If all the worst teams in the league have a revolving door of coaches...2 in 4 yrs if not 4, then MManals point means nothing. Revolving door coaching achieves nothing....just like it achieves nothing in college ranks. Just ask UCLA after Wooden. very simple. Further, GS's previous coach underachieved and Mussleman merely has the team back to where they should be. So, that's right, Musselman had no impact on getting the team to where they were *already* supposed to be the previous year, any more than Rudy had impact on the big turnaround in SF's second year. Ask any GS fan whether they are happy with 11th seed and sub500...yet again. Further, Carlisle has to be fielding the worst offense in the NBA playoffs, and he is reigning COY. Dunleavy got COY and fired. Del Harris got COY and fired.
HeyP How is making the first coaching change in over ten years equate to a "revolving door" coaching?
none of the teams mentioned by MManal have made only *one* coaching change. They have all done revolving door. The common denominator is that their players suck, or their owners suck, or their top mgmt sucks. One of them is bound to have a "break out" GS-type year given enough time and enough coaching changes, and it will inevitable be cited that it was the coaching change that did it. really Yeah, GS at sub500 and 11th seed was more of an accomplishment than what Rudy did 2yrs ago. If that was a fresh coaching change, that coach would have been praised like Musselman. Further, if Jamison gets injured next year, then they go sub500 again 2yrs from now, we are all going to remember this fantastic job Musselman did, I guess.
You have to find the right coach for the job - that is not easy to do, without a doubt. I would never take a coaching change lightly. But your "very simple" solution has Garry St. Jean or Brian Winters continuing to coach the Warriors. Sounds more like "very dumb". Please explain how the 2000-2001 Golden State Warriors were a 38-win team. Also please explain how a coach comes in, takes an underachieving team and gets them to play at the level of "where they should be", and this is having "no impact". I mean, you can't be any more wrong: <LI> <a href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/sports/5364469.htm">Warriors' die-hards see relief</a> <LI> <a href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/2003/03/07/sports/5338322.htm">Warriors' success is earning respect</a> <LI> <a href="http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/cs-0303060190mar06,0,7703322.column?coll=cs-bulls-navigation">A Golden Statement</a> And Don Chaney was coach of the year before being fired for... Rudy Tomjanovich. I can only imagine how livid you and TheFreak were at the time of this firing.
HP as usual proved nothing except that he talks out of his a*s. I dont have the patience any longer to respond to his irresponsible and stupid drivel. Maybe HP should stick to trying to watch tape and over hear the coaches making play calls instead of trying to evaulate talent, coaches, etc. Anyone with half a brain can see that a team like Golden State doesnt go from absolute **** to 38 wins by just magic. Musselman has done a very good job getting the Warriors to play more as a team and meshing the talents together. He has been essential to their HUGE improvement this season, and as Clutch pointed out, the league is noticing this with his second place coach of the year voting.
Of all those teams, how many had or have the same head coach? Some teams are bad because the players are bad. Some teams are bad because the coach sux. Where does the Rockets fall?
Just like Detroit goes from the lotto to a 4th seed to the number 1 seed since the 2 yrs Carisle was there. Coaches need players and players need coaching. Anyone remember how bad Sac was before Adelman? They made the playoffs like 1 time under St Jean, had a all star in Mitch Richmond also. They fire St Jean, who for some reason got promoted in gs,brought in webber,drafted peja and j will and put it together with Adelman. That team went from 41 wins to 50plus going on its 4th straight season. So anyone that says coaching has nothing to do with it, ask NO,Sac,GS, and even Milw.
All of the teams made coaching changes, and all of the teams are still in the lottery. How exactly does that 'torpedo' anything other than the idea that a coaching change is meaningful?
