Thought Experiment, Do you Keep George Karl If He Makes the Playoffs?

[VF21]

If we win, which is the very point of this thread, then I could care less about who's getting thrown under the bus and whatnot, and I'm pretty sure Cousins, if he's truly all about winning, won't care either...

I totally disagree. With Cousins, and with me, loyalty is important. Winning is important but not at any cost. So, in this regard, I'll just agree to disagree.

#GoKings

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Yeah, I don't think that "if we win" is any kind of way the point of this thread; I think that the point of this thread is a Kings Fans' referendum on George Karl.

 

[mac]

Yeah, I don't think that "if we win" is any kind of way the point of this thread; I think that the point of this thread is a Kings Fans' referendum on George Karl.

Then why bother with the qualifier "if we make the playoffs"? Why did Brick bother saying - if the defense holds, blablablabla? If the point was simply a referendum on Karl, why not just call it should we fire Karl?

 

[sdballer]

Then why bother with the qualifier "if we make the playoffs"? Why not just - should we fire Karl?

Ok-should we fire Karl? Yes

 

[mac]

I totally disagree. With Cousins, and with me, loyalty is important. Winning is important but not at any cost. So, in this regard, I'll just agree to disagree.

#GoKings

Fair enough, and that's a consistent logic that I can accept and respect. What I can't respect (or even make sense of) is to say winning is the most important, a winning culture is important, but even if we win it's not enough unless it's a championship and thus we must fire the coach at all costs.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Then why bother with the qualifier "if we make the playoffs"? Why did Brick bother saying - if the defense holds, blablablabla? If the point was simply a referendum on Karl, why not just call it should we fire Karl?

Because he's a lawyer, and he likes to equivocate.

 

[ParniValjak]

You'll have to first prove how Karl is the one "escalating" the toxicity other than your own interpretation that what he's emphasizing will not win games.

You're missing the point of this entire thread. This is not a "should we fire Karl after the season" thread. The ENTIRE premise is that this team makes the playoffs. Do you know how many games we would need to win to do so? Do you realise what sort of turnaround that implies? Drama and toxicity means absolutely nothing if at the end of the day the team is able to pull off that number of wins. All it goes to show is that you're more interested in having things done the way you want than the actual wins that the product on the court achieves. And that's the reason I seem to be defending Karl so much. I'm not defending Karl, I'm defending sound rationality. You have stated yourself that nothing short of a championship would convince you to keep Karl, because he's such a cancer. You're even willing to believe that these same players can turn things around so drastically IN SPITE of coaching. You're so damn sure that this team cannot win with Karl that in a thread about "What if the Kings win with Karl" you argue that the Kings can't win with Karl. And you accuse me of being the insecure one.

The question in this thread is pretty straight forward......Do you Keep George Karl If He Makes the Playoffs? My answer is No for the multitude of reasons I have given. If you don't like those reasons that is solely your problem. I am not interested in arguing semantics.

I think my answer to the question is pretty simple and the reasons are clearly spelled out. You might not agree with the interpretation of those so that's fine but there is a clear pattern of Karl pissing off his star players at EVERY stop he has been to. There is a clear pattern of outstaying his welcome at every spot he has been to and just how much of a ****wit one needs to be to get fired days after winning the Coach of the Year award. That to me speaks volumes.

 

[Blob]

Any one who thinks Karl is going to change should listen to his latest post practice interview (up on Cowbell Kingdom). Some highlights:

1. Our bad defense is because of bad offense, leading to transition points. Not so much a problem with 5 on 5.
2. That Acy may keep starting over WCS because we need better defensive intensity and young guys don't do as well starting.
3. That Ben could lose the spot again to Marco (as early as the second half of the next game).
4. That we don't want to slow down-we play best when "fast" and that the TO's aren't related to pace. That fixing TO's is most important issue

So basically, if we just keep doing what Karl does (but better).

I agree with all four points. Acy should be part of the rotation as long as it does not cut too much into Willie's minutes. Marco has looked better as a starter albeit still bad and Ben has done nothing to secure his job.

I am waiting for one fan to present a compelling argument how "IF WE JUST PLAYED SLOWED OUR PROBLEMS WOULD BE SOLVED!' Its non-sense. Play smart and fast. I am not defending Karl but there is rational or irrational criticism.

Do you know why we lead the NBA in pace? It's because we look for Rondo to throw the lead-ahead pass where Boogie runs to the rim and pins his man or Rudy will do this too when a guard matches up with him in the transition.

NO right-minded fan have a problem with this strategy. It's easy buckets!!! It takes advantage of Rondo as a brilliant passer and Boogie as a force in key before the D can set.

The turnovers that occur related to this quick strike is related to execution and decision-making and are NOT related to pace.

Rondo sometimes gets too risky and careless with long pass. Other players are guilty too to lesser degree. So (4) is a correct statement.

 

[Im Still Ballin]

You keep him regardless. HOFer. Legendary status.

 

[VF21]

MOD NOTE: Keep the personal insults/attacks out of your posts. Thanks.

 

[VF21]

You keep him regardless. HOFer. Legendary status.

Using your yardstick, we would have kept Bill Russell.

 

[Im Still Ballin]

Using your yardstick, we would have kept Bill Russell.

This post doesn't make sense

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You're the one who said we should keep Karl regardless, because "HOFer". @VF21 was just following your logic to its natural conclusion.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

You're the one who said we should keep Karl regardless, because "HOFer". @VF21 was just following your logic to its natural conclusion.

Now, now, Russell wasn't a HOF coach. That was the tongue-in-cheek clever extrapolation, not the natural conclusion.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

If we're really going there, Karl isn't a HOF coach, either.

 

[peacelate]

If we're really going there, Karl isn't a HOF coach, either.

Karl will be inducted into the HOF. No doubt about it. He has over 1100 wins.

 

[Bricklayer]

Karl will be inducted into the HOF. No doubt about it. He has over 1100 wins.

Will he? Likely. But its no lock. Adelman has 1042 wins, he's not a lock either, and he probably coached a more iconic team.

Irrelevant anyway. If he is going to get inducted you could easily say he WAS a HOF coach.

 

[swisshh]

George Karl is making sure we don't have to worry about this predicament.

 

[HereWeBoogie]

No. He's held us back from 8 to 10 wins alone this year. If they somehow did make the playoffs (which they wont) he should still hit the road. Disgusting misuse of this roster

 

[John Galt]

He might not last till the end of the season ... today's post game was crazy