Quit perpetuating these lies. Come on Scar. His '91 Laker team EXCEEDED expectations by defeating a favored Portland team in the WCF. This is fact. They then lost in the Finals after getting decimated by injuries. By the end of the series they were missing practically the entire starting 5. Magic got hurt in Game 3 and was lost for the series. What more did you want Dunleavy to do here? In 2000 his Portland team took LA to 7 games despite not having either of the two best players on the court. LA won 67 games that year. What should Dunleavy have done, won 70? What kind of expectations did you have for him? When you're going against a 67-win team that has the two best players on the court, and playing Game 7 on their court, you're not supposed to win.
I knew he had been fired by Portland and I totally forgot that he had even coached G.S. until I looked it up. I hope you can see my point now though. Adelman had some decent talent in G.S. (Mulling, Hardaway, Sprewell, Joe Smith (ok, hes just like Vin Baker in that he was overrated)) but was only 66-98 in those two seasons. Yet, Adelman has suceeded in two other places despite that.
CrazyJoe, again I don't think anybody is saying Dunleavy couldn't succeed elsewhere(a veteran team), my point is that he isn't a good fit for this team.We are full of young players who need someone to ride their ass and get their respect,and unless MD has done a total 360, he isn't that guy.
Is there a difference between: (1) The team fires you and (2) The team tells you to resign? Not much...IMHO
I understand the points being made for Dunleavy. I just think it's not the right move. Could the Rockets be good with Dunleavy, I think they could. But I feel they'd be even better with Van Gundy. I also think Van Gundy's reputation by fans, basketball analysts is much higher than Dunleavy's. If you're going to fire Rudy T, you better get a heavy hitter to replace him. I don't think it'll sit too well with players and fans if you don't find the most qualified candidate.
First, I am not lying, I am being very consistent. You contradict yourself here. You "always" think the team with the best player wins (though I don't subscribe to this philosphy completely, otherwise Hakeem would have been in 6-8 NBA finals) --but then you say the Lakers with Magic should not have won in 91? I don't think many people were surprised at all the Lakers (Magic, Worthy, Divac, Scott, Perkins) beat the Blazers that year. Using your theory the Lakers would be expected to smoke them as they had by far the best individual player on the court in Magic plus a 2nd star comparable to the Blazer's best player at that stage in his development (Drexler & Worthy had extremely close statistics), and contrary to you I think Buss/West told him they expect a championship with what he had. Dunleavy's Blazers teams had three enormous collapases 1) after Elliott's shot steals game 1 of the WC finals the Blazers never recover and his team gets swept. Even JVG's team much more limited talent and interior strength as well as I think every other team who faced that Spurs team presented more resistance than Dunleavy's loaded Blazer team (at least I am pretty sure this was a Dunleavy team, not positive). 2) having a 10 point plus 4th quarter lead in game 7 with a championship in hand Dunleavy's even more loaded team goes into a shell and manages to blow it. This Blazer team was the favorite, this team unlike that Laker team that beat them was returning to the WC finals, this team was the team with the addition of Smith & Pippen that had all the pieces and everyone knew it. Again I am quite sure the Portland brass expected Dunleavy to deliver a title with the consensus league's most talented team. Fact is they did have all the pieces, only they forgot how to play the last and most important quarter of the season and the coach did nothing to get them back on track. So again, yes Dunleavy in 3 situations, 2 loaded with fantastic talent, 1 not--failed to deliver what was expected when he went into the job.
Did you know that when Dunleavy took over Portland, that the Blazers were the youngest team on average in the NBA?? http://www.chron.com/content/archiv...t=&type=&user=houston&sview=1&hview=2&dview=1
Though I think he is much better than Dunleavy, I am not the worlds biggest fan of Adelman either--though getting last year's Sac team to play defense might be changing my position about him somewhat. Adelman's two places he has had success had has been totally loaded with talent (1st or 2nd best int he league). I would not take Adelman with a Brown on board that is for sure.
See, I have always said that I think Brown is a small cut above everyone else (except maybe Jackson and Riley). Yet, I have maintained my stance that the 2nd tier (which would include JVG, Dunleavy and Adelman) is pretty darn close. In the end, its all about the players you have, specifically, the type of players. GS players made Adelman look like a bad coach, Sac players made him look like a good coach. Buck players made Dunleavy look like a bad coach, Portland players made Dunleavy look like a good coach (took the youngest team in the NBA to 4 winning seasons despite not having that one top talent. Brown never could get over the hump, but is there any doubt that he could win a title with Shaq, Kobe or Duncan?
