Well those articles may be irrelevant to what y'all are talking about.... BUT THIS MAKES ME WANT RICK CARLISLE EVEN MORE!................now that there is no Brown. He is dedicated. And he cares. I like this new type of coach. No more old school stuff!
Enlighten me on what you call "gruffness" with his players. Obviously the focus is on relationships. If he had "bad" relationships with his players, I doubt he would be calling on their behalf. If the players hated him on the court, they wouldnt play hard for him. It's happened numerous times to other coaches. If you mean Carlisle "rubs his players the wrong way" (whatever the heck that means) and his players don't like him off the court, who cares. I repeat, who cares. What difference does it make and why is it even relevant. Players play for coaches they respect.
Riet, I think Carlisle and Dumars had a good relationship too. CD, however is used to a totally different environment. I read it somewhere here that Carlisle refused to speak to the owner of the Pistons the last few months of this season. I think he would find Carlisle's reportedly confrontational style more than unsettling, especially if it involved the Rockets front office. This franchise is tight-knit and tight-lipped. Having said that, I think the team needs someone like Carlisle now. And I rather have him than Van Gundy or Dunleavy. By the way, I thought Dumars handled Carlisle's firing with a lot of class. From what I've read Dumars had no choice but to dismiss him, but he sat there willing to take the heat and to state the bottom line. It's possible that the Rocket's familial atmosphere may prevent many of those situations from arising and may be able to solve them if they do. But I do think CD will have some situations he simply has never had to deal with, and it would be a shock to his system. I love CD, the stroke comment was not meant literally and really after what's happened with Rudy , it was probably in poor taste.
Who cares if he's not nice. I'm tired of having a "player's coach". This team doesn't deserve one, and it's about time they got some tough love. Carlisle is my #1 option AS LONG AS HE BRINGS KEITH O'NEILL WITH HIM.
Gruff means stern (by definition), not "bad". I am sure Carlisle is stern with his players in Detroit, so I asked the question if his sterness would affect any of our own players. I never said he had a "bad" relationship with his players but rather asked the question Again, I never said hate so I am not sure why you even brought this up. What difference does it make and why is it relevant? Go ask Brown, Dunleavy and Adelman. Have you never heard of coaches losing players because they rub them the wrong way? And if any given coach is too hard on their players, then they can lose that respect.
I posted this in another Carlisle thread. It's some interesting quotes from Mitch Albom's column yesterday. I don't think that the Rockets would tolerate things like Albom sites. It's just not their style. <i> So what ticked off the boss so much? Apparently, he didn't like Carlisle's attitude. He didn't like the stories that got back to him about rudeness, shouting, or humiliating members of the staff. Were all the stories true? Who knows? In the end, does it matter? It's what the boss thinks, isn't it? </i> or <i> But that doesn't stop the stories. Stories that Carlisle, last year, shoved a senior Pistons executive as he tried to high-five the players. Tales about Carlisle yelling at secretaries, or snapping at the medical staff, or ripping on assorted personnel, young and old, in front of other people. Maybe he didn't do all these things. Maybe he did but didn't realize how he came across. Doesn't matter. In Bill Davidson's world there is loyalty and there is proper respect, and you don't keep your job without them. </i> or <i> Carlisle, a smart and talented coach, apparently felt that being smart and talented would be enough. Players disagreed. Some never cared for him, since he could stand in an elevator with them and not even strike up a conversation. "That was always a difficult thing," admitted guard Chucky Atkins, "he didn't speak to a lot of people. When you treat people bad, it comes back to haunt you. If you can't talk to your coach, who can you talk to?" </i> http://www.freep.com/sports/albom/mitch2_20030602.htm
That's assuming those things are true. He denied them and said that he was shocked that these allegations appeared after he was fired. I find it interesting that people continue to talk about Carlisle's rudeness and abrasive behavior yet he has not said one bad thing about anybody in the organization. Like I said before, compare that to Lary Brown's press conference where he continued to dog on Allen Iverson. If you were to list the different criteria for selecting a head coach for this team, "not being nice" should be very low on the list.
Ok. I'll pose the same question to you. Why do you think someone with a reputation of being "gruff" is a concern? We just had one of the nicest, least harsh coaches leave this job for failing to properly teach and motivate this team. So instead of playing half-assed, selfish basketball, youre concerned the Rockets' players will get mad because he's too hard on them? Hmmm, now what does an undisciplined, immature team need? If this is such a concern, then why would we even interview someone like Larry Brown who has a longer reputation of treating his players in the same, if not, worse way. The difference between this team and some of those teams is the state of the franchise. The Houston Rockets are a young, supposedly talented team, needing direction and guidance. The Pacers turned on Brown because they were a veteran team that didn't like Brown's micromanaging and constant criticism. The Blazers turned on Dunleavy because they didnt respect him and rebelled when he tried to micromanage them. This team is young. They are not a group of playoff saavy veterans. I would say that carlisle's "gruffness" would be an asset and exactly what this team needs than a liability or a so called "concern".
