Talked To Rudy's Wife

Fitch was a great coach. He was the one that beat us in 1981 with his Celtic (During Del Harris). Our team just couldn't compete with the K.C. Jones Celtics and Riley Lakers after Sampson started having knee problems.

I actually liked Del Harris's coaching philosophy.

 

I'm going to throw something into this thread...

* Does Rudy get fired if he -doesn't- get cancer during the season?

Let's what-if a bit...

* Team doesn't get demoralized, Yao doesn't tire as much because Rudy pulls him when needed.
* Team eeks into playoffs as the 8th seed, wins 1 game before bowing out in the first round.

One of the energizing things about Rudy T was his fire and optimism on the court. He wouldn't hold back, his emotions were there for all to see. Intensity, you know.

How comfortable was upper management with a coach who was a potential medical time bomb?

I just have this feeling, a feeling mind you, that without his illness, he's back for another season.

Dave.

 

THe problem with what-ifs is you never know if it is going to happen that way. Given that the Rockets record under Larry Smith was actually better than it was the previous 27 games (8-9 to finish the season vs. 12-15 in Rudy's last games as a coach), but on the other hand they ahd just won 5 in a row....you really never know what would have happened.

 

It won't matter to the extreme PRC (Pro Rudy Contingent) fringe if Van Gundy takes basically the same team and gets near 50 wins and a 5th or 6th seed. We'll hear "it's the players that made progress in the off-season" or "RT had Yao as a rookie with no traing camp" or "RT would have been in the playoffs if he hadn't gotten sick" or "Yea, but RT still has 2 rings and JVG none".

JVG will never get a morsel of respect from the PRC. This is going to be a fact of life.

And if RT takes the job in Atlanta next summer and the Hawks suck for 4 years before he's let go...it will be all about the players. IMO, there is a severe lack of objectivity in the PRC fringe.

Exceptional coaches can handle all ranges of NBA experience and adapt to suit their personnel (Riley's Showtime Lakers vs Riley's Low Post Knicks). But eventually, the game and time pass every coach by. It is not possible for any human being to maintain the degree of intensity required of an NBA coach for an indefinite period of time. Sorry PRC extremists but it was time.

 

Let me make this so simple an idiot can understand it...

..or that an idiot won't misinterpret it.

RUDY IS ILL. THE DISEASE HE HAS IS POTENTIALLY LETHAL.

THE DRUGS HE'LL HAVE TO TAKE TO FIGHT CANCER ARE HARSH AND IMMUNOSUPPRESSIVE.

HE WILL LOSE APPETITE AND HE WILL LOSE WEIGHT. HE'LL LOOK LIKE **** ON THE COURT.

Is this the image a BB team wants to present to the public?

Now, maybe even Jay will address the salient point of my suggestion, rather than trying to finesse the issue.

Dave.

 

I'm definitely an idiot, so don't mind me, but the salient point of your post was "would Rudy have gotten fired IF he didn't get cancer" I believe I addressed that - where was the finessing, and why the attitude? People on this board need to chill out.

 

Gater,

I disagree that JVG won't get the respect from the PRC. However, to dismiss the winning potential of a team whose success is dependent on a franchise rookie as an "excuse" is not fair. Its not an excuse, its reality. Here are just a few examples:

Saunders w/ Garnett as a rookie: 20 wins
Saunders w/ Garnett as 2nd year player: 40 wins

Nelson w/ Nowitzki as a rookie: 31 wins (based on strike shortened win %)
Nelson w/ Nowitzki as a 2nd year player: 40 wins

Popovish w/ Duncan as a rookie: 56 wins
Popovich w/ Duncan as a 2nd year player: 61 wins (based on strike shortened win %)

Now, did these three coaches drastically changed their coaching styles from the 1st to 2nd years? With Nelson and Popovich, definitely not.

While I will give JVG all the credit in the world, whether this team improves on last season will be dependent heavily on the improvement of Yao and EG.

Also, the same scenario you use with the Rudy/Atlanta job, I can turn around and ask: "If Rudy takes over the Lakers next season and wins a ring, is it the players or is it Rudy??".

The point is, almost every time, its the players that the team's success mostly depends on. Coaches, IMO, are capable of putting teams over the top (like Jackson did with LA when he took over a .600 win% team that was already a top playoff seed and took them to a title) and not much else. He is only as good as his player's allow him to be. How else can Adelman and Nelson be considered throw aways by Golden State and are now considered elite because of their 50-60 win seasons last year??

Bottom line is, if this team wins 5 more games next year, based on the examples I have cited, it would not be unfair to JVG to give more credit to Yao's improvement from a rookie to 1st year player than to JVG's influence as a coach. In other words, as a part of the PRC, I felt we would have improved by 3-5 games had we kept Rudy based in large part on the aforementioned Yao factor.

