Maybe its just me...but why is it revolutionary to hire coaches that do things your way? If I were a GM first thing I'd do is make sure I'm on the same page as the coach, and if we're not then I would fire that coach and get the guy I who shares the same vision as me. I mean, if you favor defense would you hire D'Antoni to be your coach? GMs should set the objectives of the team, the coaches should be the ones to execute the plan. With Mchale's case, he doesn't have the right tools to coach the Xs and Os, but that doesn't really matter if you have the right assistants around him. There's more to coaching than just calling offensive/defensive sets, there's also stuff like developing players, boosting player morale and of course, PR work for the press. Mchale can do all that stuff, so its not like he's there just to be the fall guy. Doc Rivers, for example, is seen as one of the better coaches today, even if he doesn't have strong Xs and Os.
Tbh, Basketball coaching panels are still pretty much in feudal times, where the assistants are incumbence based on who they are, not whether they're actually any good or even useful. Morey basically wants to do what's been creating winning models in other sports, in that you have your head coach who runs the game decisions, and you have assistants that run all the structures.
I have no clue what "coaching panels", "feudal times" and incumbence (sp.) have to do with anything. If it's some verbal attempt at describing what Morey's philosophy is...you're not even close. You can read every word of the Billy Bean book...you can listen with utmost intensity to every word of every Morey interview. But the bottomline is this in a single sentence. You only pay for talent to the level of which you arithmatically ascribe a value. From that the following is deduced.... * You don't overpay for contracts (See Cato, Kelvin) * You collect lesser expensive assets that can be turned into higher valued assets (by your calculations) at some future point That is the absolute bottomline. And I'm on the Adelman side of this one. The coach sees the player(s) every day in practice. He should have a pretty good idea how the player(s) will perform in a game. If McHale has no issue playing whom Morey directs...the results...or friction if it comes to the fore...will speak for themselves.
IMO, the Rockets aren't looking for coaches who will do nothing but take orders from the front office. Guys like Finch and Joerger know basketball. I think the goal is to create a more collaborative environment between the coaches and the front office. Hence, they are targeting guys who are highly touted coaches but who also have the aptitude and willingness to work with the "number crunchers" when developing their game plan.
My absolute conclusion from your comment is that Finch and Joerger are clearly better assistants than Sikma and TR Dunn. If that is not 100% the case, then you've traded capability for collaboration. Gut-level reaction is that this may not necessarily be a good thing.
I don't think in such absolutes as you. If its not 100% the case that A is clearly better than B, that doesn't mean we should assume B is better than A. The issue I'd have isn't so much capabilities of one staff versus the other but rather continuity. Last year's staff worked pretty well with the players (well most of the players). You're taking a gamble by completing rebooting. Change can sometimes lead to unexpected positives, but it can also backfire on you.
If the negative consequences are a higher draft pick, it may not be so bad. There is a silver lining in every cloud.
What does his philosophy with the players have to do with the coaching? Morey wanted to pick assistant coaches, and his reasons have nothing to do with money, or picking a "successor", which is why I called it feudal, because the whole idea of "choosing a successor" is feudal backwards thinking. What the issue is, is that he's most likely figured out from other sports whose coaching systems are somewhat more advanced, that the head coach picking the assistants is actually a way to perform badly.
it's as someone put it in another thread, the groupthink dilemma. Take last year's Rockets team, we needed a new defensive coordinator, but Adelman had the same staff for years and it was showing (sure you cant help the height issue, but we had layup lines going for long stretches against bad teams)
Even if he is successful . . .he will be looked at like MIKE BROWN He will have succeeded INSPITE OF HIS SHORTCOMINGS BECAUSE blah blah amd blah. [Mike Brown was because of LeBron and McHale will be because his assistance] So he won't get much credit anyway Rocket River
If you are looking for examples of assistants getting as much credit as the head coach, then Tom Thibadeau/Frank and Doc Rivers . Mike Brown doesn't get much credit, because he was sitting in the background and LeBron and Kuester determined the plays. As for the defense, Mike Brown even admits that Mike Malone was a big part of that pie.
