Kings Notes: Defense is Theus' top priority

[PurpleHaze]

We had someone who is generally regarded as the greatest defensive basketball player of all time with 11 NBA championship rings yet he was an utter failure as Kings head coach - Bill Russell.

 

[Bricklayer]

With all due respect, do you know have the slightest clue what Reggie Theus accomplished as head coach of NMSU?

Uh yes actually.

Diddly and squat when it comes to the NBA.

Subtract Reggie's time in the NBA and he might be the least qualified "coach" in the enitre history of the league. Two years as an assistant and two years as a head man at a second rate program indeed. Do it for ten or twenty years and then maybe we'll talk about you having an outside chance to be tagged as the latest failed college coach in the NBA. He was a head coach longer on TV than he has been in real life.

In effect Reggie's ENTIRE excuse for being in the NBA, outside of being a flirty Maloof type with New Mexico connections, is his tenure as a player. And actually specifically as a player for the Kings for that matter. If he had played for the Nets instead, he's not the coach here. Hence what he did as a player is front and center, good and bad.


P.S. Does not mean BTW that a noted non-defender can't coach it in the NBA. Scott Skiles comes to mind, although that was a bit different since Skiles was always a hardass who was just physically unable to guard while Reggie just couldn't be bothered. But there is a slight credibiliy gap.

 

[VF21]

We had someone who is generally regarded as the greatest defensive basketball player of all time with 11 NBA championship rings yet he was an utter failure as Kings head coach - Bill Russell.

Good point.

As always, this is gonna boil down to the people who have a "wait and see" attitude versus the people who think, for whatever reason, Reggie is either already a failure or it's pretty much just a matter of time...

 

[VF21]

In effect Reggie's ENTIRE excuse for being in the NBA, outside of being a flirty Maloof type with New Mexico connections, is his tenure as a player. And actually specifically as a player for the Kings for that matter. If he had played for the Nets instead, he's not the coach here. Hence what he did as a player is front and center, good and bad.

But Theus hasn't existed in a vacuum since his days as a player. I'm sure he's learned things along the way, such as the relative value of defense. Comparing 1985 player Reggie to 2007 head coach Theus has to take into account the 22 years in between...

 

[Bricklayer]

But Theus hasn't existed in a vacuum since his days as a player. I'm sure he's learned things along the way, such as the relative value of defense. Comparing 1985 player Reggie to 2007 head coach Theus has to take into account the 22 years in between...

I have little doubt that is true. Well, maybe a little doubt -- he is parroting language the Maloofs have used, so there could be a schmoozy aspect here. But nonetheless I think even many current lazy/selfish players who will not defend actually recognize the value of it...as long as someone else has to do the work.

The issue is credibility. Credibility gaps can be overcome, but they are still very real and always a concern.

Examples:

#1 -- Pat Riley says play defense. Flashes fistfull of champiosnhip rings and 1000+ career victories. Players play defense.
#2 -- Avery Johnson says play defense. Flashes championship rings and says I've been to the mountain. Players play defense.
#3 -- Nate McMillan or Jerry Sloan says play defense, breaks out press clippings of all defensive team selections, hardnosed rep. Players believe and play defense.
#4 -- Reggie Theus says play defense, and flashes his...scoring average. He did not win. He did not have a rep as a defensive player. Players scratch head.
#5 -- Joe College Coach says play defense. Says worked wonders in NCAA. NBA players typically ignore. This has been proven again and again.


Reggie is basically a combo of situation #4 and #5. The college stuff carries no weight in the NBA, and the NBA rep was for everything except winning and playing defense. I am not really questioning whether he wants to see it (although I openly doubt whether he's going to stay as committed to it as he was barking the other day). Just highlighting the credibility gap he's facing there. "Do as I say, not as I did," is inherently a more difficult sell than "do as I did on the way to winning my championships." Think he'd have a good shot with a group of defensive players because they would already believe what he was preaching. Now with our guys....? Ron will listen. Then again Ron will listen to anything and anyone..for a while. Cisco + some of the other kids will. The vets...?

 

[VF21]

Considering that Mike and Brad, along with Ron, Douby and Mustafa have been working at the practice facillity already, I think they're ready to listen - provided the person doing the talking has some credibility with them as a person who can coach a team. And I firmly believe Reggie has that credibility, regardless of whether it's NBA experience or not.

Will that last forever? Of course not. But if Reggie gets started on the right foot, they'll follow him.

 

[dude12]

I have little doubt that is true. Well, maybe a little doubt -- he is parroting language the Maloofs have used, so there could be a schmoozy aspect here. But nonetheless I think even many current lazy/selfish players who will not defend actually recognize the value of it...as long as someone else has to do the work.

The issue is credibility. Credibility gaps can be overcome, but they are still very real and always a concern.