Last, the Riley example you cited is the exceptional to the rule. I don't believe, in most cases, that the game passes a coach by. Don Nelson won 50-60 games with Milwaukee some 20 years ago with the same philosophy he has now. Adelman won 57 and 63 games with Portland 13 years ago with the same philosophy he has now. Brown is another example of a coach who has had continous success over a long period of time.

I just find it hard to believe that the game has passed a 54 year old coach by in 4 or 5 years.

 

I think Rudy is a great guy and was a positive figure head for our city. However, his offensive style of play is boring. It was a pleasure to watch when Olajuwon was inside getting rebounds, blocking shots, and scoring, but that was due to Olajuwon, not Rudy. Rudy's offensive strategy now is well known around the league and easily defended with the current cast of players.

I hope Rudy stays in the Rocket organization as a PR man.

(BTW, we should have won 10 championships with Olajuwon. He was a better asset to a bball team than Air Jordan. Just look at the head to head meetings.)

 

The PRC will have to acknowledge that JVG is better if he maintains a 55+ win season for the next 4-6 years. And maybe a few 60 win seasons. Now, in the end, he'll have to win a championship when all is said and done or JVG will get fired too.

Just like Heyp said, if all we get is a better brand of basketball and more consistent winning. Then, I'm for that. If both Rudy and JVG were never to win another championship for the next 10 years, I'll pick JVG because I don't think I could stand 10 more years of boring Rudy ball.

Remember, it's everyones hope that we win a championship. But if we don't, at least make it entertaining. I mean come'on! We're not talking about solving world hunger! It's basketball. Part a struggle for winning, and part entertainment.

Take your pick. Would you rather watch the Nets play, or the Mavs? Detroit or Sacramento? If you had to make a choice...

By the way, I have to make a comment regarding HeyP's remarks that we either have two far extremes on coaching styles.

One is a fancy style, but lose. The other is boring style, but lose.

But I'm not for that. I'm of the opinion that if you have a dynamic offense in which the team is more an integral part, that in itself brings a higher chance for winning consistently. So, boring slow down ball is not necessarily better to squeak out wins. It seems that way, so the slow minded coaches can keep up with the action. But, if you plan your offense where each and every player has a role in setting up the offense, it really creates a situation in which the opponent really doesn't know who is going to take the shot. It keeps them guessing. And that is what you want your opponent to think.

To me, that brings a better chance of winning on a constant basis. The problem? You need "smart" players.

 

codell -
First, good thought out response. Secondly, I am sure the PRC group considers me ARC but I am just as critical of the players as I have been of RT. I consider myself neutral to both issues.

Third, the Lakers core is primarily vets surrounding a dominant Center...sound familiar?

My main problem with the PRC is that they seldom mention the large %age of the 2 championships that are directly attributable to Dream. In your own words.."its the players that the team's success mostly depends on". Now, before you are anyone else goes into a diatribe about "well Dream never won until Rudy" we could say the same thing about Jordan and Phil Jackson.

Does that mean that Jackson is a great coach? Maybe. But IMO it moreso means that 1) Jordan matured as a player and 2) Jackson was/is good at the psychological part of the game. And that part works better on more experienced personnel.

From my moderate understanding of the game, Rudy's offensive "plan" is/was to get the ball into the hands of his best player early in the clock and let them work from there. This is not my favorite style of basketball and it is frankly... boring. Further, that boring style was addressed by the NBA when they instituted a zone. Did the 54 yo RT change? No, he let Francis go 1 on 3 into the teeth of the defense. And if Francis was in direct violation of Rudy's "plan", then Rudy is still guilty for not dealing with Francis.

Regarding respect for JVG from the PRC...I am willing to place a small wager with you (dinner at the winner's favorite restaurant) that if the Rox win 48+ games, you will still see some version of the comments I posted earlier from the PRC.

 

(1) If you really believe the team AS IT EXISTS RIGHT THIS MINUTE is capable of 55 wins, I have a real estate deal for some swampland in Florida that has lots of "potential" that you might be interested in.

(2) "fancy" and "dynamic" are NOT terms I would associate with JVG's offense in New York.

(3) Going back to point one, this team is not smart. Maybe when and if YM takes the leadership mantle, but not now. Not by a longshot.

(4) I am quite happy to give Olajuwon half the credit for the chamionships. The other half is evenly divided. One quarter goes to the supporting cast, and one-quarter to coaching (specifically head coaching).

Come on. With all due respect, Olajuwon was not Jordan for the length of his career. Besides, through the Fitch and Chaney eras, the supporting squad was never consistently good enough to go deep into the playoffs.

 

Man, the whole PRC vs. ARC debate is coming back, just because somebody talked to Rudy's wife. LOL!

