In checking out Sports Sunday this week (hadn't done that in ages), I had a chance to see The No Bull Zone. I found Air Bull's comparision between Silas (being a strict system-oriented coach that was good with relating to younger players and molding young point guards) and Rudy T. (more inclined to mold his schemes around the individual abilities of each player) very interesting. So, my questions to everyone would be, what would you prefer more, a coach that came in with a rigid system or a coach that had flexibility? Next, depending on the type of coach you like, who do you think would be the best fit for our team right now (and this could go beyond simply Dunleavy, Van Gundy, or any popular name, so to speak)? I know it's not what most fans would want to hear, but there could possibly be some assistant coach somewhere that holds the key to our future success. I'd like to hear some of the names of some assistant coaches that haven't been mentioned all that much on the BBS yet. Personally, I'd have to say that I'd prefer a system-oriented coach, simply to hold structure, but I'd also prefer that he doesn't alienate his players. I know that sounds like the best of both worlds, and who knows if we'll get that, but I'd sure like to see it. In the cases of Van Gundy and Dunleavy, honestly, I can't say I was really excited about either name originally, but I'm beginning to warm up to them. Van Gundy makes me nervous because he seems like he could run a good system, but you just get the feeling that he'd alienate a lot of the guys. Also, I question how long he'd stick around if times got rough, since TNT would probably welcome him back with open arms anytime he wanted to take another break. In the case of Dunleavy, I have to say, I wasn't too high on him as a coach in Portland, but I'm starting to appreciate him a bit more. If there's anything that Dunleavy has shown us, it's that he sincerely wants this job. In a way, I get a feeling that he feels this could be his last big chance to excel. Overall, I guess with both of these guys, to be honest, they tend to have that look on the sidelines like they're one loss away from having a nervous breakdown. Expressions of intensity to calmness are fine, but consist borderline nervous breakdown expressions don't seem to help morale amongst players and fans alike. Thank For The Time
I, too, go with a System guy-- but you still have to be flexible. The best place for players' uniquely individual skills to take over is when the system breaks down. I loved what Oscar Robertson said (be it fact or fiction) about involving the weakest player in a significant way. Now my money's on Dunleavy with Elie (Defense) and Avery (Offense) as Assistants. Maybe even bring in Kareem for Big Men.
Well....I'd just like a good coach! Dunleavy likes to run more....full court.... Van Gundy likes to slow it down and play a half court game. I like coaches who adapt and change to fit their current players......make small adjustments.
This is a players league, make no mistake about that. If the coach fails to get his players to play his system, you fire the coach. Note that Tex Winter could not get the Big E to play his system and so he got the E traded (good for E, bad for the Rocks).
Good thoughts everyone. Just thinking here, and I know the fans (from the devoted to luke-warm posers) will always have strong opinions about things they don't like, but do you all get the feeling that, for example, if we get a really enthusiastic, young coach to come in, and he has an approved staff around him (such as the staff of assistants mentioned on this thread), this could actually be a better move for the organization? I say this because I get the feelings that, even if they didn't do what is expected right away (go deep into the playoffs), a lot of people would say, "Well, at least it's a young staff, which truly wants to be here, so give them some time?" Note, I mentioned not going deep into the playoffs only because, even if we only sneak in as a lower seed, unless something drastic happens (injuries, etc.), I think we'll at least sneak in as a lower seed next year. Thanks For The Time
If you can develop your players from childhood through high school, you can definitely mold your players around your system. You can control what they work on, how they develop and what skills they emphasize. But the NBA doesn't work like that: your personnel is constantly changing and every year there's a different level of talent that you or may not have chosen. There are strengths and weaknesses -- and they'll probably be different every year. That's why it's so important to have coaches who can modify their schemes to fit their players' talents. This doesn't mean a coach should throw his ideas out the window. Just tweak them to fit personnel. Phil Jackson and Co. developed the Triangle Offense to suit MJ. When he moved West, he tailored the offense for Kobe and Shaq. Rudy T. built a very effective offense around Hakeem. But when Hakeem left, the offense remained the same with pretty bad results.
Give me the coach with a system, but with the flexiblility to adapt to their players. That's why I want Eddie Jordan. It is interesting that Jim Cleamons is no longer even a mention as an option on these boards.
I still have Cleamons in my mind and I think working with Jackson since 91 should have something of credibility.I like Eddie Jordan also, but for some reason that this big splash the Rockets was going to make is slowly coming down by not offereing anything. I would love to have the triangle here to use Ming passing and player movement and take away the need for Francis to make all the decisions with the ball.
Yeah. But Jordan learned the motion offense from Pete Carril (when both were assistants at Sacramento) AFTER his head coaching stint.
Nice thoughts GreenVegan76, D-Up, and leebigez. I've had Cleamons and Jordan go through my mind as two potential guys as well, who do have track records, have paid their dues, and would most likely be excited to have a head coaching job once more. Both have been around successful schemes in their careers, could bring that to the team, and I may be wrong, but didn't Byron Scott rave over how important Jordan was to his current success? Also, since it seems as if there's a particular budget for the coaching hire, I would believe they'd come rather cheap. If someone could, please lay out some more on the backgrounds of Cleamons and Jordan on this thread. To a degree, I think people have discussed the background of Cleamons, but some more info on Jordan would be appreciated. Thanks For The Time
I hadn't thought of Cleamons because I just assumed he would take Jackson's place when he retired. Cleamons is a basketball whiz and will be a fantastic coach (again). I'm not real familiar with Eddie Jordan, but everything I've heard about him has been glowing. Every year, there's a "hot" new coaching commodity. I guess EJ is it this year. I wish him luck.
