Okay...this post is a distinct effort from me to move on, to accept that arguably the best coach in the game could have been ours and isn't, while we are left with two guys, the best of whom, IMO, was rejected for the (ugh.) Cleveland Cavaliers job. Sorry for that depressing thought, this is about making the best of what we're left with. Only other qualifier I would add is this; I keep hearing rumours that Doc Rivers just might become available...just thought I'd throw that out there... Okay, here are the team upsides and downsides if we hire Van Gundy vs. if we hire Dunleavy. Jeff Van Gundy Upside: The team should immediately have an established identity, something which has been noticably lacking the last few years. Van Gundy may adapt his style of play to suit the Rockets, but his demands should remain the same, and they will hit some of our players a little hard. JVG does not suffer lack of effort or commitment easily, and players will be accountable, plain and simple. Jeff Van Gundy understands defense, and the players will be given assignments that they can fulfill, and should be able to grasp. There may be some friction, as he will almost certainly emphasize this aspect over the more immediately gratifying offensive side of basketball, and for the newer generation of the game their identities as players are usually assosciated with offense first. That said, however, under JVG it will happen. Van Gundy has also said that he would clearly emphasize Yao in the Rockets' offense ( who hasn't?) and if that proves to be the case it will translate into an almost automatic clarity of roles, as basketball is simplist and most effective in it's simplicity when it works from the inside out. Other kinds of offense require a greater understanding of the game than most of our pemineter players have demonstrated thus far in their careers, and as such were usually reduced to improvisational plays. Downside: JVG has yet to demonstrate a number of the aspects that will be required for this team to really make progress. He has yet to run an effective offense that wasn't mostly predicated on defensive forced opportunities, he has yet to incorporate a big man into an offense, let alone as the focus of an offense, as he reportedly would intend to do with the Rockets, and he has yet to really develop positive relationships with younger players. All these are needed for a Rockets' coach, IMO, and they are all serious questions about Van Gundy. That said, it should be noted that he has never been given the opportunity to do any of these to any real extent either, and it could easily be argued that the system he ran in New York was simply the best system for those players, on not a reflection of his limitations. However, it would have to be assumed that this would at least be a work in progress, and as such likely to breed some uncertainty. IF the system doesn't meet with player approval AND it is initially not effective, it could lead to an overall loss of his authority, as most recognize he is or will be trying to do something he hasn't done before, whether or not that's his fault aside. There certainly won't be the lovey dovey atmosphere that Rudy stimulated, and that is good in tems of accountability as mentioned above, but it will also be the first time many of these players will not have that security, and it is as easy to suggest that that will have negative effects on their perfromance as the mosr obvious positive ones. Mike Dunleavy Upside: As much as I have criticized him for his lack of identity, there is something to be said for being phlegmatic as a coach; it tends to mean that you aren't hoplessly comitted to a system, and are as such capable of adapting as the need arises. Dunleavy has shown something of an ability to adapt, and his experience with different types of teams would prove an undoubted asset when trying to find a mix that workd with this mixed lot of players...something it should be noted that JVG has never done. While he has lost teams in the past, he has also , it can be assumed, learned something from each experience, and it could be argued that if he kept the Trail Blazers from exploding for any period of time, he should have no probelm with this lot. We have our problems, but it should be day care compared with the Jail Blazers. He has tended to emphasize a more up tempo style of game, and while it is debatable whether that best suits our team, it will certainly be an easier sell than JVG's likely three yards in a cloud of dust game. As such, the potential for immediate friction is much lessened, and in the wake of losing a beloved coach under less than ideal circumstances, this might make for an easier transistion. They will almost without question be a more exciting team to watch for casual basketball fans than Van Gundys teams have been. He has also gotten players with even higher profiles than ours to share the ball, and while it may have been part of the problem ling term in Portland, it is certainly to his credit. If this Rockets' team demonstrates anywhere near the level of team awareness that the Trail Blazers did, it will be an immediate and noteworty upgrade. Downside: As I have noted elsewhere, and will try not to dwell on, I see a distinct possibility that perhaps our greatest single problem under Rudy, our lack of clearly defined team identity and roles will continue. i think that getting a team to buy into that when it has been missing for 4 years is hard enough, but for a coach who has historically had a weakness in that area it might prove insurmountable. I also think that Dunleavy brings the least amount of assumed credit, clout, street cred, whatever you want to call it, and as much as we think that it shouldn't, that kind of thing does matter to today's players. Witness Steve;s phone call to Lary Brown, who is not noted for being a soft player first coach...a big rep can buy you a lot of benefit of the doubt with players, irrespective of the style of coach you are. I am nost sure that Mike Dunleavy is seen much differently among most players as he is among most fans; an apparently nice guy who has lost every team he's coached, and doesn't really stand out in any way. That's not the resume that wins instant converts. Dunleavy has worked with some decent big men, and I mean that in terms of ability to dominate, not past ability, as Sabonis might be one of the best ever...but he has yet to work with a team that revolved around it's center. His best big man, Wallace, was really more of a perim oriented player anyways, so MD's ability to run an effective big man offense is in question. That said it should be noted that he has had big men who could really pass, and we now have that too, so that's a skill he's used to incorporating. So those are the primary up and downsides I see regarding each coach as a potential Rockets' head man. There are other minor factors; JVG works well with the media, not so much with his bosses, while MD is the reverse, etc. But those are secondary... I would like to hear other aspects people feel I've overlooked, or comments on those covered...and if you want to congratulate me on managing to keep the bitterness out of my post, i would appreciate it... PEACE JAG
I didn;t read the rest because you contradicted yourself in the first sentence - you're still bitter, admit it. BTW, I bolded the most important part of that opinion.
