I kind of agree with you. Give him one more season. It's a hard knock life! First....let's hope he gets healthy!
First, you said that is a significant difference. Yes. Loyalty. Second, it's quite stunning that someone would say Fitch didn't rebuild the Rockets. He inherited a 14-68 team. Won 29 games his first year here, then 48, then 51 and a Finals appearance in the third year of a "5-year plan". Did the expectations bar get raised too high, a crutch you use with Rudy from the 2000-2001 season? Of course. Did the team get injured, a crutch you use with Rudy? Uh, what do you call <b>losing your entire backcourt</b> to drugs? Those Rockets went from the Finals to out in the 2nd round to out in the first round? Uh, what do you call 1997-1999? Fitch? His fault. Rudy? Blameless. Yeah, Fitch drove that team to the ground. He made them so much worse. I realize your posts contain little in the logic department, but even I thought you'd have a better memory than this. But lets get right to the whole point: I didn't say Fitch didn't need to move on. I said because Rudy won a title <b>for</b> the Rockets (loyalty), he's still coaching this team. You shunned the loyalty argument and propped Rudy for the <b>current</b> job he is doing. You said if Fitch had won a title (check) and rebuilt the Rockets in to playoff contention (check), he wouldn't have been fired. You were wrong. Players win games and coaches have a marginal impact. Hakeem is most responsible for the Rockets' success. OK, I'll hold you to those two statements next time you turn on Rudy's teflon shield. Absolutely reasonable and a good answer to the question. But keep in mind that the final line makes it so that since Rudy won a title (with a completely different team) almost 10 years ago -- a title you just said that Hakeem Olajuwon is mostly responsible for -- he's pretty much blameless for today's output. Also, here are some other coaches with proven track records: K.C. Jones, Chuck Daly, Lenny Wilkens, Bill Fitch. However, that didn't keep Seattle, Orlando, Toronto and Houston from realizing they were the wrong coaches for their respective teams. Also note that if the coach is <i>not</i> responsible and the players <i>are</i> responsible, you dispute anyone who suggests roster changes in the Rockets as well. "Players win games. Coaches have a marginal impact." Really - you always say that? Wow, that was fast. Note though that all this to dodge the fact that your excuse was Rudy is blameless because Barkley and Dream were injured that season. He didn't win <i>with</i> them. In fact, the record with them that season was hideous. What again did their injuries have to do with it? I'm only being honest. As for the historical example in this thread -- it blew up in your face, or wasn't that obvious? Oh, and yes, we're all just bashers with unreasonable expectations. Possibly some people are tiffed because they've seen three straight seasons of ugly basketball enhanced by little to no improvement from their core players? Hell, you proclaimed 2 years ago that the Rockets were not rebuilding anymore but rather were <a href="http://bbs.clutchcity.net/php3/showthread.php?s=&postid=98035#post98035">already rebuilt</a>. Yes, please go on to tell us how at the time you had absolutely no idea a 38-year old, disgruntled, free agent-to-be center wasn't part of the Rockets rebuilding plan when you made that statement. I tell you what: Set a reasonable bar. Should the Rockets make the playoffs next season under Rudy? If they don't, what should happen? Actually I made those statements <i>because</i> they were contradictory. The fact that you agree with them is just plain funny. The second one is an excuse because we do <b>not</b> have talent. The third is an excuse because we <b>do</b> have talent. Yeah, I'm dealing with someone who wrote, "Rudy gets to stay as long as he wants. That's the reward for delivering championships. Maybe if he's 80 or something and still won't leave, we could think about [firing him]." What was I thinking calling it "blind loyalty". You are clearly the person to go to for a fair and balanced evaluation of our current coaching. I was <i>way</i> off. Loyalty is great, but there should be a limit. You were clearly wrong 2 years ago with Hakeem. You could be wrong here as well. I am not convinced Rudy is the wrong coach for this team. There are positives too with Rudy staying. However, I'm not going to say for sure he's the right one just because he won titles in the mid 90's with a completely different team in a completely different era.
As a Pro Rudy T person, I'll readily admit that there's a good chance he wouldn't be coach of the Rockets today if he hadn't won championships in 94 & 95 ... FOR the Rockets. But also, he won those championships with a dominant center. He's tried to change his coaching style with a dominant back court while the league instills zone defenses, which is very counter-productive to his offensive idea of spacing, drawing doubles and passing to the open man. And now that his team's been given another dominant center type, I personally think that's totally the wrong time to take Rudy out of the mix. Rudy can coach with a big man. Regardless of his history with the team, I think any team who wants to focus around the center should consider Rudy T as a leading candidate for head coach. Loyalty plays its part, no doubt. But Rudy T also has a history of success when you give him a dominant center. This team is more Rudy's style than any of the previous 4. Give him some shooters and some defenders. Take out the ball hogs who wave red capes at their opponents instead of playing defense. That's what I'd personally like to see.
