... except that they DID beat this 3-15 team just a few weeks ago. Remember that? Was McHale a good coach back then? You people are so eager to criticize, you're jumping all over the map for any ammo you can find. That's what agenda-driven discussion does, it kills brain cells.
It is very clear that when the Spurs lose, more often than not they don't beat themselves. They play so well within their structure, and even with the changing of personnel, save for the Big 3, they win year after year after year. In the most recent finals for example, they gave the Heat all they could handle even if it was plain to see that the Heat were much more talented and their big 3 was way younger. So no, they didn't collapse. Collapse is not equal to losing. Collapse is when, despite the odds being stacked in your favor, you manage to find ways to lose. Collapse is not holding your some of your big stars accountable for lapses leading to unnecessarily close games. Collapse is not having the preparation to prevent your team from losing those close games, such as inbounds plays for specific situations, etc. When you keep on losing that way, it just leads you to wonder -- is coaching by gut feel alone really enough to take a team to a title? That is the context.
You do realize while battling for playoff seeding/get into the playoffs in 2012-13, the Rockets lost to LAL, Phoenix, Memphis, Denver and would've probably lost to Phoenix without a opponent tip-in for us, and only beat the Sacramento Kings to finish off last season. Would've been 1-5 against teams with similar or worse records than us. Then in 2011-12, the Rockets closed the season with losses to the Jazz, Phoenix, Denver twice, New Orleans and Dallas to drop out of the playoffs. That's 0-6 against teams with similar or worse records than us until we had zero probability of playoffs. 2-10 (or 1-11) in games that mattered down the stretch in two season against teams we were battling against for playoff seeding or teams that were already lottery bound. That's McHale's record in the clutch.
That's what a collapse looks like with bad coaching. Not because you perenially get to the conference finals or finals, and lose to a Miami Heat team in 7 on some crazy shots. Miami's big 3 vs Spurs big 3? I'd take Lebron, Wade and Bosh over Duncan, Manu and Parker any day of the week (especially at their respective ages). Miami's support cast vs Spur's support cast? I'd take the Heat over the Spurs slightly also, especially for big game experience. McHale's coaching? We not only collapse down the stretch with playoff seeding and playoffs at risk, we also collapse with big leads in the 4th quarter more often than normal.
I was referring to the guy's comments that the Rockets "collapsed" against the Spurs. Were the odds "stacked" in the Rockets favor just because they had the lead against the WC Champs on their home floor? The Spurs were favored to win the game, so I'd say no. Weren't the Spurs collapsing by giving the lead to the Rockets to begin with? The Rockets ended up winning the game, so credit should be given where it's due, that was my main point there. How do you know McHale doesn't hold players accountable? And how do you know that he coaches on gut feeling alone? These are baseless criticisms.
So in other words, you believe the past two seasons we had 50+ win talent and only won 42 and 45 games because of McHale? Because I don't remember anyone having a problem with Morey dismantling that "vaunted" 2011-2012 team down to nothing and rebuild with Lin and Asik.
No. I think McHale did ok. But the year-end collapses two years in a row are disturbing. It says that when the going gets tough, the coach can't step up. Granted it is the players that play, but this is two different groups of players altogether, and pretty much the same result down the stretch when fighting for playoffs and playoff seeding. Put it this way, had the Rockets missed the playoffs last season either due to Phoenix tip in not having happened or Dirk being healthy (or both), Dwight may be in Golden State or Dallas right now. Two epic collapses in a row, plus even though it may just be one or two win difference, Dwight might choose a playoff team over a non-playoff team. I think McHale has his merits and is good on certain fronts. But I have the same objections many on this site has. In-game adjustment, minutes, holding star players accountable, strategy, playbook etc etc. Now could we do worse than McHale. Easily. Could we do better, yes, and there are some coaches out there worth a look. SVG, JVG, Hollins, George Karl to name a few. It is only normal for scrutiny on a head coach with his contract up at season's end (the guaranteed portion at least), and who has delivered on some fronts and not on some fronts. But most importantly, we're trying to win here, and win big. There's relatively little time for McHale to grow with the team, at least in my opnion. And we should be trying to upgrade every weakness or upgrade even a strength (if someone else is available). My personal opinion. I don't trust McHale with the game on the line. I don't have much confidence in him down the stretch fighting for playoff seeding. I don't know if he has the discipline to keep players' minutes down so they're primed, healthy and relatively fresh at season end. And I don't have confidence McHale is able to make adjustments in the playoffs against more seasoned coaches, let alone adjustments on adjustments. And I'm not sure if McHale is the right coach for Harden (he may be the right one for Dwight though, we'll see).