By the way.......that's what was so freakin weird! When he called timeout...he would just stand there and stare into space....while his assistants were talking to him and giving advice and talking to the players. That's what he's doing! Hmm.....he really doesn't talk to his players. But they still win 50 games. Well.....I still want him.
When evaluating coaches, I put "raises the game of mediocre players" above "good rapport with the secretarial staff." Rick Carlisle can personally insult me every day if he makes the Rockets a title contender.
I'm onboard with Carlisle; young, tough, smart, proven. BUT, it will take MORE personnel changes to take this team to the playoffs. This team needs discipline and some new faces. Nevertheless, Dunleavy will be the next coach. It is virtually a done deal. No bold move in the eleventh hour - vanilla is the Rocket's favorite flavor!
<i>I find it interesting that people continue to talk about Carlisle's rudeness and abrasive behavior yet he has not said one bad thing about anybody in the organization. </i> If you were Carlisle's agent, how would you advise him to do damage control for his reputation? How about advising him to take his firing graciously and not say anything bad about his ex-organization's management.? And apparenlty it's working. There's been two or three articles stating that Carlisle's behaviour at the press conference would go along way towards repairing his reputation. <i>If you were to list the different criteria for selecting a head coach for this team, "not being nice" should be very low on the list.</i> The actions reported in Albom's column are along way from "not being nice". Whether or not, it's a high priority to you doesn't really matter. If Alexander and Dawson have heard similar stories, then there's no way that they would tolerate that type of behavior.
1. I will bet you that once he takes a brand new job, he will still be less abrasive and rude than Brown was at his press conference. Yet Brown is excused and Carlisle's reputation is soiled. I find it cynical that you can assume this is all due to Carlisle's agent advising him. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Either way, he has taken the high road that Brown has not been able to do. 2. Once again, that's assuming it's true. When Bob Levy asked Carlisle last night on ESPN about the allegations, Carlisle said he was very surprised by the allegations. And if you saw the interview, you wouldve seen someone shocked and depressed than bitter and angry. I can also point to several articles where it's not exactly certain whether the stories were true and to what extent they were exagerrated.
RIET, You're quoting Frank Hughes now. Every one in the NBA pretty much agreed that Bird did not change that Pacer's team much from an Xs and Os standpoint. You do realize that if you are saying that Carlisle's "offense" turned that team around then you are also saying that Brown's "offense" destroyed that team the year prior. Sorry, but you cannot say that Brown turned the Pacers around and then say Carlisle turned the around again the year Brown left. It was a combination of the Pacer's having excellent team chemistry (from pretty much no trades and nearly 8 yrs of playoffs) and Bird giving them the game ball that Brown dropped. It was a turnaround based on charisma and regaining confidence, not a newly implemented offense...please RIET, quit riding your new man's jock so much. You are way out in exaggeration land trying to turn Carlisle into one of 2 geniuses in all of basketball. Bird did call Carlisle to be an assistant before Bird got the job, so I trust Bird to know Carlisle is a quality coach more than ESPN's Frank Hughes. He's a fine coach if he can command respect through reputation like you weighted so heavily for Brown. Note: Carlisle just got fired. How much rep is that to command instant respect from the players on the basis of your "perception" theory? I think you might be stretching your perception theory here. In any event, please don't tell us again that Carlisle turned around a Brown failure at Indiana, yet call Brown infalible. Bird has said they didn't drill those Pacers on what to do, that they just pretty much scouted the opps for them and prepped them for game day with game day strategies--you know, that *is* the job of many assistants--as opposed to you presuming they all run the offense like a football offensive coordinator or something. It is not always like that in bball. The Pacers turnaround was more about the players jelling without Brown and little bit about Bird helping them execute during the game with a contender's focus, than it was a system overhaul from an assistant. You really believe the Pacer's had a system overhaul, 'eh.