i'm not sure about the relevance of dallas' offense and this thread, but... dallas' offense (condensed version): offense is predicated on 4 things: 1) drive and dish ability of steve nash/nick van exel nash's ability to get into the lane and either pull up, pull out, finish, or dish causes zone defenses to collapse. van exel, to a lesser degree, since he is more apt to pull up than to pass. still, it's an effective way of forcing zones to collapse 2) ability to set up early offenses nash's ability to get the ball upcourt, coupled with his teammates' willingness to get up the court quickly does not allow many zone defenses ample time to set up. this is why you see so many quick pull up 3s with the mavs. the zone is being set up, often times too low, and the "trailers" - who many times are big men like dirk or raef - are left with ample room to fire. as a side note, point #1 also applies here, because nash will often penetrate the forming zone early - once again causing it to collapse. as van exel, finley, wizard, etc. come up court, the top half of the zone is usually by the free throw line following "waterbug" nash. 3. ability to run fast breaks self explanatory 4. ability to run secondary fast breaks (aka: quick strike offense if, indeed, the fast breaks are stopped by the defense, the mavs are excellent at getting a quick strike (quick postup by dirk/finley) on the wings. why does dallas do this? imo, they do this because of 3 reasons: 1) they have the luxury of multiple great shooters, including a 7 footer that can handle the ball like a guard. 2) their players are intelligent enough to make good QUICK reads versus zone defenses. 3) they do not have a singularly dominant player that can be relied upon to go one-on-one to create good shots for himself or his teammates CONSISTENTLY. knowing this, don nelson devised a plan that is not particularly difficult...considering the natural skills of steve nash (which are substantial). individually, michael finley is only a slightly above average shooting guard. dirk is a stud with weaknesses (only a fair passer against set defenses). nash is an above average guard with streaky, freelance, not physically strong play. everyone else is a role player. however, these guys have a chemistry that is absolutely incredible to watch. sprinkle in the hustle guys (najera, etc.) and you have one of the best regular season teams in the nba. now, if they would try to play defense, they'd be a title contending juggernaut. that said, their sum>parts.
It may be stunning if I had said it. "I'm a builder, not a maintainer." If you're trying to say Fitch didn't deserve to be fired, I may have to agree. But you failed to address any possible behind-the-scenes issues w/team dissention, etc, and his relationship with his star players. You said the situation was the EXACT SAME, and it wasn't. And '97-'99 I call a team on the decline with its best players all past their prime. When did I say Fitch deserved to be fired? Is that part of the logic department, putting words into peoples' mouths? What makes you think I didn't remember anything you mentioned? Because I didn't give a complete rundown of the circumstances surrounding the firing of Bill Fitch, that means I don't remember every detail? Okay, whatever. No, I said that if Fitch had won championships for the Rockets, and then quickly rebuilt the Rockets, he wouldn't have been fired. If you want to call that loyalty, go ahead. It's pure speculation. Familiarity and stability are also other possibilities. Winning championships and then rebuilding the same team is completely different from having success in one place, getting fired there (Fitch seemed to get fired a lot...hmmm...maybe he was more of a 'builder'), then coming in and having success in another. Apparently I should have qualified my statement more. I obviously underestimated how much trying to show me up meant to you. I'll try to be more careful in the future. I was thinking weak and contradictory, and lacking logic. But suit yourself. One, I don't consider today's output to be bad. Also, I believe Chuck Daly resigned. Regardless, coaches get fired, yes. That's a fact. So? What kind of argument is that? Other good coaches have been fired, so Rudy should be too? I realize that teams make bad decisions ALL the time. Would that be an argument for trading a player? "Hey, good players get traded all the time." I don't know about 'blameless'. Just that the players are more to blame. I reject this. Perhaps your inclination to use your search function to dig up random old posts is a little too selective. Otherwise you would have found quotes of me saying I could live with moving anyone other than Rudy and/or Ming. You would find quotes of me saying before the Rockets won the lottery that I would trade Francis for the chance at Ming. What I worry about is impatience of fans after changes are made. The team just added a new center from another country, and made a trade during the season for another starter. Now everyone wants to make more moves without even having ONE training camp with those guys. So more trades are made this off-season, the team doesn't set the league on fire right away, and what do you think the reaction would be then? WEAK attempt at a gotcha. You said Rudy was RESPONSIBLE for the team going 2-11 with Barkley and Hakeem. I don't agree with that, but I said okay, if that is true, it would also mean that he was responsible for the team performing above their heads when those guys were hurt. Nice try, really. I don't know their record when they were 'healthy', other than the brief stretch you mentioned. You don't think injuries to Hakeem, holding him to 44 games, only 23 minutes a game when he did play, 10 pts/6 rebs, 46% from the field, all career lows, were a factor? That was the year he couldn't breathe, right? No, not obvious at all. How do you figure? Oh, that's right, because coaches get fired all the time. Who am I to argue with that logic. Ahh, a quote from 2 years ago, nice. I should try that. Oh wait... Your quest to catch me in a contradiction apparently knows no bounds. I'm sure you could find some juicier quotes if you went back, say, 4 years. I thought they were finished rebuilding at the time. I used to overrate Francis. I thought he was good enough to lead a team to a championship early on. I'm not sure at exactly what point I realized I WAS WRONG, but it was at the latest when I thought we should trade him for a shot at Ming. I don't understand this one. Do I not even get to see what the roster will be? I think if Francis is still around, and no injuries, yes they probably should (go ahead and bookmark this thread so you don't have to search for it next year, or, I don't know, in 5 years). If not, Francis might need to be moved. Those statements are not at all contradictory. Potential does not equal talent. The Rockets have a lot of the former, but not as much of the latter. What's contradictory about that? Yeah, that's just plain funny. Outright hilarious. Kinda like you're the person to go to for a fair and balanced evaluation of our current shooting guard... I believe that Rudy should leave on his own terms, true. That doesn't mean I can't make logical arguments as to why he shouldn't be fired. Pointing out that teams that have missed the playoffs for at least 4 years in a row have ALL made coaching changes during that time is a logical argument for keeping your coach. I also believed that Hakeem deserved to go out on his own terms. That didn't stop me from wanting him to retire after the '99 season. How was I "clearly wrong" for thinking Hakeem should be able to go out on his own terms? How could that opinion possibly be wrong? What's hilarious is that one of the arguments for getting rid of Hakeem was that we wouldn't be able to sign our own free agents: Moochie Norris, Mo Taylor, Matt Bullard, and Shandon Anderson. Now THAT is funny. I'm glad you're not going to say Rudy's the right coach just because he won championships. That's not what I'm saying in this thread either.
