um yes it has. hes not getting owned in the low block as much and he's not getting as winded. his lack of tiredness is evident that adelman is making his life easier.
So Phil Jackson taking over was the only change in both of those situations? The rosters stayed the EXACT same? The players didn't improve any at all? Rivals (Detroit, the Spurs) didn't get old and/or injured? All else was equal? The coach was the ONE change that changed? Why not? So he was good enough to win 1 championship, but no more? My, where to begin. Bob Hill is a championship-level coach if he's on a championship-level team. To suggest the Spurs lost due to coaching is really an insult to Hakeem and the Rockets. As if SA was really better and it was just strategy that prevented them from winning. As in most cases, switch coaches, and the Rockets still win the series. Switch centers, and the Spurs win the series. It's a "fact" that Hill wasn't up to the task? How on earth is that a fact? They win 62 games in a loaded conference, and go 6 games into the WCF, losing to the eventual champion, but the coach wasn't up to the task? The coach made David Robinson not clutch? Btw, no way does the "best roster in the NBA" EVER include Vinny Del Negro and Avery Johnson in the starting lineup. What is a fact is this - Greg Popovich's success as a coach corresponds directly with Tim Duncan's time in the league. This is undisputable. The chances are far, far greater of the Spurs winning all those championships with any other coach than they are of switching out Duncan with any other player in the league except Shaq and the Spurs winning any championships at all. Of course, I disagree completely. There is so much more that goes into managing a baseball team that I don't see how it's even a discussion. In the NBA, coaches are roughly equal in importance to that of a non-star rotation player, i.e. +/- a few wins. Sounds like you know a lot about what went on at Heat practices and in huddles. Let's put it this way - it's MUCH easier to find the "right" coach than it is to find the right players. There are several coaches that could have won championships with those teams. There's only one Jordan, one Shaq, etc.
One thing about coach Popovich, he'll sit any players who are off or not performing well at anytime of the game. He's very blunt and practical coach. That's why his team usually plays well because players who play badly will definitely be removed from court at least for period.
I NEVER said that! Where are you going? A straw man is born here. Westhead lost the players. Simple as that. It was kind of ugly and Magic's reputation took a hit. But he was right. Duh, I said ONE reason the Spurs lost was because of Hill. My goodness, can you stop taking plain statements and changing them into a straw man? Duh, of course Hakeem was better than Robinson. Even Spurs fans admit this. Hill was rightfully blasted for allowing Hakeem to single-handedly abuse Robinson. His judgment was questioned by everybody. To say my statement was an insult to Hakeem is just dumb. Apparently you can't dissect a differing opinion without distorting it. There you go again. I said Hakeem was better than Robinson so it wasn't a matter of Robinson not being clutch. Who ever said it was? Where did you pull that from? The playoffs is where you separate the cream from the residue, for both players and coaches. It's why JVG is no longer here and why we hope Adelman can do better. Hill did a fine job guiding the Spurs to the best record in the NBA but he had brainlock and should have forced someone else on the Rockets to beat them. Coaching and playing in a tense 7 game WCF playoff series is worlds different than the regular season. This is a key reason we lost the season series to the Spurs 5-1 yet beat them 4-2 when it really mattered. A very ungracious A.C. Green of the Suns said after the Kiss of Death game, "There is no way they will beat the Spurs". I forget which player it was, but one Spur was moronic enough to say "I think we must be in their [the Rockets] heads". Duh, yes Pop's success coincides with TD. Who has ever disputed that? Nobody in this thread, that's for sure. I said good coaches AND good players are both essential to winning championships. Dead wrong but you are entitled to your opinion. I know what was said publicly and written in the newspapers. Riley's a tyrant and that's what the Heat needed to max out their potential that year. Either way, is there any argument the Heat became a different team after changing coaches (which is really the whole point here anyway)? "Several coaches"? I doubt it, though some other coaches might have won it all. There is a reason MJ said he wouldn't play for any other coach with the Bulls. Indeed, there is only one MJ and Shaq, but there is only one PJ, Riles and Pop too. Judging by the last 21 seasons, it's debatable whether finding the right coach is easier than finding the right players. Maybe it is. Regardless, if you don't find both, you won't win a championship.
He should, but I don't think he has the right rotation, yet. If Scola doesn't start soon, well that just doesn't make sense. And surely Rafer is a short term experiment. He didn't review the tapes on Rafer and look at the stat. sheet!? Whoa. He has handled the Francis situation very badly. I think he is off to a pretty rocky start.
Of course, he knows what he is doing, every coach knows what he is doing, but there are only a few ones who are really knowing what they are doing to win it all. So far, Rick A has not been so impressive, but that does not mean he will be great later.
I expect them to get better offensively as time passes and Adelman's system becomes 2nd nature to them. However, I also expect their defensive mindset to slip as well because that's what I've seen from Adelman teams as well. In that respect they'll come to resemble the Mavericks than the Spurs.
I couldn't agree more. What he's done with his rotation so far has been questionable at best. And I don't care what Rafer did in camp, because it obviously hasn't translated into anything in the games. He might even look worse this year than last year. Scola showed signs of breaking out the game before these last two, then didn't touch the court in the second half of that game. Yao stayed in almost the entire first half of one game, and even Bill Worrell was wondering if Rick forgot about him out there. There's no consistent rotation at all. I know he's said it's a "feel" thing, but I don't even think that's the case. There doesn't seem to be any adjustments either, and every phase of the game has gotten WORSE than it was last year. Maybe it'll take time to adjust like everybody keeps saying, but to me that's a cop out. And there's no time for cop outs when you play in the West and in the toughest division in the league.
