There are a handful of teams in EC that can be .500 teams just by hiring a better coach. Bucks is one of those teams. Good hire by the Bucks.
I don't like this hiring at all. Skiles' teams always seem to get progressively good for 2 seasons, then they tank out after that, and all the players start to hate him, etc. I'm not saying Skiles is a bad coach, but there are better coaches out there in my opinion..I'd like to see the Bucks get beyond "getting out of the gutter" and actually have success in the playoffs. Skiles is just a short fix.
Like who? Outside of JVG there's nobody out there that I'd want. When a team like the NY Knicks is seriously considering handing over the head coaching reigns to an unproven coach like Mark Jackson..... it speaks volumes on the lack of quality head coaches out there right now.
Skiles just doesn't get how to communicate with and build long-term credibility with today's NBA players. But I guess the Bucks didn't want to hire a first time coach with no track record. Skiles has a track record, but it isn't that good.
Why do teams continually hire guys that have been fired more than once by teams that have had above average talent on their rosters?
Exactly sums up my feelings. They are going nowhere fast. He MAY be able to help push them into mediocrity. But will it be sustainable? Doubt it.
They will get better but still not be very good. Skiles will grow tired of the softness of that roster and leave on bad terms. It's better than a lateral move but not much.
good short term solution. when building up a team you need to start with a disciplinarian. get the young guys used to working hard and being held accountable. when they mature from a young rebuilding team into a winning team it will then be time for a coaching upgrade. for now, better to have the disciplinarian than a players coach like isaiahwho will get the team no where.
I never understood why the Bucks let Terry Porter go after only two seasons a few years ago anyway. He got the team to overachieve to a .500 record and the playoffs in his first year as coach. His second year the team came down to earth, but keep in mind the Bucks' third, fourth, and fifth leading scorers that year (after Redd and Mason) were Mike James, Joe Smith, and Keith Van Horn. And TJ Ford missed the entire season. Firing Porter after only two seasons seemed like punishing him for overachieving in his first year as coach and getting expectations too high. And Terry Stotts couldn't get the team to .500 the next year even with Ford returning, the number 1 pick in the draft, and the acquisition of Bobby Simmons. I don't know, there might be more to the situation than I realize, but Porter for Stotts seemed like a lateral coaching move at best at the time, and even moreso now.
NBA teams do this all the time, and it's stupid. It just happened to Skiles this year. It's proven over and over that it doesn't matter who your coach is if you don't have the players. Yet coaches continue to get replaced at the drop of a hat, most likely so the ownership doesn't have to be held accountable for the team they've assembled.