I am ackowledging my feelings, but moving on...At this point, gnashing my teeth about it won't help, but I don't need to over look reality either. I think we blew it...but that's where we are now, and it's not as if we can rectify the future by griping...the Rockets are not a representative organization dependant upon our approval for their basketball authority...so I am trying to make the best of the situation by looking at the coaches as they are, not just in comparison to Larry Brown. I think in all my analysis, I made exactly one such comparison, but I also made one with Riley..so I don't feel I let it flavor my take.
Plese...giddy...there are other threads to debate that topic, and lord Knows I'll be there, but please, I ask you, try to restrict this to a discussion about the two remining options. You can do what you want, but my intention with this was to move on...defense/bash of Brown discussion would really derail that intention. I ask this sincerely, ackowledging that I have no right to expect/demand that you will feel any obilgation to take my intention into account. PEACE JAG
Iam so confused over the MD and JVG thing right now. I thought your post was extremely good and well thought out. I also liked it because it wasnt as long as some of your old ones. And I will also comment on your ability to keep your bitterness under control. Now Van Gundy, he will be the "Anti" Rudy, and Mike will be the Smooth transition, if I was thinking in terms of comfort I would take Mike Dunleavy, but if I was wanting to shake things up I would chose Van Gundy. I think this move will be a defining moment in our history as a franchise and perhaps that is why CD is taking his time deciding what to do. As a fan who doesnt really like "change" I would want Dunleavy, but there is a huge part of me that wants to see what Van Gundy can do with this team. Oh, well, this may be one of the worst post I have written, very scattered. Let this post be a testament to how confused Iam over the whole situation.
You might add that Steve's high-stepping bringing the ball up the court bodes well for VG's slow down offense. Seriously though - all the hammer these 2 have taken on this board the past couple of days makes me want neither.
I think a downside you neglected to mention for BOTH candidates is that neither has coached in today's zone-defense-okay league. That especially worries me about a guy like JVG who is supposed to be such a "defensive" coach.
I think my biggest concern about Van Gundy is the concern that many New Yorkers had about him before he left. He centered his offense around guard play and while there are rare excpetions, all gaurds and no size usually does not translate into results. Maybe he was just working with what he had, but you have to question the team adding Glen Rice to a team that all ready had Allan Houston and Latrell Sprewell on it. The Knicks at the time had some of the same problems Houston has had in recent years, most noteably a lack of a physical, rebounding inside presence. Glen Rice was not the best move for that Knick team at the time. Van Gundy defedned the Rice acquisition, saying over and over again he could make the "3-guard" attack as he called it (despite the fact that Rice is a forward) work. Well it didn't and Van Gundy got fired. This is the extent of what we have seen from Van Gundy on the court. Can he change his style? I don't know which is why I would be cautious in hiring him (not like we have a lot of other choices now though). I am defintiely a little afraid if Van Gundy thinks he's going to turn Francis and Mobley into defensive stoppers that force turnovers and get out on the break. Van Gundy had better not ignore Yao if he comes to coach this team. Yao needs more touches so that we can see what kind of player he is capable of being.
I have a sencere question. If he is such a great defensive coach, wouldnt a zone-okay-defense work right into his plan for this team?
