Wizards this year have played a good basketball. He with jordan have changed washington in the last years. If Silas is a posibility, Why not Collins?
mmmm... I really wanted say: WHAT about collins. ____________________________________________ Sorry but you can see I have problems whit english yet. SOmeday I will speak a good english
As a commentator, he certainly knows the game stone cold, but that has never translated in coaching success.
I don't see Collins getting a job in the near future after being MJ's puppet for the last couple years. I think he lost a lot of credibility during his last coaching tenure...
That what Rockets need. I would want him before Silas, Van Gandy or others like: - avery johnson - Kenny smith - I saw Bill Walton? And with him we will see more points than with any other candidates, includes Larry (Brown not bird ), Jeff, Mike-D and Silas
He's a great teacher. I would be happy with him as the coach if we chose to go in that direction. It just doesn't seem plausible at this point. He'd be a great assistant to have in the best of all possible worlds.
I have always thought Collins was less than the sum of his parts. He should be a very good coach; he knows the game, communicates, doesn't abandon one aspect of the game ( ie offense/defense, eyc.) in favour of another, adapts, is not a softy, but isn't a drill instructor either...but he just doesn't put it together. He's decent, but Rudy was better than that.
Agreed. BTW - I can't remember who it was but someone laid into Yetti for spelling color as "colour", so watch yourself JAG on favor or you might get labelled pretentious! Collins was always better in broadcasting than coaching and as BGM said, his last stint with the Wizards proved nothing more than that he can be a good yes man.
Lol! I live in Canada, which I think was one of the exemptions people mentioned when laying into Yetti.
it was me jokingly asking yetti if he was british or something, manny. surprised you remembered. macbeth, explain to me the whole "favourite" and "colour" thing.
Haha, yea, my memory is pretty good for useless things and I am also talented at building up earwax. Pretty amazing, isn't it?
Genuine question: Explain as in why do the British/Canadians etc. use a 'u', or why the Americans dropped it?
For the first you have to go back into the chaotic past that is the evolution of the English language. Etymology isn't a particularly strong suit of mine, aside from basic Latin etc. derivitives, so I'd be guessing, but I assume it is probably the result of Norman influence. The second is a little easier to answer. It's actually an interesting story, the evolution of the American version of English. Firstly, a lot of it was just plain accidental or laziness. Geographically influenced divergence of languages is pretty universal, but it is interesting that it occured to a much larger degree in America, where the primary language of inhabitants was English, than in, say, India, where they still abide pretty faithfully to the language of origin. America was so spread out, and education was not at all standardized in various locales that it began to be spelled as people thought words sounded. Then, particularly in two phases, the first being post Revolutionary, and the second being late19th early/20th century, there were actual concerted efforts to adapt the language to differentiate Americans from their former English overlords. The second was particularly interesting, as it did not have the obvious political motivation, but was more of a reflection of both an acknowledgment of and attempt to overcome a sense of being second class to Europe, from a cultural standpoint. It is amazing to those who know American bravado as a standard these days, but one of the original common cultural attitudes of early Americans was a deep sense of cultural insecurity. Many, especially a few select newspaper publishers ( some actually British born) and writers, in particular Mark Twain began to search for, find, and record an originally American version of the language, altering accepted gramtical patterns, and both the spelling and pronunciation of words, often 'simplifying' things by virtue of dropping letters deemed superfluous. Bit, yeah... ..a lot of it comes back to laziness.
Yes, Collins is emotional and impatient, but not in a good way. These would be good qualities if it meant that he would accept nothing less than perfection and would work with the players, no matter how frustrating it got, until all problems were resolved. However, these are bad qualities if it means he accepts nothing less than perfection, but then gives up on the players out of frustration and begins b****ing to the media about them. From what I've seen in Washington, Collins fits the latter. He's a great "basketball mind" but a terrible motivator, and definitely NOT a player's coach. And some of you might say "that's what the Rockets need," but the reality is that you must have players to be good. If players don't want to come to your team because of the coach, then it doesn't bode well for the team's success. The key is to getting a coach who strikes a balance, where he can be tough on the players but still respected. I don't think there was a single player on the Wizards who respected Collins...except maybe Jordan.
