Feigen: Reading between lines on the Rockets' long list of coaching candidates

Does anyone seriously prefer McNair's method of hiring over this? I'd rather they cast the wide net and interview folks even if they aren't likely candidates. In the end, what's the problem?

 

It's been between these 2 from the beginning since SVG isn't getting fired.

 

too bad that the Spurs-Grizz series will extend up to game 7...hope DM can get in touch with Budenholzer asap...

 

you don't need to read between the lines to know they aren't in a hurry.

 

I am "embarrassed" that the list is the size of an NFL roster...

 

THIS.

 

I VOTE FOR SAM I AM!!

Rocket River
One man Campaign for SAM I AM for next Rockets Coach!

 

I have zero problem with interviewing dozens of people. There's no DOWNSIDE to it as long as we hire someone well before the draft, which we'll obviously do.

The potential UPSIDES of casting such a wide net are myriad:

1. Bima's argument is a good one. Interviewing someone for a head coaching position shows interest and a desire to communicate, which can pay dividends down the road. Guys who are longtime assistants looking for head coaching jobs (and head coaches who have been out of the game for a bit) LIKE to be interviewed, even if they don't get hired. By interviewing them, we get their names out into NBA circles and national media, thus increasing their credibility and desirability as a coach.

Do I think we have any intention of hiring Ellie or Cassell? Probably not. I think we are rewarding their service during the organisation's golden age by announcing to the NBA public that we think they are worthy of consideration for head coaching jobs. In return, we get a reputation of taking care of our own and being the sort of organisation people want to work with.

Same deal with people who don't have a history with the Rockets. They get their name listed on every sporting news website as one of the guys super-genius Morey thinks might be a worthy coach. Years from now, when one of those guys is an established coach or a front office type, he'll have a history of positive interaction with us, which could seriously pay off in the long run.

2. Someone mentioned this as well, but interviewing a billion coaches lets us hand-pick our staff. Assistant coaches are more important than people realize. They spend more one-on-one time with players than the head coach. They are largely responsible for player development and positional training, which is especially key to this rockets team given our relative youth.

A good head coach will also delegate substantial responsibility to assistants--Rick was open about how his staff took turns making defensive gameplans; Doc and the celtics players were clear that Thibs was the architect of boston's defense, etc.

The more smart guys we have on the bench, the better.

Given that, I find it likely that we will hire MORE THAN ONE of the people we interview--especially if we hire someone with no head coaching experience. A first time head coach will come with a lower price tag, meaning we will have cash to headhunt some other top assistants. That strategy would seem to fit with Morey's MO of "stockpiling assets/adding valuable pieces" through quiet but savvy moves. We won't hire Phil or Larry Brown or a reincarnation of Red Auerbach, but we will get a bunch of smart, competent coaches.

 

It's not exactly a downside, but there is the real possibility that you get enough "impressive" candidates that it comes down to a gut feeling. Now you've, to some extent, superceded the "analysis" that you may have gone through, as suggested by Bimathug, because, at that point, the final decision boils down to intangibles. And those intangibles can't guarantee a championship. No matter how exhaustive the process, it still, largely, ends up being a crap-shoot. I'd say San Antonio's current status testifies to that.

I think, the analogy of how the draft works is appropriate from this standpoint: The Rockets (Les & co.) likely already know who they have designs on, they just want to compare their "pre-favorite" to other competitors to see how it shakes out in reality, not just on paper.

 

Seems like a lot of trouble when Morey himself has said that coaching can only make a difference of +/- 5 wins. I think they're looking for the guy who will bend over to the whims of the front office the most. That may take some time, hence the long list of candidates.

 

First question in every interview: Will you play Terrence Williams?

Whoever doesn't respond with, "are you trying to get me fired?" gets the job.

 

I instantly call BS on this post. This can't be right. First and foremost that date is in the future, that doesn't make sense. Secondly, Leb Bias is dead so that doesn't make sense. Third Ellie isn't the last guy on that list so that definitely doesn't make sense. Lastly, and possibly the most damning piece of information is the fact that Morey is too ahead of the curve to use an iPad, or even an iPad2. Morey uses the HUMANCENTiPad. So I think your entire post is just wrong.

 

3. Use magnets to maximize profit

 

I'm not sure if I'm getting the building relationships angle. That's what Morey would do with GMs. Morey is never going to make a trade with a coach. In fact if I were a GM, I'd deem it a fireable offense if my coach talked to another GM without my permission. Doesn't the Bima hypothesis use GM relationships as the examples: "McHale trading Garnett to Ainge," "CD being one of the best." Those are GM to GM relationships. Besides, Morey has proven he can communicate and trade with other GMs.

Where is a GM to opponent coach relationship a factor. In fact, I don't think a GM is allowed to contact a coach directly for a trade or other. We are reaching here. I'd rather have him spend more time building relationships with agents...that's vastly more important than relationships with opponent coaches.

The only thing in building relationships hypothesis that makes sense is that a candidate might remember us down the road? That's not the simplest explanation; it is unlikely that's the reason in my opinion -- based on my strong believe in Ockham's Razor.

And hiring assistants for a coach as Pat says has no precedence in the NBA does it? Who would do that, not let a coach hire assistants?

bottomline: I'm more with everyone else that there is no big deal here, and why is it an issue. Trying to spin casting a wide net as more proof that Morey is a GM superstar is both odd and defensive.

 

L-Frank is a great coach. People focus on some of the dismal seasons in Jersey, but he's also had a lot of success.

I'd take him. Seems to be flexible to new offensive schemes that Morey would like to integrate.

No to Mike Brown.

 

Met with Mike Woodson today. Meeting started at 10, met for around 7 hours.

 

that seems like a long time

 

I suppose though really I dont know. I'm not sure how long a "normal" meeting is. Maybe that was a normal meeting? I have no idea!

 

Rockets meet with Woodson

 

Maybe it's just the cognitive dissonance talking, but I really don't believe that Morey believes that. Maybe in a tactical sense -- fire one coach in midseason and get a boost from the replacement -- the effect is minor. But, in the larger strategy of leadership from a head coach over multiple seasons: (1) it's not really measurable, and (2) it's a lot more important than 5 wins. I doubt Morey takes it so lightly (and he obviously isn't, given the work he's putting in).

Morey would. As for precedent, I don't know. The first place I would look is Cuban's Mavs. In any case, Morey already has a reputation for trying to innovate management, the most obvious being the money-ball. But, there's also the new relationship with the RGV that was established to bolster player development. I would not be surprised to see the constitution of the new coaching staff be done in a way to try to take that approach a step further.