Hmm, here's a question that's never been posed (or meticulously answered) before.. sorry RDog. You're a great poster. But you even answered some of your own questions in your OP.
Adelman's system has worked for this team. It generally works for the first 3 quarters of most games. It is only in the 4th quarter when teams buckle down. It has not worked here, because I really trully feel the players have not gotten a complete feel for this system and their role in the system. Everyone has always said that it take 2 years to learn this system (which has passed so far), but the personnel on this team has continually been changing due to trades, injuries, and FA's. As a result, they are still thinking about what to do. As a result, they are more deliberate in their "sets" in the 4th quarter because of tiredness, pressure, etc. This means that they are not being as creative as they need to be to, nor are the teammates on the same page as to what everyone else will be trying to do and where on the court they will be doing it. Also, that deliberateness makes the sets more predicable and easier for opposing teams to defend. I'm not sure if this will change anytime soon. Most people can see this team is at a crossroads and will be tinkered with soon again. That will make the problem more apparent. On top of that, asking young players who are projects to learn this system while developing and still produce is a difficult thing to do. Essentially, I think Morey's approach to have a very fluid roster/lineup and Adelman's offensive scheme are difficult to mesh together. It is not impossible to do so, but either you need some sort of solid direction with the players you using with the system so that they will stay long enough in one role or they just need to talented and instinctual at cutting and finding teammates that they can speed up their learning curve. Right now, the Rockets don't really have either. That is why a lot of their 4th quarter possessions result in an isolation, a Pnr, or a post up. They can work sometimes, but with the Rockets current personnel they have shown to not be productive consistently in Winning time
If Adelman can get us into the 8th playoff spot this year, I'll never complain about him again. It looks like the team (esp. starting unit) is finally beginning to gel despite not getting any reinforcements in. I also liked the way he handled the AB situation. Not many coaches can stand up to "star players" who are pouting and frustrated. Adelman just laid down the law: winning comes first and he is the one in charge of deciding PT. Now let's go win some games.
Frankly, the OP is just incorrect. Rick Adelman's teams have played well and had success in the playoffs -- albeit he hasn't taken a team all the way. The Trailblazers under Adelman with Clyde Drexler were great, and the same goes for his Sacramento Kings. Good teams run a disciplined sysem of offense and defense. Look at how the Spurs have been successful. They always execute on both ends of the court. This is perfectly evidenced by their recent win over the Lakers. The Spurs ran their Pop's system, and the Lakers didn't get their offense going. They simply let Kobe Bryant try to isolate his defender. Rick Adelman's system is no exception. What we need are some better players -- players like Kevin Durant. If you watch the Thunder, you'll see Kevin Durant getting easy shots within their offense. And when the game is on the line, he can put the team on his shoulders. This organization has done a great job in the past few years of finding young talent and making them into rotational players. Be patient. T. Will is a third/fourth string guy right now. When you're playing behind two/three players, you can't expect to get minutes. I don't think it has anything to do with Rick Adelman's 'ego'. He's been a great coach.
Are you really desperate for that all-important megabuster 8th seed? and then drop 10 places in the draft? Adelman has already proved himself in the league. He doesn't need to win games right now. Just showcase the veterans and trade them away and prepare for the future.
I dont know if adelman the coach can win a title. Systems mean something,but coaches calling the correct plays or making the crtical sub are more important. Adelman system s really no different than the triangle and what Utah runs. They're all basically passing offenses and motion,but in the end when the game get tight, it turns into iso and beating a guy. Those kings teams were not tough and the blazers teams were full of cry babies. There is always something about an adelman led team.
Its high post initiated three man games built on exploiting picks and back picks. The truth is we don't even run as much as we used too because it requires a ton of effort and coordination on the offensive end. We use a hybrid system now because now that better suits the strengths of our players. Miller, Martin, Battier, Scola and Hayes are the only ones that seem to be able to run it consistantly and effectively.
