Next Year: Hawes, Other Problems, and

[bajaden]

So the real question is, Is it the coach, or, is it the team. Or is it both. Would this particular team be any better with Sloan or Riley coaching it? How good would the Lakers be with Natt coaching them? Logic tells us that, Yes, this team would be better with either of those guys coaching it. And I doubt the Lakers would be as good with Natt coaching them.

Can Natt become as good a coach as Sloan or Riley or Jackson. Maybe, but I doubt it. Can he become good enough to be a decent to good coach in the NBA. Yeah, probably, with the right team in place. There are a lot of average type talent coaches in the NBA, who happen to be coaching a better than average roster.

So to my mind, here's the deal. If you give Natt one more year and thats it, do you think he'll have any more respect from the players than he did this last year. If you give him a three or four year contract, then your showing commitment to him. Then the players know that he has management behind him. Another words, your impowering him. Does anyone seriously want to give Natt a four year contract at this point? Does anyone really believe that he's the guy thats going to lead us to the top of the charts again?

I think that its not so much about Natt, as it is about the team. If Petrie and the powers that be, think that the team is ready to compete again after this next off season, then I think that Natt will be gone in favor of a a more established coach. If the opposite is true, then I won't be surprised to see Natt around for the option year. Lets face it. If Management still thinks that another year is necessary for the team to turn around, then Natt comes cheap, and who knows, the economy may have turned around by then.

The irony of the situation is, that while Natt is hopefully waiting for an improved roster for next year, his chances of returning could become dimmer with every improvement. Yeah, I know. It will all be decided before any of that happens.

 

[HighTopKicks]

But this is the thing, if we screw up again by getting the wrong time this time around it IS a bad thing. You daon't want a culture of being a revolving door when it comes to coaches. Its not a bad thing to fire a bad coach but it is a very bad thing if you keep picking them in the first place.

I just think that the next coaching choice has to be a proven coach with a winning record and a track record of developing players and taking their teams into the play offs. Another shot in the dark on an unknown is not what we should be doing this time around.

When you get a guy who has won in this league before, then you know you have a good thing. Then you show some patience because you know that he won't be winning much in his first couple of seasons but once the kids develop, you know you have a coach capable of doing something.

Our recent choices have been all about powerpoint presentations and flashy suits or in Natt's case recycled Jerry Sloan quotes. The next head coach needs to be legit if we are to be taken seriously.

Agree with having patience for a couple of seasons. And, having a track record of developing players.

But, unless your talking about stealing a coach from another team, getting a proven coach with a winning record means finding a guy who is currently unemployeed because he was fired. Fired because his last team didn't perform as expected. The only thing proven about that is that sometimes he FAILS.

There are no sure things. Every coaching choice is a gamble. If it were my money to gamble, I'd go with a coach who has worked his way out of the college ranks where he worked with young talent. And, I'd go with a coach who's been with winning franchises. And, I'd go with a coach who knows DEFENSE.

I'd go with Tom Thibodeau. Eight years coaching in college and 20 years coaching in the NBA. PROVEN.

 

[Bricklayer]

Huh?

You cannot tell what our defensive scheme is unless it depends upon letting the other team get so many open looks that we catch them down the stretch after they develop tendinitis in their shooting elbows.

 

[HighTopKicks]

So the real question is, Is it the coach, or, is it the team. Or is it both. Would this particular team be any better with Sloan or Riley coaching it? How good would the Lakers be with Natt coaching them? Logic tells us that, Yes, this team would be better with either of those guys coaching it. And I doubt the Lakers would be as good with Natt coaching them.

Can Natt become as good a coach as Sloan or Riley or Jackson. Maybe, but I doubt it. Can he become good enough to be a decent to good coach in the NBA. Yeah, probably, with the right team in place. There are a lot of average type talent coaches in the NBA, who happen to be coaching a better than average roster.

