Rockets not planning on interviewing Carlisle (610am)

My point is you continually misquote me.

1. You say it was the author's opinion which it was not.

2. Then you say the list is at the beginning of the season which I clearly stated from the outset. In fact it further proved my point that Carlisle is an excellent coach. This season Detroit actually improved over last year when Carlisle was ranked among the very best in the league and named coach of the year in his rookie campaign.

The fact the list is a year old enhances my argument that we would be passing on 2 of the best coaches in the league. This is the crux of the entire debate of whether or not we should grant Carlisle an interview. Everything else is irrelevant.

3. Then you contend that I said it was an opinion by NBA staff and management which is once again false. I said it probably included David Aldridge and Jack Ramsay both of whom have ties to NBA personnel. This is an accurate and factual statement on my part.

4. You contend Dunleavy resigned on his own free will and I contend he was fired or at least "forced to resign".

I don't understand your need to continually misquote or mischaracterize just to prove your point.

 

1) The opinion of ESPN's NBA experts vs. the consensus of ESPN's NBA experts. Explain the difference? Its still an article based on the COLLECTIVE opinions of ESPN's staff.

Now, please explain how you can equate this to how actualy NBA personel/owners/coaches/management feel.

2) I've never disputed Carlisle rankings, but rather, expressed concerned that you are putting so much stock into a list that is a) Highly flawed and b) Is not even up to date. I insinuated ESPN's ranking systems should not be considered the gospel.

3) You equated that consensus of NBA staff writers to the consensus of actual NBA people by posting a rhetorical question:

RIET: It isn't the gospel but are you telling me this is contrary to what is the general consensus around the league?

You obviously feel that ESPN's staff's opinion is consistent with that of NBA personel/owners/coaches/management or else you would have never posed that question.

4) Again, according to NBA.com, Dunleavy stepped down. You are entitled to feel differently if it makes you feel better about your defense of this list.

 

stinka-deena, i mean pasadena

 

SLA Its very insulting to Christians when you abuse Holy Names! Please stop.

 

You're a total weirdo. Stop posting.

 

And this guy



should just retire already.

 

yes, so we can hire you and pray for a replacement.

 

If one is religious do you think its weird? Are you a member of the Staff? Were you knighted by Royalty? Are you giving a fellow member a command?

 

Crazy Joe: "That list is based on the author's opinion, not any type of consensus"

"It is the opinion of ESPN staffers, whether they have NBA experience or not. Nowhere in that ranking system does it say that they based their opinions after talking to owners or management."

"To say this list is a consensus of NBA owners and management is ridiculous."

I have never stated it was a list by NBA owners or management.
I did state that the ESPN staff probably included David Aldridge and Ramsay both of whom have ties to NBA personnel.

This is a list which I believe represents an accurate portrayal of Carlisle's standing which you did not even dispute. That's why I asked if the list was contrary to the consensus around the league.

Are you saying that Carlisle and Brown are not considered among the top coaches by NBA personnel?

If they are considered among the top coaches, then the list is congruent with their opinions even if they did not participate in constructing the list.

I cannot believe you do not see the difference.

You say the list is not gospel. I never said it was gospel and in fact I said it wasn't. However, I felt it was consistent with most people's opinion that Rick Carlisle is one of the best young coaches in the NBA.

It was evidentary support not an independent study.

CrazyJoe: "I dont have a problem with where Brown or Carlisle or ranked. Actually, I do have a problem with their rankings, however, I only feel they are off by 1 or 2 spots at the most. "

So the list is highly flawed but is accurate as it pertains to Carlisle. Then what is the debate? This entire thread is about Rick Carlisle.

Once again, I have no idea how this is relevant to the list.

 

No, but just because someone says "Jesus", it's not "abusing holy names". A lot of people in Spain are named Jesus, so have all their parents been "abusing holy names" or what...

And the "Stop posting" bit was just a reference to Gregonomics .

 

Naw, Dumars is taking the heat for the owner. This was Davidson's deal all the way. He did not like Carlisle and since he signs the checks...

 

From Mitch Albom's column today:

<i>So what ticked off the boss so much? Apparently, he didn't like Carlisle's attitude. He didn't like the stories that got back to him about rudeness, shouting, or humiliating members of the staff. Were all the stories true? Who knows? In the end, does it matter? It's what the boss thinks, isn't it?
</i>

or

<i>But that doesn't stop the stories. Stories that Carlisle, last year, shoved a senior Pistons executive as he tried to high-five the players. Tales about Carlisle yelling at secretaries, or snapping at the medical staff, or ripping on assorted personnel, young and old, in front of other people. Maybe he didn't do all these things. Maybe he did but didn't realize how he came across. Doesn't matter. In Bill Davidson's world there is loyalty and there is proper respect, and you don't keep your job without them.
</i>

or

<i>Carlisle, a smart and talented coach, apparently felt that being smart and talented would be enough. Players disagreed. Some never cared for him, since he could stand in an elevator with them and not even strike up a conversation.