Cleamons might be the next Paul Silas as far as coaching. Silas took a crappy Clippers team, got fired after 3yrs and had to wait 15yrs before he was given another. Cleamons coached Dallas and was fired after 100games and it has been 7 yrs since he's had another chance. If the situation isn't right, he won't take it because La is still in a good position, but i personally think that he wouldlove to coach this team. This isn't a rebuilding process, he has the 2nd best center in the league and a top 20 guard, but for some reason he wasn't even a candidate. Jordan used to coach the pre webbe kings. Actually he coached them before petrie and the maloofs took over. After those guys came in, they traded for Webber and hired Adelman,but Adelman asked him to stick around and he did. When Scott left, he took Jordan with him. One would think that guys with the pedigree of Jordan and Cleamons would pique the interest in the Rockets , but they haven't.
Thanks for the info leebigez. I'm with you, I would have hoped for these guys to have at least sparked some slight interest from people. I think there has been too much focus on a big-name or semi-name guy, which will please the general public right away. The thing is, even with name guys of sorts, many fans will eventually question some of the things that they do regardless. So, in hiring a name guy, that risk of wanting to bolt just tends to loom too large. These coaches know that they are in-demand, and may work hard, but if they get sick of a situation, they just might pack it in. If we land a big or semi-name, that's fine, but when you hire a guy that knows that his chances to land a head job are few and far between, those tend to be the guys that seem to have an enhanced focus on getting the job done. So, to me, dedication and hardwork from a young guy can be just as valuable as a name guy that's had borderline success. In fact, if you look at the league right now, the trend seems to be to look towards the younger guys (Mussleman, Rivers, Bzdelik, Scott, etc.). Thanks For The Time
I know a few of the "newbites" ragged on your for your posts. Not me. I enjoyed them..... BUT I have to draw the line somewhere. This little ditty at the end is starting to wear on me!
In general, I've always favored the guys who adapt. Whitey Herzog, who ran like hell in K.C. and St. Louis always said that if he managed in Boston he's stack up on right handed sluggers, and I have always thought that the wisest way to go. Pat Riley went from Showtime! in L.A. to Slowtime! in New York, based on the talent, and succeeded. Brwon is probably the purset example, as he has changed systems wherever he went. In college system guys tend to work better, because of the assurance of continual turnover, and that is even greater now with most star players only staying a year or two, but even there, the best coaches, like Coach K and Roy Williams tinker each year to fit their players strengths. But there are, of course, exceptions. Jackson comes with Tex Winters in hand, and you'd better adapt. Karl is a system guy, etc. But if you're asking me, without naming names, which kind of coach I generally prefer, asssuming they both have a consistent philosophy and identity, I go for the Ability-Designed Coach. The problem is, those kind have to really know what they're doing, or you get confusion of roles, ego problems, and lack of team identity.
Steve Francis and Cat Mobley and Moochie Norris are going to get alienated by any Coach that tries to fix the Rockets. If not, then why not Rudy?
Thank you giddyup for the nice words. Point taken on the closing ditty. Good points MacBeth. Nice post. Yetti, I'm not sure if I can fully agree that those three, in particular, will get alienated by any coach that tries to fix the Rockets. Now, for a lot of the reasons I've read on this BBS, I'm a strong fan of our team, but Cat, Stevie, and Mooch have got under my skin at various points and times. I really think those guys could adjust fine if a coach came in and had them work on their true talents. I mean, Stevie is a scorer. Now, sure, the West is loaded with strong two-guards, yet it would seem as if Stevie would reach his potential if he focused on sheerly needing to score. In fact, rather than the actual burden of the PG position, I wouldn't be surprised if Stevie was able to see the floor more efficiently, and not look to force so many things, leading to a very good assist level. I know they are different guys, but look at what the change from PG to SG did for Iverson. I think he's a much better assist man at SG than he ever was during his development as a PG. In the case of Cat, honestly, I'd like Cat to be a Super Six-Man. Once again, if Cat was able to come in with a unit that looked for him to score the ball, and you had, lets say, a veteran PG, which knew where to get him the rock, to max his scoring potential, I think Cat's career would skyrocket. As a starting SG, I mean, I know Cat has game, but some of the shots Cat takes, when setting himself up off the dribble, just drive me nuts sometimes. Now, if a coach wanted to, if they wanted to go high-tempo, change the pace of a game, etc., then you could run Cat and Stevie together at times. I do think the guys have good chemistry, but at times, and maybe they don't realize it, but it seems like they are playing a game of horse. If you make a three, I need to knock one down too, etc. In the case of Mooch, I think I've heard Mr. Murphy, in particular, state that, as a player, you have to have a running clock in your mind. So, as a PG, you have to make sure to setup a play, but keep the ball moving also. Now, I do think Mooch can run the PG with the second unit in a strong way, but he has to avoid reverting into a SG mentality (such as was called upon him before his Rocket days). If Mooch simply avoids the excessive dribbling, brings the ball up, sets up the play, and makes sure the ball hops, taking charge on the court (which I wouldn't doubt he could do well), the game would come so much easier to him. I really think Mooch would benefit from studying under a vet PG. See, at times, Mooch may even dribble a lot because if you look at our PG situation, every single one of those guys are young, have handles, and like to score. So, all in all, if we get a coach that comes in, at minimum, with at least a skeleton set of schemes, and fits the guys in the right places, I wouldn't see why their careers wouldn't prosper. In fact, and I don't know if this would be possible, but depending on the coach we get, it would be nice to at least sign or trade for a vet PG that is familiar with their basic schemes or ones similar to theirs.
