I got it and I'm a Rookie! LOL. There are always going to be people who have to blame someone for mistakes, as I see it JVG's substitution patterns are erratic, but he puts the players on the floor that he thinks will win. That doesn't make him a bad coach. He said that sometimes it just a feeling which as a former coach I understand .. there are times you instinctively know when someone is ready to play. Now, there are times I think he should rotate the players in and out more to keep them fresh, only because there is a lot of depth on this team, but yall.. this is a coach who has consistantly improved the Rockets record. Check the stats... the only glitch is last year, which was a injury anomaly. On a side note, why does it always seem the least logical post responses are littered with mispellings? Things that make ya go hmmm.
I'll tell you how they will improve. Practice. Why should VG be fired if the rockets are playing well and the rookies aren't. Boston and the Bobcats play their rookies, so I guess you would rather their coaches. They're records sure are impressive.
oh goodness, really, there should be one side of the board for those who are clueless... please check your detector
I think the organization made a mistake by bypassing Phil Jackson and Kareem when they both said they'd like to coach Yao Ming, but they gave JVG the extension instead. I also think while JVG isn't evil, he also doesn't handle everything perfectly. His love for Ryan Bowen is without excuse.
Where's the content? You are like some of the idiot girlfriends I've had. If you can't explain it, then you're wrong. Logic works. Try it. I'm sure you have a point, but saying stuff like "if you don't know what I mean, then you're an idiot" doesn't really serve any purpose. If you are trying to piss me off, it isn't really working. This is a message board where I come for information. I'm not exactly attached to my persona on here. In other words, call me an idiot all day, I'm okay with that, but at least take the time to say why I'm an idiot. You might be right. Don't forget this: You are arguing for two rookies to get playing time that were picked in the 2nd round. The history of low picks having success isn't very encouraging. More evidence for Novak not being ready. In both games that I saw Novak play, he looked lost out there. Novak has played limited minutes and these are the teams numbers while he's on the court: net -11 points. http://www.82games.com/0607/06HOU8D.HTM That's why we don't play rookies, because when they step on the court, we start losing. The rookies need to learn what to do in practice first. Practice is the best option: If these rookies step onto the court and we start losing because of their play, that won't breed a winning attitude in them. Players who learn how to win in the NBA last longer. Guys like Shane Battier put up average to low numbers, but get long contracts because they make plays that help teams win. Turn overs are loser stats and rookies make tons of them. Fouls are loser stats and rookies get burned on calls all the time because they haven't learned the tricks of the trade. In practice, they can learn game type situations from veterans and the net on-court numbers don't go down. johnrox, do you want the Rockets to win this year or are you trying to build for the future all the time? The Clippers built for the future for 15 years and never made the playoffs. Sometimes you have to try to win now, to win later. Developing rookies on the court is not exactly a great decision. Sure, they'll learn faster, but that doesn't mean they'll be an instant success. These guys were both 2nd rounders. One is turnover prone and the other is a skinny/undersized power forward who is backing up an undersized power forward (Battier). Neither is a good option right now, unless you play the rookies to their strengths. IE when you are down big late in games and you are desperate. Okay, now call me an idiot agian. It seems to be working for you.
Your: Mom Breath Face (So's...) Face Dad ... n Just a couple of answers to a stupid question. JVG isn't my ideal coach, but winning is my ideal status of the rockets.
don you and some people need to understand the word sarcasm. i should have put a sign at the end of the post. yes i have read the board, and what i mean is there are two sides. one says van gundy is doing a pretty good job, and the others who find something to pick on, such as not giving time to rookies despite the "obvious" traits they show. i wasn't subscribing to the post that i just wrote, in fact I think it is really incredible that people yell for novak and vspan constantly and continue to yell for them. and the only things they can come up with is practice is nothing, and put the kids into the fire. and to top it off, they come off as being quite pompous saying what the hell is vg doing? so in essence yes that was the stupidity of the post. so you got it, but you didn't, because that is not what i think. Van gundier wrote a nice post, look at the alternative, you want novak and vspan? ok, so hire thomas. that was pretty good. I absolutely agree with everything you just wrote not trying to be a jerk perse, but when it is pretty obvious i was trying to be sarcastic, more often than not, this board has alot of people who don't understand, maybe because a lot of foreigners who don't necessarily speak english?