My 2 cents (a very old one) is that keep on harping on the "4 years without playoffs" is just getting old. Except that injury laden 25 wins fluke season, all of the non-playoff years were competitive.

For the bubble teams in the conference, the line separating making and not making the playoffs is pretty much arbitrary. 43 wins didn't get us in this past season--44 would've been enough. 45 wins didn't get us in 3 seasons ago. This coming year, who knows? 42 might be enough, or 44 might not be enough. Do you really think that there was such a big different between say Pheonix and us last season, that they could be labeled success and we failure, simply because they made the playoffs and we didn't?

The fact is, we were in the hunt in all those years (except the injury year). Unlike teams such as the Grizzlies, the Warriors, the Clippers, and the Nugguts, we were NOT a doormat team. We were competitive with second tier teams like the Jazz, the Sonics, the Suns, and even the Wolves and the Blazers. So what's wrong with that with a young and rebuilding team? What's to blame Rudy for?

I can understand criticisms about Rudy's coaching style. But using the "4 years no playoffs" as a reason (for some people, it THE reason) to bash him is misguided.

 

a comment on the rockets being boring..

were you bored watching yao vs shaq 1? did rudy's offense bore you in that game?

i contend the boring comments are more about winning and losing.. losing sucks..and winning is inherently more interesting.. nobody complained during the championship years..

last year the problem with the rockets was consistency..they could beat the lakers/kings one day..and turn around and lose to the cavs and bulls..i attribute it directly to inexperience..ie 20yr PF and a rookie C....hard to win relying on players who don't know how to bring every night...

its a tragedy rudy has cancer and was forced out..he deserves better...he brought many intangables to his teams..and his teams played with heart and a never say die attitude and believed they could win the big games..you knew if he got the playoffs anything was possible..

 

Under #1, the Rockets were not just okay, they were PHENOMENAL. They only had ONE down year, 34-48 in '99-'00. Not 15-67, or 20-62, 34-48. That was the bottom of the barrel for them, after winning multiple championships and losing their stars for nothing. That is amazing. Then they were right back up to 45-37, competitive again after just one 'down' year. Outstanding. Then injuries decimated them the following year. So, A++ for your #1.

For #2, not sure what you're talking about. Contending? Are you only counting teams that were successful with your #1? If so, you're eliminating all the teams that are in the lottery virtually EVERY year, the annual dregs of the league. Also, there are only about 3 or 4 teams that are contenders in any given year. Another thing is that so much of that depends on the player. 'Start over' with Shaq or Duncan, and you're almost an instant contender. Obviously there's a big difference between those guys and Steve Francis. Lastly, are you defining the Rockets' "core" as Francis/Mobley, etc., or Francis and Ming?

 

Yes I do. Why? Because half the problem is gone (Rudy).

Now, if we only get 53 wins, at least give me a discount on that swamp land.

We'll just have to wait.

True. But it was more balanced than Rudy's style. And at least JVG has Francis, Mobley, Griff and Yao.

 

Not completely.

The issue was that that no one cared about the Rockets/Knicks Finals expect Houston and NY. Why? It was boring. Sports fans hated it. Basketball purist hated it.

So, it's easy to say that winning is all that matters when you are the winning team. But basketball is also about entertainment.

Houston fans had the gaul to say to the rest of the world, "You will watch our ugly ball, and like it too!"

That's why the Lakers/Spurs and Mavs/Kings, Spurs/Suns series had good ratings.

It was fun to watch even if you weren't a fan of those teams.

 

Regardless of "winning" seasons hovering around .550, his offensive scheme was horrible and universally derided around the league by coaches, announcers, and basketball fans. Throughout his entire coaching carreer, he never once implemented off the ball movement. The only person ever moving in Rudy's offense was the guy with the ball.

That becomes very predictable and easy to stop when it counts unless you have the best player in basketball. He did have that for a few years. The most embarrassing point of his carreer was when he had Pippen playing like Robert Horry, standing at the three point line just watching the clock run down.

In addition, his clock management never ever seemed to improve throughout his carreer.

 

I don't. I would consider 55 wins a miracle. The talent on this team is much closer to the Suns and Sonics than it is the Mavericks, Spurs, Kings, or Lakers.

Does it equal the Twolves or Blazers? I don't think so, but that is a much more realistic "just have to wait."

Well, I see the subtraction of RT resulting in more losses to superior talent. For every victory they gain over the Clips and such, they will lose one more to the Spurs and Kings. That is why I believe JVG will be doing good to hit the 43-44 win mark.

It was .600+ until injuries and rebuilding.

Sorry, try again. They REPEATEDLY changed the offense that year, and Pippen refused to take advantage. It was the same deal in Portland. Turns out that he couldn't turn the knob past 7 or 8 unless Mike was around.