Standing by my Comments

Rudy is a strange one to me. He clearly (and CD) is in the elite in the league in scouting talent. He also has shown a great penchant for getting the best out of younger players (this year, World league coaching stint, etc,).

However, he has also stubbornly held to ideas that time and time again has done us in before (e.g., keeping Chuck on Karl, not staying on Stockton with the pick and role). Even my non-Rocket friends (nuetral fans of other teams) have noticed his particularly poor game management skills. Also, from 96-99, he also got very lackluster performance (in both the regular season and playoffs) out of the team in the West with the most talent for most of that time (contrast to say what Jerry Sloan did with that team of mostly non-athletes and two aging Hall of Famers). In fact I thought a coaching change might have done us some good in 98 or before this year, but now we are in a different situation.

Now, he looks like a real good coach for the current team, as we have a lot of youngsters and need to find some more talent. Overall, it seems like the right move to let him lead these guys a few years to see where it goes.


[This message has been edited by sir scarvajal (edited January 25, 2000).]

 

What about the fact, that as Dreamshake says, the Rockets have only won 29% of their games against the elite of the league?... and that we turn the ball over FAR too much, and never rebound well, EVEN w/ Charles Barkley and Hakeem?

The response that we've had too much turnover IS NOT SUFFICIENT. Why? Well, even if that's true, Rudy's responsible for the turnover. If it truly does take so long to jell, then perhaps we shouldn't trade so frequently. Could that be the reason some other teams don't make as many blockbuster trades, and not lack of opportunity? I'm not sure. But it is true that Rudy-coached teams fare badly in those categories.

 

Let me take a stab at the rebound stat. Those stats are often misleading. The teams with the best centers are always the worst offensive rebounding teams (which is what really sets the overall ranking of rebounding).

The Knicks and the Rockets were two of the worst offensive rebounding teams in the title year. The Heat I has been hovering between 2-5 worst. This is because teams that feature a scoring center take their best rebounder out of the play by having him shoot.

The main exception to this is Shaq and Moses who mostly score at the basket and can get rebounding position for their own missed shot.

BTW: Houston at #7 right now is having there best rebounding year in a long time. That's because the guards are shooting more and the big men are slashing in for rebounds.

 

heypartner,

I thought it was because they weren't doing as much Dream or CB4 iso on the left block with eveybody else at the 3 point line waiting for the kickout pass. Overall, more bodies closer to the basket.

Also, if your team has an aggressive shot blocker, 'Zo currently and Dream five years back, it seem that there are some easy baskets on offensive put backs because of an unattended inside player.


Mango

[This message has been edited by Mango (edited January 26, 2000).]

 

mango,

good point about the missed blocks by Dream and Zo worsening their defensive rebounding position. This also would apply to Ewing.

When you think about it, it is not too odd that Dream, Zo and Ewing teams are not the rebounding forces in stats that you'd expect.


[This message has been edited by heypartner (edited January 26, 2000).]

 

heypartner,

Remember the Seattle playoff series?
Dream would force the Sonics to put up wild shots, but Kemp killed Houston just doing cleanup work around the basket.

Mango

 

Dreamshake:

You know I respect your opinion just like everybody else, but I have to honestly take issue with your assertion that Rudy T is a bad coach.

If you don't like him, fine, but do you honestly believe that you, with your limited view of the team (and I'm assuming you are not on the Rockets staff) is better at evaluating coaching talent than NBA players, GM's, coaches, beat writers, executives, etc?

The concensus around the league is that Rudy is one of the finest coaches in the NBA and will most likely make it into the hall of fame eventually on the merits of both his playing and coaching skills. Making an assesment of his abilities requires more than watching games on TV and sorting over a few statistics.

If you want to evaluate an employee, you have to see their performance up close. You watch them closely.. You ask them questions. You look over their work. In addition, you ask their fellow employees, managers and collegues for their opinion. There are at least a dozen different things to analyze in order to make a rational, un-biased judgement.

You have maybe one tenth of one percent of the necessary information to make such a judgement. Since it would be impossible, I assume, for you to gather all the information necessary to make a fair judgement, don't you think you should just say, "I just don't like the guy" rather than "I think he is bad at his job"?

 

BornRocketRed said:

"I'm glad that somebody alluded to the Jazz in this post, because one of the biggest reasons that the Rockets have suffered against the big teams in the last 3 years is personnel-turnover."

I'm not ready to dump on Rudy, nor chastise him for what's gone on of late, but I find your comparison to the Jazz and their rock solid foundation disingenuous at best. Looking at the top 8 seeds in the West, I see nothing but turnover amongst them.

The Lakers have added a new coach, with a new system -- and haven't missed a beat. And they beat us last year after trading late for Glenn Rice.

Portland? Come on! They change personnel more than Lynard Skynard.

Minnesota: lost Googs and Marbury last year, inserted three new players into their rotation, including a rookie.

San Antonio overhauled their entire team last year and won a championship.

Sacramento had a rookie point guard and an entirely new starting front court last year.

