Marc Stein: Big Don Nelson to the Kings?

[PixelPusher]

Don Nelson as the next Kings head coach.

Mere text on a screen cannot properly convey my feelings on this subject. Clicking on the following links will help to explain my reaction.


my first reaction...


my second reaction...


...after some careful reflection, my final reaction

 

[BigSong]

it's funny, the moment I saw the pic of Don, I was thinking ...hellllll no!

 

[PixelPusher]

Ok, I've gone over this whole Don Nelson as our coach thing in my mind once again, and I once again must conclude...



My FINAL Conclusion

 

[ParniValjak]

Oh dear god no. Pleeeeease re-sign Rick Adelman.

I doubt Adelman would want to stay here anyway.

Adelman is gone because he wants to be and there really is no one else that is a quality replacement.

Having said that, I still say NO to Nelson!!!!!!

 

[KingsRNumba1]

lol everyone bashing nelson

 

[Bricklayer]

lol everyone bashing nelson

Yeah, that can be taken too far.

2nd winningest coach of all time.
1148-858 .572 win%
Coach of the year 2 or 3 times.
13 50+ win seasons.

But here comes the problem:
70-85 .451 win% in the playoffs.
+zero finals appearances


He's a good coach, but he's never won, and isn't about to start now. The very things which make him so unorthodox and "fun" also dictate he is destined to never be really taken seriously. He sees the game "small" and "offensive", whereas the teams that win see it "big" and "defensive". You can take Don and have a good shot to be a midlevel playoff team that scores a lot of points. But if your goals are more than that, if you are serious about being a contender, then he is not the guy. Rick's come considerably closer with better %s across the board.

 

[playmaker0017]

He sees the game "small" and "offensive", whereas the teams that win see it "big" and "defensive". You can take Don and have a good shot to be a midlevel playoff team that scores a lot of points. But if your goals are more than that, if you are serious about being a contender, then he is not the guy. Rick's come considerably closer with better %s across the board.

Rick Adleman = Don Nelson, yeah?

I mean, neither preach defense. Both see the game "small" and "offensive".

Granted, Adleman has won in the playoffs and done well ... but I still think this team NEEDS a defensive coach. Offensively, we have enough talent that a wet sock could probably coach us to near 100PPG production. We need to be forced to play defense, in my opinion.

 

[Bricklayer]

Rick Adleman = Don Nelson, yeah?

I mean, neither preach defense. Both see the game "small" and "offensive".

Granted, Adleman has won in the playoffs and done well ... but I still think this team NEEDS a defensive coach. Offensively, we have enough talent that a wet sock could probably coach us to near 100PPG production. We need to be forced to play defense, in my opinion.

Rick seeing the game small is a relatively recent development. This is the man who coached an almost-dynasty headed by a revolutionary set of big men. He's the coach of not only Vlade and Webb, but also Buck Williams and Duckworth. Nor has he been anti-defensive to the degree Nelson has been these last 20 years. Its been three years since we were quite possibly the best defensive team in the league. And those differences have shown up in how he has done in the playoffs. The East was pathetic in 2002. He has basically coached teams to three Finals.

 

[Ryle]

I'm not a fan of Adelman but I'm even less of a fan of Nelson. No thanks.

 

[playmaker0017]

Rick seeing the game small is a relatively recent development.

That may be true, I can't say I've seen and analyzed Rick enough to make a legit statement to the contrary.

This is the man who coached an almost-dynasty headed by a revolutionary set of big men.

My issue is that it seems, to a casual observer turned avid watcher, that he seems to think we still have this revolutionary set of big-men.

I'd be less on-the-fence about Adleman - if I saw some offenses where big men acted like big men and the guards acted like guards.

 

[nbrans]

I'd be less on-the-fence about Adleman - if I saw some offenses where big men acted like big men and the guards acted like guards.

In the Princeton/Triangle offenses it doesn't matter who is playing where. Look at the mid-90s Bulls, Pippen and Jordan operated from the post and the elbows, Longley/Cartwright hung out on the perimeter waiting for jump shots and Grant/Rodman hung out on the perimeter waiting to crash the boards. You play the matchups and skills, not "traditional" roles. The Kings are idaelly suited to have guards in the post and their bigs outside -- just because it's untraditional doesn't mean it doesn't work.