Examples:

#1 -- Pat Riley says play defense. Flashes fistfull of champiosnhip rings and 1000+ career victories. Players play defense.
#2 -- Avery Johnson says play defense. Flashes championship rings and says I've been to the mountain. Players play defense.
#3 -- Nate McMillan or Jerry Sloan says play defense, breaks out press clippings of all defensive team selections, hardnosed rep. Players believe and play defense.
#4 -- Reggie Theus says play defense, and flashes his...scoring average. He did not win. He did not have a rep as a defensive player. Players scratch head.
#5 -- Joe College Coach says play defense. Says worked wonders in NCAA. NBA players typically ignore. This has been proven again and again.


Reggie is basically a combo of situation #4 and #5. The college stuff carries no weight in the NBA, and the NBA rep was for everything except winning and playing defense. I am not really questioning whether he wants to see it (although I openly doubt whether he's going to stay as committed to it as he was barking the other day). Just highlighting the credibility gap he's facing there. "Do as I say, not as I did," is inherently a more difficult sell than "do as I did on the way to winning my championships." Think he'd have a good shot with a group of defensive players because they would already believe what he was preaching. Now with our guys....? Ron will listen. Then again Ron will listen to anything and anyone..for a while. Cisco + some of the other kids will. The vets...?

Your reasoning here is just off in my opinion. When Popovich became the head coach, what did he "flash" as his credentials? Becoming a top caliber team takes a combination of a coach who can motivate and has good people skills and a group of players who will recognize the fact that to win they need to be on the same page as the coach and willing to sacrifice to win. The young guys obviously will do whatever the coach wants as they establish themselves in the league. Artest wants to win. Bibby wants to win. Salmons wants to win. Reef wants to win. I'm guessing Miller wants to win but is he going to put the work in to do it. (get in shape)

 

[VF21]

Brad Miller IS in shape. He's been seen around town looking pretty fit and I've heard he's in the best shape he's been in for a long time.

 

[Bricklayer]

Your reasoning here is just off in my opinion. When Popovich became the head coach, what did he "flash" as his credentials?

a) the ability to fire anybody's *** who did not get with the program -- i.e. he was the GM

b) two HOF defensive superstud bigs who needed no motivation to dominate defensively

c) the ability to make you disappear if he did not like you with a single phone call.

 

[VF21]

Okay, you know you're not supposed to mention item c. Besides he doesn't look like a New Jersey thug any more. Those dermabrasion treatments really seemed to do the job.

 

[CruzDude]

With all due respect, do you know have the slightest clue what Reggie Theus accomplished as head coach of NMSU? Jumping on any new Kings player or coach before they have yet to step onto the floor to show what they can actually do is in a word - unfair.

Actually the dum word comes to mind about that. We all know nothing yet about Coach Reggie. Sure we know what kind of NBAer he was, offense and showtime, but what does that have to do with coaching? Not much.

Defense wins championships. Period. He knows it, the players know it, staff knows it. But getting players much less a team to actually do it for most of a game then for a week, a month and more, THAT is the tough part. But Coach Reggie did say effort and defense will get playing time. If Bibbs scores 22 a game but if his opponent blows by him all the time, or pulls up and also hits 22, its a wash. And we can't have that to get to the next level

 

[dude12]

I also believe that Theus' performance in college does mean something. He took an underachieving program and turned them into a solid program. That means something. It gives him some credibility. I'm sure that with Theus having played the NBA game and having success in college that the players are going to be open-minded about their new coach. How Theus structures the team and his personal relationships with the team is also dependent on the players wanting to improve as a team. It goes both ways. I'm confident that Theus will be competent and hopefully a keeper. If a guy like Thomas is going to be a reluctant part of the team (loss of playing time) then I'm sure that the organization will do the right thing. (dump the guy, stay home, injured reserve, etc) Because Theus was not a good pro defender has nothing to do with what type of team he wants on the court. Saying he has no credibility in that area(defense) is way out there.

 

[Kingster]

Yes, of course he named Mike (for a variety of reasons) but you act as though he's trying to make it personal between himself (Reggie) and Bibby and I strongly suspect it's nothing of the sort. The quote may sound much more confrontational than the entire comment Reggie might have made. My feeling about Theus as a coach is he will challenge his players - and I fully want him to do that - but he's not going to push too hard too soon. He's smarter than that.

Ok, now you're changing your tune. Now you're agreeing that it's not primarily the non-starters he's talking to. Fine. My point has nothing to do with personal animosity between Reggie and Bibby. My only point is that you're previous assertion that it was the non-starters he was talking to was dead wrong.

What's confusing to me is why you have to be a Theus apologist on something that doesn't even deserve an apology.