OK we agree on something I have a different tiers. I think Sloan, Carlise and JVG are 2nd tier, and may very well be proven as 1st tier if they can win with different teams/players. Adelman is solid 2nd tier--never exceeded expectations but doesn't screw things up--but I don't think he will ever be 1st tier (guys who get more out of less). Dunleavy I see is at best 2nd tier (a guy not to screw things up), probably 3rd tier, and based on his performance/talent across 3 different head coaching situations almost no chance of being 1st tier.
I think the best player wins the championship, which Jordan did that year. I don't think the best player wins each individual series. LA did not have homecourt against Portland that year. Portland won 63 games to LA's 58. Portland was the defending WC champ and got back to the Finals in '92. Plus in '91 Drexler v. Magic was very debatable. Magic was past his prime by then. You never addressed the fact that Magic and other starters got hurt in the Bulls' series. You think Dunleavy still should have won that series? If not, where is this so-called failure to live up to expectations? Dunleavy was Coach of the Year and they lost to the better team. The Lakers and Shaq/Bryant also got swept by the Spurs that year. Why is it Dunleavy's fault that Pippen and Wallace choked? It doesn't matter I guess that these guys have been chokers their entire careers? How were they the favorite? This is completely false. As I mentioned earlier, LA won 67 games and had homecourt. Portland was not the favorite. I'm amazed by how much you think a coach can control. Nice qualifier, "when he went into the job". I guess it allows you to blame Dunleavy when unexpected things happen, like say, your entire team getting injured in the Finals.
That is a 1st for me on here. Keep it on the down low (I wouldn't want to ruin what lil rep I have ) I mentioned this in another thread (might have been this one), but when Dunleavy took over the Blazers, they had the youngest team in the league, not one of the youngest, the youngest. He led tham team to an average win total of 54 wins in his 4 seasons. This is why I think he could do the job for us. We are talented and one of the youngest teams in the league. Overall, I just think alot of people don't look real deeply at the Portland situation to see whether they truley underacheived considering their age and the fact that they had no defineable player to build around.
Portland was a $90 million dollar team. They had the highest payroll in NBA history, they had the most talented team in the league. Rasheed Wallace had 41 technicals in one of the seasons. They underacheived.
Having the highest payroll does not make the team the best in the league (BTW, Whitsit is the mastermind behind that, not Dunleavy). Portland had the deepest talent, but they did not have the best. There is a difference. So how is Dunleavy to blame for Sheed's technicals? Has any coach ever been able to control him?? They underacheived based on their payroll, but not their talent level (who would you rather have, Shaq and Kobe or Wallace and Pippen?).
Highest payroll doesn't necessarily mean best team. But it does mean that your team is probably one of the best teams. Difference between most talent and best talent? Mo Cheeks has done a much better job of keeping Sheed under control. His technicals are way down. He's not throwing towels at Sabonis. The Blazers under Dunleavy had way more talent then the Lakers did. They were the most talented team in the NBA.
CrazyJoe, they may have been the youngest team when MD took over, but they traded alot of their youth away for veterans. And what youth was left in Blazerville turned on Dunleavy and treated him with littlle to no respect. Defend it all you want, but it boils down to philosophy. I want a coach who will install discipline and teach respect to a team that is in desperate need of it. Obviously you think an X's and 0's guy is what we are missing. I just don't want another soft players " just one of the guys" coach. We have had that, and it failed.
I love Mo Cheeks. But how much farther did he lead the team than Dunleavy? Zip. And yeah, Wallace was more controlled. (could it be the fact that he's actually grown a bit older?) What about the fight between Randolph and Patterson? There are just too many headcases on that team. I've always wondered how Phil Jackson might do with that bunch. But I'll never find out. Phil doesn't have the gall to do that kind of thing.
One of the best, but not they best. Dunleavy's teams were one of the best teams and got to the WC finals, but were ultimately defeated by the team with the BEST players. Would you rather have a whole bunch of players who were very good, but not great (Portland), or a team of Jordan/Pippen or Shaq/Kobe surrounded by role players?? Teams don't win titles without HOFers (the only one on Portland was a 35 year old Pippen who was past his prime). ..........but he is chasing after referees in the parking lot (for which he was suspended for 7 games which is much more of a factor than 41 technicals). Ill ask you the same question I asked someone else: If you want to win a title, do you start with a team of Shaq/Kobe or Wallace/Smith or Pippen??? The rest of the team hardly matters. Why do you think Hakeem and co. could beat teams that had more depth than we did (and a better regular season record)??? Because we had the BEST player.