 

[playmaker0017]

In the Princeton/Triangle offenses it doesn't matter who is playing where. Look at the mid-90s Bulls, Pippen and Jordan operated from the post and the elbows, Longley/Cartwright hung out on the perimeter waiting for jump shots and Grant/Rodman hung out on the perimeter waiting to crash the boards.

The Triangle is NOT the Princeton. In fact, they bear little resemblance.

Bonzi/Artest are NOT MJ/Pippen and Reef/Miller are not rebounders like Rodman.

You play the matchups and skills, not "traditional" roles. The Kings are idaelly suited to have guards in the post and their bigs outside -- just because it's untraditional doesn't mean it doesn't work.

It hasn't worked all that efficiently. We won our last game out of sheer luck and defense - not posting our guards. Our guards were a combined 10-35, I fail to see how that was "working".

Not that I think we could have done much different. Reef was hurt and thus not in the same class as Camby inside, Thomas isn't much of a post option. But, I think this is going to become more permanent than not.

Bonzi is a better garbageman than a guy that should be set up in the offense repeatedly. Artest is a guy that you should post up, but should also let him work outside and bulling his way in. It's their game.

I prefer the shots being taken to our jumpshot-a-lot-us from before, but not extremely so.

 

[Bricklayer]

That may be true, I can't say I've seen and analyzed Rick enough to make a legit statement to the contrary.



My issue is that it seems, to a casual observer turned avid watcher, that he seems to think we still have this revolutionary set of big-men.

I'd be less on-the-fence about Adleman - if I saw some offenses where big men acted like big men and the guards acted like guards.

You continue to pummel what has been THE single most productive offense in the league for the past 7 years. No "traditional" offense has been able to touch it, unless you count the chuck and duck style of the Mavs. The Princeton has its significant limitations, but the basic positional flipflop is brilliant if you have people with the talent to run it --opposing bigs aren't used to being on the perimeter and opposing guards aren't used to being in the post.

And posting guards are not a normal part of the Princeton -- picks and cuts are. But posting guards and SFs is playing to our greatest strengths right now, as well as the strengths of those players. The question is what to do with the bigs. Its not so much the Princeton dictating perimeter play from the bigs now as it is the games of the smalls (Bonzi/Artest). Its not about changing a defunct system, its about finding players who's games do not conflict. Brad is in his most comfortable spot standing at the elbow. He'll be fine. But nobody else up front really wants to be out there. KT can be, but its just to clear him out of the way more than anything else. Reef, Corliss, and Skinner would all rather be down low. A problem.

 

[nbrans]

The Triangle is NOT the Princeton. In fact, they bear little resemblance.

Bonzi/Artest are NOT MJ/Pippen and Reef/Miller are not rebounders like Rodman.



It hasn't worked all that efficiently. We won our last game out of sheer luck and defense - not posting our guards. Our guards were a combined 10-35, I fail to see how that was "working".

Not that I think we could have done much different. Reef was hurt and thus not in the same class as Camby inside, Thomas isn't much of a post option. But, I think this is going to become more permanent than not.

Bonzi is a better garbageman than a guy that should be set up in the offense repeatedly. Artest is a guy that you should post up, but should also let him work outside and bulling his way in. It's their game.

I prefer the shots being taken to our jumpshot-a-lot-us from before, but not extremely so.

The Princeton is just a variation of the "triangle" offense. The classic triangle emphasizes post play a bit more, the Princeton variation emphasizes high post play to open up space for cutters. Now that the Kings have players who can actually operate out of the post you'll actually see more triangle-esque features than Princeton.

And no, the Kings don't have rebounders like Rodman, Grant etc., which is why there have been a million Chandler trade threads -- he'd be a perfect fit.

