up from nothing. I suppose it was an unnecessary connection to make but I can't help feeling there's some kind of subconscious bias when the prospect of interviewing Luke Walton generates more favorable reactions than Woodson, McMillan or Mitchell -- all eminently qualified head coaches -- while Walton has coached (on an interim basis) for only 43 games.
He is still getting paid by the Rockets for the next 2 seasons as well as the the salary he gets from TNT. Bottom line, he is not really going to jump at any opportunity. It has to be a perfect fit.What posturing? I don't really hear McHale's name in connection with any other openings.
And I can GUARANTEE you that he isn't going to be hired by the Lakers.
So, if he interviewed for the Kings job, he is definitely interested.![]()