Thought I'd throw this into the ring: Sean Deveaney http://www.sportingnews.com/voices/sean_deveney/20030603.html The reality of the situation goes something like this: Though Dumars and Carlisle were not engaged in a bitter personal battle, they did not see eye-to-eye on some issues. (That was not the sole reason for Carlisle's departure, though, and there the details get hazy). When they appeared side-by-side at a press conference last Saturday, Dumars and Carlisle were exactly as they appeared to be -- two basketball guys with differences of opinion on how things should be run. The problem for Carlisle was he had just finished the second season of a three-year deal. Conventional NBA wisdom says a coach does not go into the last year of his contract without an extension. That means a deal had to be worked out this offseason -- Dumars would have to tie the Pistons' long-term future to Carlisle, or part ways altogether. The main philosophical difference between Dumars and Carlisle was player development, which was obvious in the lack of playing time for rookies Mehmet Okur and Tayshaun Prince. It was not the only problem, but it was the most obvious. If the goal for the Pistons is to win in the regular season and compete in the playoffs, giving guys such as Michael Curry starting roles makes sense. But Dumars would like the Pistons to become an elite team, able to hang in the neighborhood of the Kings, Lakers, Mavericks and Spurs. The only way to do that is to develop young players, and it was not happening with Carlisle. Dumars and Carlisle had philosophical differences, and there were other problems with Carlisle in the organization (unrest in the locker room, for example, as several veteran players were not happy with Carlisle's communication style). Given the circumstances, a contract extension did not make sense for Dumars, and continuing to coach without a secure future did not seem viable for Carlisle. So, they ended the relationship. It did not hurt that Larry Brown, experienced at developing young, hard-working players, was on the market, having resigned from his post in Philadelphia. But even if Brown had not been available, a change was inevitable. Carlisle proved himself to be a very good X's and O's coach. He made defense a priority with the Pistons, and as an assistant to Larry Bird he was the brains behind the Pacers' success. However, he can be difficult to get along with, which was one reason Pacers brass did not make him Bird's successor.
And clearly this is absolutely NOT what the Rockets need! The Rockets need a coach that WILL develop our young players. Looking at the long run and not just coach for the short run. I am on the fence on Carlisle but hearing this is not something that endears me to him.
Yes the Rockets do need someone who is good at teaching young players. Out of Dunleavy and Van Gundy who do you think is the better teacher?
People keep talking about the "long run". Coaches generally don't last more than 5 years. they either get a ring or get zoned out. That's just the way it is...