BTW, not trying to get into any arguments on McHale. I think it is a bi-polar subject and I respect both sides of the opinions. McHale hasn't done a poor job overall. He hasn't been spectacular either. An upgrade is possible, and may make sense. Standing pat and staying with McHale is also a reasonable decision. I'm just stating my side of the opinion. I think we need an improvement to take that final step into contention. Perhaps it is veteran leadership or better players. Or it's the Coach. Let's keep the discussion open and state some facts (eg the collapse in the last two years, and meh did also stating McHale had a pretty good overall record the last two years also which is true). I'm not here to argue.
Now this is some ridiculous cherry picking. They finished 6-4 over the last 10, which is consistent for their record, and they made the playoffs, and had some good games against OKC. That part that really makes me LOL is the "would've" :grin: So now we blame McHale for games that we "would've" lost huh? Would've lost to the Spurs, would've lost to the Suns. So then we can give McHale credit for games we "would've" won as well right? That's fair isn't it? Hey guys, the Rockets "would've" wone 3 straight championships ever since hiring McHale. Isn't he so awesome? :grin:
If you want to go with the whole "going gets tough" argument, the toughest moments during his tenure here was the OKC playoff series. Wouldn't that be where you should actually comment on his coaching?
Fair enough. I feel the same. He's an OK coach. I wouldn't mind an upgrade, but we have to be realistic in looking at who was available at the time of his hiring, and who would be available when his contract expires. I want to let him finish out his contract, and then give a full evaluation and go from there. Same thing with the player criticisms. People are overreacting. Lets see how they perform in the playoffs, and then make a proper judgement. This team has gone through alot of changes in a short period of time. It's way too early for knee-jerking.
I you didn't think the last six games of the season when playing for the playoffs or seeding meant more, and that it wasn't a collapse, then it's hard to be objective. Would've could've is for every game. That tip in was a fluke play that has never happened in the NBA as a buzzer winning play (for the opponents). It wasn't whether we could've/would've won any other game, it was that we were bailed out by the other team into the playoffs. The 2011-12 season according to Morey we had >90% chance to make the playoffs until we had six straight losses that eliminated the Rockets. Going 2-10 (or possible 1-11) in two seasons against teams with an average winning percentage significantly worse than you to close the season is an woeful collapse, whether you want to play with words like "could've or would've" to make it look otherwise.
I can. First game, everybody played crap. Lin was the worst offender. Starry eyes. Second game, in general the whole team played quite well. Then Lin went down. Then Westbrook went down. Thunders won, but the Rockets played well. Beverley exceptionally well after Lin went down, although Lin played quite well before his injury. From the moment Westbrook went down, it became a simple adjustment. Probably 9 out of 10 coaches would've tried to make Durant beat the Rockets on his own. We played box and one with Garcia on Durant. Games 3 to 5 were close fought and we lost 1 and won 2. OKC had no real adjustment available because Durant, Martin and Ibaka are all catch and shoot players. They had no real PG other than a little-tested second year player called Reggie Jackson who up to then that season averaged 5.3pts/game and 23% shooting from 3s. OKC elected to keep Martin on the bench, so they started with 23% 3pt shooter Jackson at PG, defensive specialst Thabo at SG (7.6pt/game), no offense Perkins at center, and Durant/Ibaka. If that isn't a go-ahead sign to crowd Durant every chance possible, I don't know what was. It wasn't coaching magic. It was common sense. There was no one penetrating and playmaking for the Thunder, they had no real 3pt shooters outside of Durant, so we played box-1 on Durant and dared everyone else to shoot. That was our only adjustment, and it worked because the OKC team as constructed cannot win without Durant and one of Harden/Westbrook, because they had no real back-up PGs at that time other than little tested Jackson and good for a couple of shots and a charge Derek Fisher. If you mean McHale coached us to a respectable 4-2 loss against OKC (with two close wins), I would say that we probably would've lost 4-0 to OK without Westbrook going down. If you take away the first game blowout loss by the Rockets vs OKC, the remaining 5 games were close. We won 2 and lost 3. And won 2 and lost 2 without Westbrook. Memphis, on the other hand, beat OKC in five (4-1) closely fought games with the largest win margin being 6 in the series, and one game went into OT. Same situation, without Russell Westbrook. When games get close, coaching makes a significant difference. As opposed to McHale having outcoached Scott Brooks in the playoffs last season, my view is that the Westbrook injury gave McHale an opportunity to make an adjustment the Brooks had no counter for, because OKC isn't designed to withstand the loss of Westbrook in the playoffs. Memphis took advantage of it and beat OKC in 5 closely contested games. Lionel Hollins is a good X & O coach. Well coached teams win close games. Rockets did not. Both Memphis and the Rockets had a chance to beat a hurting OKC team last year in the playoffs. Only one team did. Memphis was a better team than the Rockets last year, granted. But both teams had a chance with Westbrook out. The games played after Westbrook went down were close fought. Only one team pulled it out.
Again, my opinions only. McHale didn't do bad. But he wasn't magic. Upgrades are available. Downgrades are possible. I trust that Morey and Les will choose the right person going forward, now that we have a team built for contention (plus or minus a couple of pieces).