 

[Kingster]

Your reasoning here is just off in my opinion. When Popovich became the head coach, what did he "flash" as his credentials? Becoming a top caliber team takes a combination of a coach who can motivate and has good people skills and a group of players who will recognize the fact that to win they need to be on the same page as the coach and willing to sacrifice to win. The young guys obviously will do whatever the coach wants as they establish themselves in the league. Artest wants to win. Bibby wants to win. Salmons wants to win. Reef wants to win. I'm guessing Miller wants to win but is he going to put the work in to do it. (get in shape)

"Wanting to win" has virtually nothing to do with following what the coach wants you to do. Everybody wants to win in the NBA. That's not the question, at all. The question is: Do you want to pay the price?

 

[dude12]

"Wanting to win" has virtually nothing to do with following what the coach wants you to do. Everybody wants to win in the NBA. That's not the question, at all. The question is: Do you want to pay the price?

Agreed on wanting to pay the price but doesn't that go hand in hand with wanting to win? I would say at some point in the year during Musselman's short tenure, the players were playing out the string.....and I think it started early in the year.

 

[VF21]

Ok, now you're changing your tune. Now you're agreeing that it's not primarily the non-starters he's talking to. Fine. My point has nothing to do with personal animosity between Reggie and Bibby. My only point is that you're previous assertion that it was the non-starters he was talking to was dead wrong.

What's confusing to me is why you have to be a Theus apologist on something that doesn't even deserve an apology.

No, I haven't changed my tune. I might not have made myself clear - but I've felt all along the message was for EVERYONE, but that those most impacted would be the non-starters. Yes, he used Bibby as the prime example, because when you think "little defense" you automatically think Mike Bibby, but that doesn't mean I've changed my tune. Perhaps your comprehension is lacking?

 

[Oscar]

We had someone who is generally regarded as the greatest defensive basketball player of all time with 11 NBA championship rings yet he was an utter failure as Kings head coach - Bill Russell.

So what? Being a defensive-minded player doesn't automatically make you a good teacher. Either Russell was a poor communicator or his players didn't buy into what he was trying to sell. I have a feeling it was a little of both. Since he wasn't a good communicator, what he was trying to show his young team didn't register, and they just didn't get it.

Some of the best NBA coaches in history never played pro ball, yet they were successful: Red Auerbach, Dick Motta, [SIZE=-1]Gregg Popovich, etc. Being a former player doesn't guarantee anything.[/SIZE]

 

[Kingster]

Agreed on wanting to pay the price but doesn't that go hand in hand with wanting to win? I would say at some point in the year during Musselman's short tenure, the players were playing out the string.....and I think it started early in the year.

It might be just a question of semantics. To me, every player in the NBA is going to say he wants to win, and probably believes he wants to win, but that doesn't translate into going thru the proverbial brick wall for the coach. They may want to win, but there is a big but right after win: I want to win, but I want my minutes; I want to win but I want my shots; I want to win but I don't want to wear myself down playing D, etc., etc. To me, "paying the price" is going thru that brick wall, sacrificing for the team, doing what the coach wants without complaint, doing what they aren't comfortable doing (e.g. play D like your life depends on it) - everything that is the price necessary to win. Last year everybody "wanted" to win, but they sure didn't want to pay the price. This year we'll see if Theus is any better at getting them to pay the price than Musselman was.

 

[VF21]

Some of the best NBA coaches in history never played pro ball, yet they were successful: Red Auerbach, Dick Motta, [SIZE=-1]Gregg Popovich, etc. [/SIZE]

...Eric Musselman.

Oh ... wait. Never mind.

 

[PurpleHaze]

...Jerry Reynolds Well, at least he had a better Kings winning percentage than Bill Russell who he replaced as head coach.

 

[CruzDude]

Which only goes to prove that if YOU played defense it doesn't mean you can coach much less coach a mediocre team in offense and all round skills. Coach Reggies value, we all have to assume, is COACHING, building winning from a non-winning team. It means getting offensive guys to play defense even if they don't like to. Coaching is so much more than, well, on the floor teaching basketball plays and moves. It is marketing: finding the buyers of the product. It is selling: getting the buyers to sign on the dotted line (do it for the team on the floor). Etc, Etc.

 

[Kingster]

No, I haven't changed my tune. I might not have made myself clear - but I've felt all along the message was for EVERYONE, but that those most impacted would be the non-starters. Yes, he used Bibby as the prime example, because when you think "little defense" you automatically think Mike Bibby, but that doesn't mean I've changed my tune. Perhaps your comprehension is lacking?

It's nice to know that you feel that way, but you're feelings have nothing to do with Theus's statement, which didn't infer, imply, allude or remotely connect to "non-starters." The only reference to "non-starters" is in your own imagination.