So to my mind, here's the deal. If you give Natt one more year and thats it, do you think he'll have any more respect from the players than he did this last year. If you give him a three or four year contract, then your showing commitment to him. Then the players know that he has management behind him. Another words, your impowering him. Does anyone seriously want to give Natt a four year contract at this point? Does anyone really believe that he's the guy thats going to lead us to the top of the charts again?

I think that its not so much about Natt, as it is about the team. If Petrie and the powers that be, think that the team is ready to compete again after this next off season, then I think that Natt will be gone in favor of a a more established coach. If the opposite is true, then I won't be surprised to see Natt around for the option year. Lets face it. If Management still thinks that another year is necessary for the team to turn around, then Natt comes cheap, and who knows, the economy may have turned around by then.

The irony of the situation is, that while Natt is hopefully waiting for an improved roster for next year, his chances of returning could become dimmer with every improvement. Yeah, I know. It will all be decided before any of that happens.

Impowerment! Exactly, no more lame duck coaches. This is a Players League. But, coaches gain control over the players by controlling PT. If the players know your gone in a few months, why listen to anything you say.

Whether or not Natt can coach is debateable. One thing is for sure. Natt was part of Theus' staff, and he should have known what all the problems were, Offensive sets, defensive sets, or personel. He played the same personel, until GP took them away, even though MM & Brad were part of the problem. He benched Beno, without having anyone who could run the offense any better. He did nothing to improve the defense unless you call switching on every pick until the other team gets the mismatch they wanted. And, his answer on every lose is that the team didn't put out effort.

If he had come out in the beginning, and worked all the rookies into the lineup. Spent time developing their defensive skills, and working the bigs into low post sets, he could have earned my respect. Instead, he decided that the problem was Theus, and he (Natt) could be more successful doing it his way. Well, he was wrong. And, blaming every lose on the players lack of energy & focus, convinces me he can't coach.

 

[hrdboild]

Impowerment! Exactly, no more lame duck coaches. This is a Players League. But, coaches gain control over the players by controlling PT. If the players know your gone in a few months, why listen to anything you say.

Whether or not Natt can coach is debateable. One thing is for sure. Natt was part of Theus' staff, and he should have known what all the problems were, Offensive sets, defensive sets, or personel. He played the same personel, until GP took them away, even though MM & Brad were part of the problem. He benched Beno, without having anyone who could run the offense any better. He did nothing to improve the defense unless you call switching on every pick until the other team gets the mismatch they wanted. And, his answer on every lose is that the team didn't put out effort.

If he had come out in the beginning, and worked all the rookies into the lineup. Spent time developing their defensive skills, and working the bigs into low post sets, he could have earned my respect. Instead, he decided that the problem was Theus, and he (Natt) could be more successful doing it his way. Well, he was wrong. And, blaming every lose on the players lack of energy & focus, convinces me he can't coach.

I agree with most of this, especially the last part. I had high hopes for Natt (well, relatively anyway) because of his association with Jerry Sloan. But ultimately, he hasn't shown that he has the skills to coach a professional basketball team. Maybe he's an excellent disciplinarian. Maybe he could earn respect from his players by holding them accountable for their effort level. But right now we have a lot of young players who need somebody to get them organized and show them how to defend the pick and roll properly and how to space the floor properly and Natt has had plenty of time already to show that he's the right guy for the job if that were the case.

I think Tom Thibodeau has earned himself a shot at the job if he wants it. It's clear by now that he can teach defense and I think that's probably at the top of the list for any potential coach coming into Sacramento right now. Obviously you can't expect the Kings to become the Boston Celtics overnight, it really does come down to the players. But I think a good coach can always get the best out of the players he does have which would be at least a big step out of the funk this team is currently in.

 

[Kingster]

I get a feeling from the players that they aren't to thrilled with Natt...if thats the case our next coach needs to be someone who is proven in the league as a respectable leader. No more risks, no more first timers.

I'd really like to know who the players would be thrilled with. Maybe someone that wouldn't make them play defense. We should look for a Paul Westhead maybe