If not for a back injury, Daughtery might be headed for the Hall of fame.10000 pts 5000 rebs and 2000 asst in 500 games is pretty good. If you compare those to Hakeem,Robinson and Ewwing numbers in the same 500 games, he's right there. For some reason, that franchise has a curse hanging over it. Every team besides La and Hou would love to have a 19 pts 9.5rebs and 3.7 asst per game.
well, Cowens was the scapegoat, and the highly questionable firing the precipitated the collapse last year. More patience with Cowens dealing with a pouty Blaylock and a disgruntled Marc Jackson was not "very dumb." Keeping Cowens at 11-17 <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/nba/warriors/2001-12-15-cowens.htm">after a strong start</a> after a tough Dec schedule would not nave been "very dumb," it was based on the same impatience that could have got Musselman fired for his poor 9-18 start, had that not made St Jean's look like an idiot. Further, I didn't suggest a "solution," I said revolving door coaching changes looks pretty dumb when all the lottery teams except the Rockets use that strategy, and the only one that showed improvement is on their 4th change since Jamison has been there. Didn't say they should be 38 wins last year. I said they underachieved and many people, especially fans, expected 30 or so wins last year, and had that happened like it many predicted, then 38 wins this year is just about where they should be. You're right. I'm wrong about "no impact." They definitely had chemistry problems the year before with Marc Jackson, Blaylock and the scapegoat firing of Cowens, and the no defense that usually accompanies that stuff. Musselman fixed the chemistry and effort problems. But that is not a problem for Rudy. Righting chemistry problems and getting people to play defense is really all about getting them to play like the should have all along. I do not consider GS overachieving. They had a good run, got noticed by opponents, and are looking like a sub500 team still, closing out the season at 8-14. Compare this to Rudy actually having the Rockets overachieving 2 yrs ago, and 45 wins is a significant amt more than 38. Maybe I didn't make it more clearly in this thread, but I've said it many times in other threads. I want to see GS fans who are satisfied with sub500 and 11th in Jamison's 5th season, and I specifically mean those on this bbs, like Swopa. Those guys would say that GS has been underachieving or injured, and 38 wins is about where'd they expect this team in Jamison's 5th yr. Relieved, but not shocked as much as Rox winning 45 2 yrs ago. here's more 2001-2002 predictions: <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/features/2001/si_preview/warriors/">CNNSI 2001-2002: The Warriors could even factor in the playoff race if everything breaks right</a> <a href="http://www.nba.com/preview2001/preview2001_gsw.html">NBA.com 2001-02 Preview: potential to make significant improvement </a> <a href="http://128.32.250.15/~alou/dkwpre.html">Fan site predicting 34 wins, "Lets just pray that the season will be better than that"</a> "VERY talented" and playoff bound in the East. <a href=""> Chicago Tribune: "This is the team the Bulls were supposed to be."</a> Bulls fans think they are underachieving like GS fans did before. <a href="http://sportsgeekmagazine.com/PageNext.asp?ID=172&PgNum=3&PgCount=4&Name=Jamie+Berger&Title=NBA+2000%2D2001%3A+Notes%2C+Preview%2C+and+Predictions+Part+2%3A+The+Mighty+West">SportsGeekMagazine predicting 39 wins for 2001-2002</a> based on talent and too many injuries year before <a href="http://archive.basketballnews.com/content/archives2001/nba_2001/teampage_gsw.asp">Basketballnews 2002: Optimism tempered because it was bright the yr before</a> Statements like this are meaningless and meant to mock people. That's fine, if you'll accept mocking back. I've said many, many times that firings when widespread dissension is occuring or when the superstar is not meshing with the coach are the most legitimate reason to fire coaches. Chaney got fired for that reason. Cowens got fired for that reason. Firing Rudy would not be for that reason. Nor would firing Rudy be for underachieving anywhere close to Golden State. Rudy would be a scapegoat firing as an excuse for Francis's apologist. That's my opinion.
Here's another eye-popper that shows how GS was expecting to do what they did. <b><a href="http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/cctimes/sports/5364469.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp">From Rick Barry</a></b> <blockquote><hr>To Barry, the main reason for the Warriors' turnaround is simple. "The talent," Barry said, pointing to young players such as Gilbert Arenas, Troy Murphy and Jason Richardson, all in their second NBA seasons. "It's a matter of having some skilled players who have great attitudes. These guys don't quit. "<b>I'm not surprised. Why do you think I wanted to be the coach? This was so obvious it was ridiculous. There's no way in the world this team shouldn't be doing well.</b>"<hr></blockquote> Golden State turnaround "was so obvious it was ridiculous." Now, find someone like Rick Barry who thought the Rockets should have won 45 games 2 yrs ago or made higher than 8th seed this year that it "was so obvious it was ridiculous."