I never said "rings follow the players and NOT the coaches" is dead wrong and to say "coaching matters less in the NBA than any other major pro sport" is ludicrous... I was defending a guy that said dominant big men are easy to coach... sure...yes... at face value why not... I agreed that it would take a good coach and a dominant player to win the big dance... And no...you didn't really answer my question...if you consider Don Chaney a mediocre coach, which your statement implies...let me rephrase my question...do we stand a better chance to beat the Spurs that year in the WCF with Don coaching and the Dream playing or Rudy coaching and Elden Cambell playing? -V
I couldn't agree more. I saw this coming when everyone was talking about a 60-win year after 5 games. I really thought it would be a harder adjustment than it has been. Adelman's coaching style is a lot different than Van Gundy's. They are both tough coaches with complicated styles, but they emphasize a lot different things. It'll be February before we can even come close to evaluating the difference that the coach made.
Completely agree. Although the Spurs is a championship team that is expected to play at high levels, Pops has always been keen on developing young talents and he's not afraid to use them during crucial situations. Just look at the roster they have. Everyone gets a little playing time. Nobody is left out. Also, he's not afraid to put the star players on the bench for the benefit of the team. Manu is definitely one of these top three players on the team along with Duncan and Parker. Yet he comes off the bench. Not all coaches can do this and not all of them have the clout to try everyone on the roster. However, I think our roster is talented enough for Adelman to experiment beyond the 8 man roster. Plus, using Francis is NOT a risk when he's a proven veteran who knows how to get to the basket.
Your statement just made me wonder why not all coaches can do this. Is it related to confidence? It's not rocket science, sometimes popovich send a player out and after a while he is still not contributing, he'll be removed from court and the someone else will replace him. I think it's what we call you always play with the best combination depending on the game play of your opponent, the situation and the intensity of a player when he is court. If a player lack of intensity or slack off in defense or making bad plays for a while, he should sit.
Even he is not a proven veteran, I strongly believed if Rafer is on his team, he will sit for a while after making a few bad plays and Francis will come in. Then if Francis is not helping the team much, AB will come in and this continue. A few min of PT will not lose much as long as you will get the right combination to recover back it later and when your opponent game plan change, you change your combination change again. This allow everyone to develop and you will always have the best combination against your opponent game plan and you will get your players to play with high intensity.
If he is not a proven veteran, then who is? I have not researched it, but I would bet that SF has better career stats than everyone on the team not named Yao or Tracy. Do they have to be all stars to be a proven veteran? Oh wait, SF has done that too! I guess Rafer is a proven veteran??
I was quoting someone else. Heh heh. I'd rather have Chaney coaching the Dream than have Elden Campbell as my starting center. But Chaney wouldn't have gotten us past the Jazz and Suns in the first place. He had a special run during the one season when Dream went down and Larry Smith stepped in. Mr. Mean played defense and rebounded out of his mind (sounds like Deke last year) and the other players stepped up huge. It was very impressive. As we all remember, Dream came back and we looked primed and ready to go. Chaney was named Coach of the Year. When the playoffs started, some people even picked us to beat the Lakers. We lost and Chaney was canned during the next season. Last season, JVG, like Chaney, did a good job of holding things together when our great center went down to injury. But also like Chaney, he's gone now and maybe his successor can lead us to the promised land. The parallels are there.
This is a complicated question to answer and it involves many factors. Having worked for the Sonics organization (albeit briefly), I was exposed to a lot of the NBA politics behind the scenes. However, it doesn't take an insider to figure it out not all coaches have the "ability" to do this kind of constant roster change. It has a lot to do with the economics of basketball. There is only one team that can win it all. In the league, there can only be three to four realistic contenders each season. So the rest are either "up and coming" or "lottery bound". Unless you're Jerry Sloan or Gregg Popovich, the coaching job is an extremely volatile one. You can find yourself unemployed at any given moment's notice. To the press and public, the coach always tells you everything they do is in the best interest of team. But in reality 80% to 90% of the coaches in this league do just enough to secure their next paycheck. It's a harsh and cynical view, I know. But it's reality in the NBA. First and foremost, the coach must squeeze out the maximum number of wins possible under the circumstances in which they're given. This is so the teams can satisfy all the season ticket holders. It all boils down to money. Only one team can win the trophy, meanwhile the rest gotta cover their losses and make some money. During the preseason, all the team execs estimate a ballpark number of wins based on the type of players they have. If the coach meets or exceeds that number, they're congratulated by keeping their job for another season. If they don't, they're gone. To win as many number of games as possible, they're unable to take chances on rookies or new players. It's a gamble the average coach can't afford to lose. The two types of coaches that has the flexibility to experiment belong to the top and worst teams in the league. So to answer your question, it's not because coaches don't want to, it's because they can't!
Thank you very much for your explanation. I heard of some of these during some of the discussions on JVG in this website where he refused to play rookie at all cost .. about his wife don't like rookies because they make mistakes and mistakes cost games and eventually his job.
Well as I predicted Alston is playing himself out of the rotation by the 10-15th game. Which means it's Francis time!! I guess three time All-Star doesn't count as proven veteran? ROFL!