Again, I'll refer you back to the coaching careers of Brown, Karl, Wilkens, etc. There has to be a balance. If a coach is not hard enough on a player, then that player will walk all over the coach (Rudy). If a coach is too hard on a player, then the players lose respect for the coach and quit on him (Brown, Karl and Wilkens (actually depending on your point of view, you might include Dunleavy)). It needs a balance. A coach that is not too nice, but not too hard. Going from one extreme to the other is not always the right answer. Maybe thats why the Rockets didn't feel that Brown was worth his asking price. What does that have to do with anything? A gruff coach can alienate young players, veteran players, superstars, HOFers and everyone in between. So is it no possible that once Carlisle brings this team into the playoffs that over the course of 2,3 or 4 years that the exact thing can happen to us?? That our young players, by then veterans, will be sick of Carlisle if he is too stern all the time? And if one of our players feel that Carlisle is being too gruff with them, is it possible that they can starting losing respect for him and rebel? Well obviously, the Pacers didn't respect Brown because the exact same thing happened to him. See what I am getting at? There is a ton of ways to alienate players, either by micromanaging them, or being too vocal with them in the media or being to stern with them on the court. The end result is ultimately the same. As stated before, you don't have to be a saavy veteran to lose respect for the coach because he is too harsh on you. It can be an asset and it can be his demise. Its all about balance. Only time will tell. That is debatable as always. I am willing to take a chance on him, but I am still concerned with the story that has emerged out of Detroit which led to his firing.
RIET, Allow me to clarify what I meant about your "perception" theory. You've stated it, and I've been meaning to respond for a few days, but haven't had the chance. Now after reading my above post, maybe it is no longer so obvious what "perception" theory of yours that I'm talking about. It is your theory of the political capital that Brown has earned over his career (ie making playoffs; never being fired, etc) and how it allows him to be the disciplinary that other coaches can't pull off. I understand the value of the perception in the minds of the players when the coach is beyond reproach. I do. That is a strong argument for Brown, and you are the champion of that take. But, now, I don't really understand how you can be transfering that advantage Brown has onto Carlisle when Carlisle just got fired. How is it that he carries the "beyond reproach" tag with him that Brown has? I think you are stretching that one.
First of all, where did I say that Carlisle's offense "turned the team around" or "overhauled their offense". We all know Larry Bird was a laissez faire coach and Carlisle did an excellent job behind the scenes helping the Pacers reach their potential. Rick Carlisle was an integral part of that teams success. I never said Carlisle implemented a new offense but he helped them execute it and maiximized their talent. First of all, I never said Brown was infallible. I said Brown's reputation would carry him far and that's absolutely true. You see him taking shots at Allen Iverson yet he's still a class act in many people's eyes. Why? The rep. That has not changed. The perception theory still holds true. It holds true for Rick Carlisle. The perception is that Rick Carlisle got fired because of his personality not coaching ability. The perception is also that Carlisle is a tough ass and won;t tolerate lazy, unprepared players, similiar to Brown. lastly, the perception is he was fired because they could get a Hall of Fame coach like Larry Brown and wasn't replaced by someone like Mike Dunleavy. If the Rockets hire someone like Carlisle, the team will know that's where management stands. Rick Carlisle has the ability to turn a team around because he's proven. That's his rep. Contrast that with a 3 time loser like Mike Dunleavy. This is something I posted on another thread: Now it's true that championship teams win with the best players in the league. However, it's a myth that all teams win as many games as their talent will allow. Are we really saying that the Detroit team has more talent than almost anyone in the league? Does a 1 dimensional rebounding king and an above average mid range shooting guard who can't play defense = Eastern Conference finalist? Isn't Tracy McGrady one of the top superstars in the league? Isn't Doc Rivers one of the best coaches in the league? Isn't Allen Iverson one of the top players in the league? Isn't Larry brown one of the top coaches in the league? Yet how does this Detroit team go to the NBA Eastern Conference Finals defeating these great players with these great coaches. How? Based on their enormous talent that 2 years ago finished 32-50? The same record that the Bucks had when Dunleavy took over Milwaukee Bucks. What you're really saying is that Mike Dunleavy couldn't turn around the Bucks with their piss poor talent (despite having 2 All Star players) but other coaches can. But it's ok, it's not Mike Dunleavy's fault - even though he accomplished less and had a worse record than any Bucks coach before or after him, including Chris Ford.
good grief man, you are on a mission. I already agreed with you that the perception theory holds true, and you write another MacBethian post about it. Man, don't repost your stuff to me. I read you every day. Maybe we need to talk this out at Kenneally's some time soon. anyhow, the perception does not hold true for Carlisle, not by any measure that you give Brown. Carlisle's perception is nowhere close to Brown or Phil Jackson. Come on, man. He just got fired from his first head coaching job. How do you think players are going to "perceive" that? It doesn't work like Brown. Also, quit saying Carlisle maximized the Pacer's talent without first saying that Brown failed miserable at maximizing their talent in the 37-43 season before *Bird* started maximizing their talent that was just there for the pickings. Carlisle didn't change Indiana. The team was already a contender than Brown screwed up, and Carlisle couldn't have got them back. They needed Bird to lead them, no matter what asst offensive coach you could give him...that team needs a contenders cool hand, confidence in them and focus.