I'm sure Rick Barry isn't biased towards the Warriors. What is he supposed to say, "Yeah, I think drafting Richardson and Murphy were two of our worst mistakes in franchise history before this season." What amazes me even more is people who want to give Rudy the credit for winning forty five games, but criticize Steve for not having made the playoffs. Its either or.
Yeah, and uhh, I'm sure all GS fans are biased as well. The point I made was was that ask a GS fan (like Rick Barry) whether they think the previous 2 yrs was marred in injury and underachievement. That's exactly what Rick Barry said. If you look at "unbiased" analysts, then you have to recognize also that no one had the Rox winning 45 games 2yrs ago, and hardly anyone had the Rockets making the playoffs this year. I give credit to the 45 wins mainly to Hakeem, and second to Rudy for getting the chemistry to work once Hakeem came around, Francis/Mobles/Shandon/Mo started playing well together with Kenny and Walt as good bench players. Francis didn't really deserve criticism for us not making the playoffs in his 2nd yr. Hakeem deserved more criticism for the pouty start, and deserved more praise for strong playoff drive. Now, Francis's 4th yr is a different story. At this point, the whole team considered him the undisputed leader. What amazes me is Francis apologist who say all we need is a new coach and a PG to hide SF's weaknesses, yet, blame Rudy for not getting Yao more involved, to the point we want Rudy fired. If you choose not to take a holistic approach that there were multiple reasons why we were inconsistent, then from an "either/or" knee-jerk perspective, it's either Francis had weaknesses in not getting Yao involved, or Rudy did.
The approach I take is there are a lot of problems on this team, but there is one change you can make today. If you change players, you are rebuilding. The fans are tired of rebuilding. Rudy has not proven he can coach any other way. Its not just system, its dicipline on the court as well. Its just time to move on. He can't coach young talent. If your point is Hakeem played well down the stretch during 01' then you are shooting yourself in the foot. Hello, Rudy did well with Hakeem. He hasn't proved he can coach without him. This team has declined since that magical 01' run toward the playoffs. And if the team is declining, you look at coach first. And BTW, I'm fine with Steve playing the one. He's one of the best in the league. I wonder why he did so well playing like a true point in the All Star game. Maybe its because he was playing with player who weren't stuck in cement. Rudy's system, pass ball into post, one player cut, the other's just stand around. Just don't stand to close to each other. Are you claiming that's the stuff of genius. Do you really think this team can't be better offensively.
Did you miss the Musselman and Carlisle examples? In the case of Musselman, they're still in the lottery, but in his first season he has gotten his team going in the right direction with a huge improvement. A coaching change does not automatically flip the switch from 8-win team to title contender - franchises want to see the team headed in the right direction. As your example proved to backfire on you, none of the coaches have had their team in the lottery as long as Rudy did. If Musselman is still in the lottery in his fourth season, he'll be canned (actually, he probably won't see a fourth season if that's the case). If Rudy was Don Chaney, Bill Fitch or Tom Nissalke, doing the exact same job, he would have been fired. How many coaches are responsible for their team being in the lottery 4-straight seasons? Only Rudy, because only Rudy could have that opportunity. As long as we have an understanding. Francis and Mobley are big parts of the problem. Their game has to change in some ways. But if Rudy T says pass, and Francis does not pass, is this 100% Francis' fault? Sure, the first, second or maybe even 100th time it happens, it is... but after that? Shouldn't the players be doing what the coach draws up and says? If that player is not an extension of what the coach draws up on the floor, shouldn't the coach be making serious adjustments? Does Francis feel there is any punishment for disobeying? Is he comfortable with the status-quo? Like the system or not, the team's play is a reflection on the coach. If the coach is Teflon as far as sticking problems in team play on someone, then I'll ask what I've asked apologists such as yourself several times before: What is the responsiblity of a coach? That is, other than to hand-pick the roster of these players that you're saying are not doing what the coach says... as Rudy T has pretty much done. For the record, I am not 100% for bumping Rudy up, but I can see a strong argument for it. Without a doubt though, I am for making changes to the roster of this team.