Good point and another reason to at least consider Carlisle. But if you added him to the mix you wouldn't be able to coin flip for your final decision.
I always thought JVG worked pretty well with Patrick Ewing and had it not been for his unfortunate injury in the '99 playoffs they may have won the championship.
As I mentioned in another thread, I personally like Dunleavy for the job if Carlisle and Rivers aren't going to get an interview. Dunleavy will emphasize the two most important R's in the game of basketball: Rebounding and Running. I think that if the Rox can add 10-15 ppg on the fast break, we win 7-15 games that were losses in '02-'03 (how many did we lose by less than 5 points?). I agree that if MD was able to handle Rider, Rasheed, and Stoudamire, our guys should be cake. I also think that MDs experience with an incredible passing center like Sabonis will help him to coach Yao. On MDs downside, he hasn't shown the ability to get his teams over the hump to win the finals. Then again, only 3 coaches in the last decade have. In addition, I don't see him as a premier defensive coach, but his teams defensive stats have been quite respectable. JVG would continue the trend of ugly basketball in Houston. At one time, we called it Rudyball and loved it, but Gundyball just doesn't have the same ring. JVG also seems to get the most out of his players, whoever they may be. He took a substandard team through the playoffs and into the finals although it was in the short year. Nonetheless, he did take his team through the playoffs by emphasizing hard nosed, killer defense. JVG also has the ability to coach spoiled kids as he proved with Sprewell. JVG does not seem to have nearly the credentials offensively as defensively. The finals team he had did include Ewing (in his declining, hobbled years) but just didn't seem to have that much horsepower despite the presence of Sprewell and Houston. When it comes down to it, with these two it is almost 6 in one and half a dozen in the other. Overall, I think the deciding factor for me is the fact that Dunleavy was a player (for the Rox no less) and VG is a short, bald white guy. Plus, I would like to see more than 12 fast break points over the course of next season.
From the many threads on the topic that have been written lately, I guess I have a slight leaning toward JVG. Although I really don't see much difference. JVG is a known workaholic and arguably the best teacher now available. Van Gundy will probably make and hold the young Rockets accountable. And they'll play D. The latter is important for a team 3-11 in games decided by 3 points or less. Will the JVG Rockets be boring? Probably...but then so was the Rudy ISO offense w/o an Olajuwon in his prime. The real clincher for me is this - who is each candidate going to hire as their assistants? If Van Gundy can find or discover a bright (new) offensive mind out there (the 2003-04 version of Eddie Jordan to Byron Scott or Carlisle to Bird or even a Jim Cleamons...), sign him yesterday.
There are so many bad things about both. There are good things too..but either one will be AVERAGE for us. Van Gundy is a younger coach who is smart. He has less experience. He watches videos of other teams all day and analyzes. His players respect him. He is a nice guy. He wants more money. His offense is half court...boring...dont' know if it works. His defense is good. There are many articles about both guys. There are more positive articles about Van Gundy than Dunleavy. There are more negative articles about Dunleavy than Van Gundy. Either one will be all right....but not as great as Larry Brown would have been. Both have their coaching characteristics...but hmm...they can change. Like Rick Carlisle may have been mean...maybe he will become very popular next time. People can change...I want Van Gundy for some reason. I don't know.....JUST HURRY UP AND PICK ONE!!!!!!!!! Also...Dunleavy has always had some talent. Jeff Van Gundy makes underachievers overachievers. And I also like the fact that he wants big men to attack the basket and not stay around the perimeter. I don't know. Maybe Jeff Van Gundy will change his style and make the Rockets run. "Pick the right coach". They're trying not to pick the WRONG coach....while all the good coaches are being taken. Even though some say we never had a chance at getting some.... "Van Gundy is known as one of the league's hardest working coaches. He routinely reported to work at dawn and spent hours reviewing videotape and preparing game plans. Van Gundy received an unsolicited vote of confidence from Layden during the team's West Coast road trip almost three weeks ago. The next day, though, Van Gundy publicly disagreed with Layden's glowing assessment of his performance. Two weeks ago, Van Gundy used the phrase "mailing it in" to describe the Knicks' effort in certain games this season. I have a high regard for Van Gundy's coaching ability -- he's one of the top coaches in the NBA. He takes losing very hard and wears his emotions on his sleeve -- you never have to question what he's thinking or where he's coming from. He wants his team to play a particular style and with a lot of intensity. He may not have thought that was happening with this group. If you're looking for a perfect talent for an NBA team, the Knicks don't have it and haven't had it for a number of years. But Van Gundy has patched them together and made the very best of what he had to work with. The players hold Van Gundy in high regard. In fact, I've never heard one of his players criticize him -- they've always spoken very highly of him. An excellent coach, he could return to the NBA when he's ready. There are a lot of teams who would like his services. I don't know it would be this year but, should he chose to return in the future, I'm sure he could. In the past, Jeff has talked about leaving the NBA and getting back to college coaching -- possibly a Division II school. He loves coaching and is a great teacher. I'm sure he'll get back to coaching at some level in the not too distant future. He was a 24/7 coach. Celebrity Row at Madison Square Garden was, with the exception of Spike Lee, just another row of fans to him. He once confided to a magazine writer that he not only didn't own compact discs, but that he also didn't even listen to popular music (although he did know that Sting had left The Police.) He was never a real player, like his two predecessors, Pat Riley and Don Nelson. But he came from coaching stock and he worked at it and worked at it until he got one of the plum assignments in professional basketball. He once called it the job of a lifetime. SI: Which coaching job would appeal to you more: A team with young players that is a couple of years away from being good, or a team comprised of veterans with a shot at the title? Van Gundy: Unfortunately, you don't get to pick and choose, but those situations and any scenario other than working for a team that wants to constantly have cap space for decades are appealing."