Give the offense some time. It was Artest's third game and Bonzi's first back, and the Kings still looked polished offensively running the offense through Artest. Just wait until he gets comfortable with the players and knows where their spots are. And it's not like the entire offense is going to consist of feeding Artest in the post, you'll only see it when the matchups favor it. That's yet another beauty of the offense, you play the matchups.

 

[playmaker0017]

You continue to pummel what has been THE single most productive offense in the league for the past 7 years.

Part of me wonders if it was so productive in spite of itself rather than because of itself.

It had one of the most talented, perfectly blended cast of characters to run it.

We don't have that personnell anymore, as you mentioned.

No offense is perfect for every blend of characters, otherwise there would be one offense in the entire league with minor nuances. In my opinion, the offense that fits this team better than the Princeton is a more traditional approach, not that the traditional approach is more or less effective than the Princeton. I just think it is the right offense for this team.

We've got a productive low post player in Reef.
We've got a perfect garbage man in Bonzi.
We've got a perfect long range talent in Bibby.
We've got an all-around talent in Artest.
We've got a good passing, great open look center in Miller.

Outside of Miller and to a smaller extent Bonzi (since he's more comfortable 15 feet in than 15 feet out), we are a traditional team, in my opinion. Everyone plays their role close to the traditional equivalent:

PF (Reef) - Inside presence. High percentage shots. Works well until doubled, must be able to pass out. Fits Reef pretty well.
SG (Bonzi) - Able to pass well, dribble well, penetrate at will and hit long range shots with consistancy. Doesn't really describe Bonzi, but I think Bonzi CAN hit the deeper shots and DOES pass well. He just prefers closer shots.
PG (Bibby) - Able to pass well, dribble expertly. Needs to be able to set up teammates by breaking down defenses and hit open cutters after picks. Needs to be able to hit the outside shot to keep teams honest. Bibby does all that, when he wants to.
SF (Artest) - Jack of all trades. Needs to be able to take it to the basket, hit medium range shots and occationally deeper. Needs to be able to move well without the ball. Artest to the letter.
C (Miller) - Need to be able to get offensive position for rebounding purposes. Muscle out opponents and set strong picks. Good footwork and ability to play well with back to the basket. Okay - so it's the opposite of Brad Miller, but I don't think that hurts us. I think it can be a blessing since Bonzi plays more like our C than our SG. Keeps the lane a little more clean.

This is just the way I see it. I don't think the Princeton is BAD. I just think it's bad for this team.

 

[nbrans]

Not many of the current Kings can create their own shot, but the offense generates shots for people. The offense isn't broke, why try to fix it?

 

[playmaker0017]

Not many of the current Kings can create their own shot, but the offense generates shots for people. The offense isn't broke, why try to fix it?

Not many can create their own shot?

Bibby - yes.
Reef - yes.
Artest - yes.
Bonzi - sometimes.
Miller - no.

 

[nbrans]

Not many can create their own shot?

Bibby - yes.
Reef - yes.
Artest - yes.
Bonzi - sometimes.
Miller - no.

Bibby is most effective creating his own shot coming off of high-post screens. Having Brad in the high post maximizes both of their games -- Bibby comes off of Brad's screens for jump shots, Brad can utilize his outside shooting. Shareef can be utilized inside and outside. Artest can be utilized inside and outside.

Why constrain all of these players to one offensive role just because it's "traditional." You really haven't explained how any of these players would be better in a different system.

 

[Sum182]

Oh dear god no. Pleeeeease re-sign Rick Adelman.

What r u saying?

Adelman is not a good coach. If he were good we would be winning.

Do you remember what Charles Barkley said about the Kings being on top of the pacific division? This team has the talent, its the coach.

Im not a fan of Nelson, but any coach is better than Rick Adelman, now.

 

[Bricklayer]

Adelman is not a good coach. If he were good we would be winning.

Well, I mean obviously. Especially if Charles Barkley said so.

 

[nbrans]

What r u saying?

Adelman is not a good coach. If he were good we would be winning.

Do you remember what Charles Barkley said about the Kings being on top of the pacific division? This team has the talent, its the coach.

Im not a fan of Nelson, but any coach is better than Rick Adelman, now.

Right. If Charles Barkley says it it MUST be true.