Phoenix has Penny, Googs, a new coach...

The whole "chemistry" thing is bogus. Hell, we won a 2nd championship by changing personnel.

This is supposed to be Clutch City, not Crutch City. Who's fault it is, etc? Who knows. But it is not as easy as personnel unrest. That's the simple way out.

Ric http://www.houstonprofootball.com

 

Actually, Dreamshake, I didn't assume you didn't like the guy, however, I haven't read any criticism of Rudy. In fact, I recall a very specific article from Murphy basically asking the question, "Why would such a great coach want to coach such a lousy team" in the paper just a few weeks ago.

Point me to the criticism you've read and I'll have a look for myself.

 

OK, Dreamshake. YOur last statement is the clincher. "Unless your talentless."
COme on !
How about, unless your team has added 9 new players, your starting powerforward, starting center, back up center, backup powerforward are out with extensive or carrer ending injuries, your starting point guard is a rookie, your backup point guard and backup 2 guards are just now getting a full schedule under their belts, and now your staring center is busy signing 10 day contracts. Just maybe a lack of experience in this mix ? They say the most important thing to learn in the NBA is how to win in the forth period. I submit we are just now learning it. Cut coach some slack.By the way, who IS your replacement coach ?

 

But Don Nelson was a great coach. He got a team of a couple of good players plus more or less a rag tag bunch of guys with Milwakee to be competitive in the playoffs against some of the best teams ever (early 80's 6ers, Celts).

Some guys perhaps lose competitive fire as they get up there (Shula, Landry), some guys are too stubborn to change with the times (e.g., Booby Knight). But it doesn't mean they were not great coaches for a time.

 

OK, dreamshake, since you didn't post a reply to my other post, I'll ask you here:

If Rudy is such an awful coach, pick his replacement excluding guys that are already entrenched in their current coaching position (i.e. Pat Riley, Phil Jackson, etc).

 

Rudy bashers- I'm dumbfounded that the only strong argument you have against Rudy is his unwillingness to change, and right before your eyes every game being played now we have a new, complex, motion offense. HeyPartner has made it clearer than daylight, and even if you acknowledge that then you b**** that he was too unwilling to let go of it, or didn't do it fast enough. That's pathetic. I guess it is just a waste of time.

Rudy defenders, your points seem weak when always referring to accomplishments several years ago or personnell acquisitions. I think what we're all really interested in is how the Rocks are playing now. I think HeyPartner gives a great example by explaining exaclty how the system has changed, and specific coaching plays and decisions Rudy is making to best benifit this team and the talented players in it.

If Rudy bashers are still clinging to the idea that the system hasn't changed, you're worse than the skewed picture you've created of Rudy. If, when shown that the system obviously has changed for the better, all you can do is b**** about turnovers, then it's pretty obvious you're reaching.

 

IMO, Rudy isn't going anywhere. He has done a truly remarkable job with a bunch of role players and one outstanding rookie. The fourth quarter mistakes, poor shooting, atrocious free throw shooting, poor execution - these are the players responsibilities, and they need to look deep inside themselves for the answers (and thank God for having a great job playing basketball!).

As far as "replacements" for Rudy, if that were ever to come to pass, LOL at the suggestions. Fratello, Ainge, Cowens, Winters - what have they ever accomplished? Just what we don't need - another recycled loser. And if I were looking into the college ranks - I'd look for a guy who can consistently get results with guys who, on the surface, don't have the star talent and hype - for example, Bob Knight from Indiana or Gene Keady from Purdue. They never seem to have the kind of talent that lights up the media, but their results speak for themselves.

 

I enjoy the way that the Rudy apologists conveniently forget most of the arguements that Dreamshake asserts.

I like Mike Fratello, personally... he did a great job w/mediocre talent w/the Cavaliers. Seriously, in '97, the Rockets had more talent than any other team in basketball... Hakeem, Charles, and Clyde. Yet they lost to the Jazz in SIX games, because Rudy couldn't figure out how to defend a FRICKIN' pick-and-roll.

BTW, he DID only change the offense because he was forced... did you notice that for a while he was trying the post up offense with Hamilton?

 

Dreamshake...I do like the differing opinions. As I've said, I'm a recovering Rudy basher myself. I agree with nearly everything you say up until Nov 1st, 1999. That's when I changed.

Haven

I really cannot agree with the claim that Rudy changed because he had to. I went to 3 preseason games and all the November games. Many of these plays we are seeing now where being slowly rolled out in November.

They were. Besides, what is that point all about, anyhow? Seems that you not giving credit to Rudy for any offensive re-alignment is only about saying he is not a good coach. Because if he deserves credit, that would discredit much of your reasoning.

Let's look at the big picture (designing a team around Steve). I just don't understand why you would care one way or another who gets credit. The fact is, the offense has completely changed. This is not possible without Francis and it is not possible without all the other players knowing their roles (that is Rudy's job).

Man...give some credit where credit is do...motion offenses take awhile to learn.