No one on this board wants the Rox to uptempo more than I do but there is a problem. Even if MD wants it that way, the Rox don't make the best decisions when finishing a break. There will be some very frustating moments for sure. On the other hand, they should be able to learn JVG's defensive rotations...I hope.
JVG has never developed a big man (remember, the knicks went to the finals in '99 because ewing was injured and his playing time went to camby, who had a terrific post-season. JVG has also never developed a point guard, which is what he'd have to do w/ SF, assuming he stays at the point. MD has at least worked with centers whose games resemble Yao's, and if he'd hire a good big man as assistant (kareem, walton), and a tough elie type, i'd be happy with him.
Jeff Van Gundy with a good group of assistants that have helped develop big men and point guards would be better!
I feel confident speaking 'for' JVG and replying to these legitimate questions. But I think it's great that MacBeth and others are keeping an "open mind" and not letting previous biases weigh on our objective evaluation of the only two candidates that really matter now. On the first question, I think, if anything, JVG has some demonstrable evidence of offensive creativity. He may not be a Nellie or an Adelman but JVG is not a dummy when it comes to structuring a sound offense. Case in point... the '99 Knicks who were plagued with injuries, as they marched THROUGH the playoffs. Take the center position for instance. The Knicks had Ewing and Camby (and Dudley, but we'll ignore him for now b/c he's a Yale alum . Camby and Ewing differ like night and day. One is a young atheletic rebounder, while fragile, played more like a Kenyon Martin in the middle. The other, was an old warrior with established moves and good fundamentals courtesy of the John Thompson school for gifted centers. Van Gundy was able to utilize not ONE but BOTH centers very effectively. i.e. no matter who was on the floor, you saw what each center at their best. In the case of Camby, we'd see him dive into the paint... make the deep cut... grab good position for rebounding. With Ewing, we had some remnants of the Ewing of old + some additional moves and plays that relied less on the fadeaway. At the point guard position, here again, JVG had to juggle two stylistically different players in Charlie Ward and Chris Childs. Despite the lack of a marquee talent at this position, the Knicks still managed to do very well here. Offensively, Charlie Ward is probably one the most underrated "clutch" 3 point shooters of the late 90s. How did he become that way? Well, you can thank JVG for writing out the plays and the scenarios in which Ward would get some great looks. And lastly, there was Spree... the odd man out, but the talent who the Knicks got for cheap b/c nobody wanted to hire a headcase who had just strangled a coach. Was JVG scared or apprehensive about the challenge? NO way. For all the concern as to how a "Spree" who demanded playing time would fit into the rotation, JVG soothed egos, appeased the fans, and got hte most of Spree, who just got stronger as the season went on. So, overall, even with JVG's limited resume, there are lots of positive anecdotes that one should not discard. When Nellie left prematurely, JVG did a heck of a job in willing his team onto the playoffs. Nobody, and i mean NOBODY, in the NY media, thought JVG would survive the season, much less get a new contract to coach the Knicks. Inasmuch as Les likes big names, New York LOVES big name coaches, yet through tangible success, JVG rose from being a nobody to a BIG somebody. He's gonna be great for this team. Go 2004 RoX!!!! theSAGE