Adelman never won a championship either. Adelman hasn't proven anything. All he has shown is the ability to make a great pretender, a team excels in run and gun in the regular season and struggles in the half court of the playoffs.. At least bring up, a championship coach, for comparison, Larry Brown, or Phil Jackson, or Pat Riley, or something. I believe the majority of coaches in the last 10 years have not been able to win a championship with a 2nd round rookie playing more than 800 minutes.
johnrox, this is the post I was refering to. You responded to Van Gundier's good post with this. Also, sarcasm doesn't work in text. It barely works when face to face with someone. Why try it on a text based board? I realize that you are relatively new on here. I have no problem with that, but just like NBA rookies, you have a few things to learn. One of them is, if you are going to engage into a topic on here, you might as well be very clear with what you're saying. Re-read some of your posts. They can easily be read without sarcasm. In other words, no one can "hear" your voice on here unless you're a really good writer or it's obvious. The basic idea is to re-read your post before you submit it and re-read it with an outside perspective. (How will others percieve this idea?) There is not a single smilie on here and even if there were smilies throughout, it still wouldn't be good sarcasm. And what was that sad face supposed to mean? It's not a sarcastic sad face, it's just a sad face. Was I supposed to read your mind or something? Example of decent sarcasm textually: edc says, "THIS IS INSANE PEOPLE. DON'T YOU GET THAT THIS TEAM SUCKS COMPARED TO MY VISIONS FOR THEM!" sarcasm says, "WHY ARE WE TYPING IN ALL CAPS?" See, it's not that funny, but people can "get it". I got Van Gundier's first joke. My problem with it, is that it wasn't funny. Not even the least bit funny. It came off as angry instead of funny. Van Gundier is a JVG fan. The point of the sarcasm he displayed was to throw it in the face of anti-Van Gundy Rockets fans. I got on him about the thread because he's normally a good poster. From your lastest post to me, I can tell that you are a reasonable person when you state things clearly. I'd rather read that, then the "Oh, I guess you don't get it " garbage. Honestly, I enjoy good sarcasm, but on a board like this, sarcasm has to be nearly perfect to be pulled off successfully. Most of the time, it's just not worth trying. Another example: David Spade is probably the best sarcasm comedian on the planet. He still needs a funny man to pull it off because sarcasm standing on it's own comes off as a-hole more than ha-ha funny. Think about it, he needed Chris Farley to make his jokes work. The show Spade is hosting right now? He tones it down or goes over the top with it every time. On Clutch BBS, there are no comedy teams or duos, so what are you trying to do?
No, you play a youngster when you think he will be worthy of the investment. Notice the future tense: he may totally suck today, but if you see potential in him, play him. If you don't, park him on the bench. Of course, your coach needs to be able to evaluate talent. Adelman can; JVG has proven that he can't. (Remember his flipflops on Hayes and Padgett? And do I need to mention Flyin' Ryan?) Do you think JVG might have had something to do with the dearth of good draftees in NY? If he had been coaching the Rockets in 2002, would he have taken Yao? Or would he have eagerly traded our #1 pick for a passel of "proven" veterans? In view of the overwhelming history (his Knicks record, and Battier), my vote is obviously and strongly for the latter. In that nightmare universe where JVG was our coach in 2002, we would today almost for sure be an aging, broken-down, briefly semi-successful, and championshipless team -- a clone of the Van Gundied Knicks, in other words. We would have no future and no hope, because thanks to JVG's total neglect, we would have no young players in the pipeline, and our draft picks would have been traded away for years to come. That is what Gundyball does to a franchise. Say what you will about Isaiah Thomas, but he had the unenviable task of cleaning up after Gundy's disaster. Fortunately, in this reality, we have Yao, and because of Yao we have T-Mac, and because of T-Mac we have Bonzi. And hopefully we will soon be rid of Van Gundy. We have many championships to look forward to. No, it was absolutely not easy for Adelman to tell that Cliff Robinson would become a good player. Adelman, however, was wise enough to see the potential in the rookie and gave him lots of minutes. A great many people were down on the Big Dog before the draft; that is why he fell to the second round (#36) in a very weak year. (By the way, this sounds eerily similar to Steve Novak's situation today.) Fortunately for Uncle Cliffy, he was able to develop immediately because his coach was wiser than JVG. Not necessarily smarter than JVG, but wisdom is not always the same as intelligence. Head got plenty of minutes only because of all the injuries we had last year. JVG himself admitted that. And we can all see how much Luther has improved. Why can't JVG see that it can be worthwhile to invest in younger players? My opinion of JVG is that he is exceptional at the nuts and bolts of the game, the X's and O's. But if you ask him to lift his eyes away from the daily grind, to think ahead even half a season, he will just blink at you in confusion and annoyance. He doesn't want to bother. He doesn't want to train rookies for the future, he doesn't want to plan for a better drafting position. Because he focuses so intensely on the next game, he would be a good assistant coach. But because of his inability to evaluate talent, and because of his shortsightedness, he would be a disastrous head coach.
Adelman's team last year, after Artest's arrival, was not "run and gun" -- and yet it was successful anyway. Actually, this is what impresses me the most about Adelman: he adapts to his players, as all of the greatest coaches do. See how different Pat Riley's Showtime was from his championship team last year. Compare Phil Jackson's Bulls with the Shaq 'n Kobe threepeat. Only the mediocre coaches force their players to adapt to them.
I doubt anybody (except perhaps for the Greek fans) want to see VSpan merely for the joy of watching him. The idea behind developing young talent is to have a Plan B. That is what depth is all about.