"That was always a difficult thing," admitted guard Chucky Atkins, "he didn't speak to a lot of people. When you treat people bad, it comes back to haunt you. If you can't talk to your coach, who can you talk to?"
</i>


If that's anywhere close to accurate, it's not surprising that the Rocket's wouldn't bother to interview Carlisle.

http://www.freep.com/sports/albom/mitch2_20030602.htm

 

I am prejudiced.

Any coach ranking list that have Phil Jackson at the top loses its credibility to me immediately.

 

You never stated, but you insinuated it by the rhetorical question you asked. Its all about covering your butt.

But it doesn't represent an accurate portrayal of alot of other coaches. Would most teams favor Brown over Riley? Or Saunders over Rudy T? Of course not. That why you can't say its a consensus amongst NBA management.

I am stating that I don't think alot of teams probably don't feel Brown is the 2nd best coach in the league, yes. I am stating that I don't think most teams feel Carlisle is better than more accomplished coaches like Karl, Nelson, Rudy, etc.

Its not about saying they are one some of the top coaches or not. That list was about specifically ranking them, and thus, is flawed. Thats where the difference is IMO.

You just said it. "Best young coaches". In other words, teams that are contending for a title and need a coach to put them over the hump (like Jackson did for the Lakers), would be apt to hire several other coaches (more proven/veteran/established) before Carlisle. Therein lies that lists flaws. Every team in the NBA, depending on their situation (are they rebuilding, contending, etc.) will rank all those coaches value to them differently.

In other words, its not about who is the best coach on that list, its about who is the best coach for a given teams needs. And again, thats where the list is flawed.

It may be accurate with regards to Carlisle (debatable), however its not accurate on alot of other coaches.

Example: If an article was published that ranked the most unstoppable players in the NBA, and this article had Kobe ranked #3 and Shaq #8, then its not credible IMO despite the fact that although Kobe's ranking might be accurate, Shaq's ranking obviously is not.

Neither do I, as you are the one who originally brought up the "fired/resigned" debate.

 

And which coach fits the Rockets needs? A veteran coach to "put them over the top"?


By the way, here's an article regarding Mike Dunleavy and the Bucks. Note the bold:

Bucks, Dunleavy driving Ford now

MILWAUKEE (AP) _ General manager Mike Dunleavy sees the Milwaukee Bucks as poised to make big progress, and he won't mind having Chris Ford in the head coach's spot that he lost two months ago.

When Dunleavy was stripped of his coaching duties April 27, he acknowledged it would be tough to watch the new coach work with the young team led by two-time All-Star Vin Baker and Dream Team III member Glenn Robinson.

``I think that's the initial feeling I had when the decision was made for me not to coach this team anymore,'' Dunleavy said Sunday. ``But I went forward in a positive way since then.

``Chris and I have a great relationship. I look forward to working with Chris to build this franchise to a championship level,'' he added.

Ford, named the sixth coach in the Bucks' 28-year history on Saturday, said he expects to have a great working relationship with Dunleavy, whose Bucks teams were 107-221 the past four seasons.

Ford, 47, received a three-year contract, with the club retaining an option for two more years. Dunleavy has four years remaining on his eight-year pact.

Ford, who was 222-188 in five years as Celtics' coach before being fired last year, did not coach this past season.

``I just think Chris overall had the most qualities that we were looking for,'' Dunleavy said. ``We were looking for somebody with a lot of NBA coaching experience. Chris has been through a lot as a player, an assistant coach and a head coach. He's won championships at two of those levels.''

Ford was part of three Boston championship teams, as a player in 1981 and as an assistant coach in 1984 and 1986.

Several Bucks have said they wanted the new coach to install a more up-tempo offense. They wanted that last year, even though they played woeful defense and were consistently out rebounded.

Ford said those were two areas the team must improve before he can install a solid transition game.

``If they want to run, that means that they've got to play good defense and rebound _ you got to have the ball. Those are two things the Bucks will have to get better in,'' he said.

Dunleavy said Ford has a history of accomplishing those goals.

``Great Celtic teams have always been teams that rebounded and ran,'' Dunleavy said. ``I think that's what we're looking for.''

 

Certainly not Carlisle. He is not a veteran coach and while hes back to back 50 win seasons, hes not proven he can take team full of individuals and mold them into a winner (Dunleavy has).

Here are two articles/websites that say he resigned:

http://www.nba.com/bucks/history/00400459.html

http://www.chron.com/content/archiv...t=&type=&user=houston&sview=1&hview=2&dview=1

 

Carlisle was not fired because of his rudeness, the way he grated on players, or the way he treated people.

Carlisle may be guilty of all those things but he wasn't fired until the Pistons knew they could get Larry Brown. So even if Carlisle was all those things he still would have been the Pistons Coach this season.

I don't even know if I have point, except that maybe as bad as the guy was it normally wouldn't have been bad enough to cost him his job.

 

Re-Hire Rudy

 

My point is we don't need a so -called "veteran coach to put them over the top" because we don't have a veteran team. We need a tough disciplinarian.

As far as Dunleavy.

Dunleavy has shown he can take playoff teams and continuously put them in the playoffs.

What he has NOT shown is he can take a bunch of young players and mold them into a winner.

Carlisle took a 32-50 team and finished 50-32 including a trip to the Eastern Conference finals.

Tell me. Who made the bigger difference?

 

Sorry!