Yeah, I can't deny that I come off as an Rudy apologist. But I think I agree with you on this more than it might appear on the surface when I'm challenging people to describe their "solutions." I am very conflicted right now on what the solution is. I am not totally against a coaching change, but I am very conservative about it. I am not totally against trading our only trade assets (Mobley/Griffin) but I'm not confident in saying whether to trade for frontcourt and defense or the backcourt solutions people talk about. I am very conservative with trading these last assets. To answer your question...the coaches responsibility is obviously to get the team to run his system. Right now that must begin with getting a vet in here who he can go to if he needs to sit Francis and/or Mobley down as negative reinforcement. At the same time, if we need to make a coaching change, I don't want to trade Mobley and Griffin right now. I want the next coach to make that decision. It is true that NBA coaches are strapped in their ability to make roster changes in any era...versus college coaches There is something to say that since Rudy strapped himself by leaving himself with no backup guards (Moochie is worthless and Maddox seems like trouble), then Rudy should *not* be the one to decide which way to go to solve that problem. Unless it is a no-brainer trade, make Rudy win with what he's got (with only MLE type additions), and let the next coach trade Mobley/Griffin. I mean that in a way that says...until Rudy gets this team running his system (I give Rudy more credit for actually having one), don't let Rudy trade away your only trade assets. He got himself here, and he has to pull himself out. It shouldn't be that hard to get a vet PG, move SF to 2, and Mobley to the bench...to see whether or not Rudy can get them to run a system consistently.
If Don Chaney, Bill Fitch, or Tom Nissalke had won championships and had their rebuilt team in playoff contention so quickly, no, they would not have been fired. The team is already headed in the right direction, unless people think Yao Ming was a bad acquisition. You gave two examples of coaching changes that may have made a difference (not sure Musselman is responsible for Troy Murphy's improvement, or Arenas', etc), when there are many more examples to the contrary. How is he 'responsible' for them being in the lottery 4 straight seasons? Is he responsible for Hakeem and Barkley getting injured in '00? Is he responsible for all the injuries last year?
TheFreak -- For starters, you admit Rudy is still here because of the championships. Good for you. That's the first step. Secondly, Bill Fitch <i>was</i> a championship coach. Bill Fitch <i>did</i> turn around the Rockets very quickly, taking the Rockets to the Finals in Hakeem's second season. Bill Fitch was <i>fired</i> a couple of seasons later. The only difference between Fitch's championship Celtics and Rudy's championship Rockets is Rudy coached to a title <i>for</i> this city, otherwise it is the exact same because both are completely different teams than the one Fitch coached in 1988 and the one Rudy is coaching now. Which leaves "loyalty". Third, how incredibly hypocritical of you to half-discredit Musselman because Arenas and Murphy improved (never mind that Musselman started these guys from the get-go), yet you don't seem to apply the same in propping up Rudy's championship coaching. Hakeem Olajuwon man, H-a-k-e-e-m O-l-a-j-u-w-o-n. How can you consider Rudy Tomjanovich responsibility-free? It's mind-boggling, and brings me to what I asked before: <b>What is a head coach responsible for?</b> I agree with the notion that they get more credit than they deserve when they win, and more criticism than they deserve when they lose, but at what point are they really to be held responsible for anything? <b>To answer your questions:</b> Is Rudy T. responsible for "Hakeem and Barkley getting injured in '00"? No. Is he responsible for the team going 2-11 that season when they were healthy? Yes. Is Rudy T. responsible "for all the injuries last year"? No. Is he given credit by you for "improving" the team from last year, despite everyone being healthy and adding an impact center with a #1 pick? Yes. In all seriousness TheFreak, among posters who at a minimum pretend to use logic, your arguments are consistently the weakest and most contradictory that I see in the Rockets forum today. I don't just mean in this thread, but just about all of them. These days the only common theme to your thoughts is: "Houston fans are ungrateful morons", which traces back to bashing fan support, managing expectations, should have signed Hakeem to another 3-year deal but we chased him off, the Oilers/Titans fiasco ... really anything. <i>"The Rockets should have won more games? Moron! You did not set the bar low enough!" "Rudy should be fired you say? Moron! Rudy is not at fault because this team is not talented!" "Make a trade you say? Moron! We don't need a trade because this team is talented, just young!"</i> Teflon. I can appreciate your loyalty, but some of us are grateful to Rudy T for what he has done, but not willing to ignore <i>all</i> faults as a result, and may be open to the possibility that, given logic over blind loyalty, he just may not be the right coach for this team. Or at a very minimum, some of us feel some type of change is in order.