our starting lineup has a very good and efficient scorer in kevin martin, an above average offensive post player in luis scola, a mediocre starting/good backup point guard in lowry, and 2 guys who can't get their own shot at all in battier and hayes and off of the bench we have nothing special and yet we're 8th in offensive efficiency right now. it seems hard to say we've underperformed or that the system isn't working. as for the end of the game, your post seems to imply that at the end of games teams get deliberate and more iso oriented (i agree) and and that good teams turn it over to 1 of 3 options (elite low post, wing, or pg) who break down the defense to create good shots for themselves and others. since we don't have any of those, i'm not sure what you think adelman's solution is supposed to be. it would seem running the system is a better bet than giving it to imaginary elite player X. unfortunately, like everyone else, we do generally get more iso-oriented at the end as well, but we just don't have anyone (even our high scoring, highly efficient SG) who is particularly good at it. and certainly not elite at it. so we struggle. thus morey's ardent attempt to get us an elite player to finish games. and not only does it seem kind of weird to ask if the system that has us 8th in offense without elite talent can work, it seems even weirder to ask if a guy who has been to 2 finals and a de facto 3rd finals (lakers) and was a few dick bavetta calls away from winning that one can win. he also won 55 games and had a 22 game winning streak with yao missing about a 1/3 of the season and tmac hobbling around the rest of the time, and somehow got us 40 wins with an all-role player team that could only do that with maximum effort and chemistry - the 2 biggest things a coach is responsible for. i don't know, maybe he's not popovich or jackson (though i'm sure he would love to coach an MJ or shaq or kobe just once to see how he'd do), but we're not getting either of those guys so i'm not sure who the upgrade is over a guy with a very solid offensive system, a guy who has coached something like 7 top 3 defenses, and who always seems to have his teams playing hard and together.
even ignoring the ridiculous screw job in game 6 against the lakers, game 7 went to OT and regulation ended with a wide open peja stojakovic 3 pointer that he airballed over into the next zip code (man was it awful). so his coaching fate basically ended up being decided by peja being a choking chokester who choked. meanwhile, phil jackson had robert horry drain a back breaking 3 at the buzzer on the ol' "kobe-you-miss-shaq-you-miss-vlade-you-slap-it-out-up-top-and-robert-you-stand-exactly-where-you-think-vlade-will-slap-it-and-then-make-the-3" play to win game 4 of that series. 2 shots neither coach had much to do with going in or bouncing out once it left the guys hand and they both went against adelman. sometimes life sucks. well they're pretty good systems. i'm not sure why running something similar would be a bad thing. well yeah, and that's great if you have people who can do that. if you don't coach michael jordan, you probably won't be as good at the end of the game and you might have to improvise. hell, just give us a manu ginobili and it would do a world of good for us at the ends of games. yes, like not having a michael or kobe to just turn it over to at the end of a game. i love clyde for that 2nd title, but i don't think anyone's putting him up there with those guys for end of game dominance and that's the most elite player adelman's coached followed by chris webber. if i know my coach can get a talented roster to the finals, then i start worrying more about getting the talented roster than about replacing my coach.
His system is great, his teams play beautiful basketball. And yes, he has coached some very good defensive teams too. You don't play an NBA finals being a bad defensive team. His problem is more his way of managing the games/rosters and his stubbornness. He's far from being an open minded coach, and possibly this is actually necessary in today's NBA to succeed.
The blazers led the league in tech's and the lakers frontline all had 10+ rebs and vlade,webber,and peja were nowhere close. I will stand on what I say and we have seen it time and time again with Rick. 1991 blazers had no reason for losing to the lakers that year. That was one of Adelmans best teams. Lets go beack a couple of years later when a loaded and split the 1st 2 games with Detroit. They were feeling it going home with a split and lost all 3 games at home. 1991, they were the heavy favorite in the west and had the best record. Clyde,porter,kersey,and duckworth were all all-stars, yet they let critical games get away because they lost focus and lost the series. 1992, the blazers were again loaded and ready to go. They had the bulls down by like 20 at home with jordan on the bench and at home. What happened? Team lost focus,game got close, and jordan brought the game home. There is one thing consistent about an adelman led team and we have seen it in houston also in limited time. An adelman led team will lose focus and give it up when the heat is turned up. Wheter its the blazers,kings or rockets. How about having one of the all time leading rebounders on the bench in favor of an undersized rookie pf. What happened? The youngster gets pushed under the rim, okur get the rebound and the jazz win. Say what you will about Rudy T, but when he had the window, he jumped through and finsished the job. Adelman had the same window, and knocked the stick down and it landed on his throat. Adelaman is in the gearge karl class of coaches and its has nothing to do with the system. Doc rivers has 2 19 game losing streaks, yet he has been to as many titles games as adelman. When he lost garnett, they still performed and lost.
