I'm sorry, but Adelman has not in his entire tenure here to show that he really "develop" players. Every single young player that blossomed under his tenure played basically because Adelman was forced to. Brooks: Adelman was a Rafer-supporter until Morey traded him. Landry: Sat on the bench until injuries forced Adelman to play him. Then Landry played so well Adelman was forced to keep him in the rotation. Lowry: Did not develop as a Rocket, besides a 3 point shot that he obviously worked on himself. Otherwise, his game is still similar to that of the Memphis Lowry, just improved with experience. CBud: There was no backup SF to Battier. Pretty much it. CBud beat out his fellow 2nd rounder Taylor. Hill: The Rockets had no frontcourt at the time. Basically beat out the almighty Jared Jeffries for a spot. And then more or less lost it to Brad Miller. Patterson: Like Landry, forced to play major minutes only due to injuries. And stayed only because he was so good Adelman couldn't kick himout. Now, one can make the case that Adelman isn't detrimental to player development the way, say, a Larry Brown is. But he's not some sort of wizard where every young player that comes through become great. Adelman likes his "gritty vets" like Battier, Hayes, Scola just as much as any coach. Quite frankly, the only reason why we think he develops player better JVG is because he actually had good players. JVG played guys like Luther Head. Luther Head just sucked.
It's funny posters saw our draft picks and trades for young players as busts, until Adelman developed Brooks, Lowry, Budinger, and Landry. All they see is Yao Ming and T-Mac got worse. It's pretty clear that Adelman did lots of development. He turned young players viewed as busts into major contributors for the team.
To make a football reference, look at Bill Belicheck when he was with Cleveland in the early 90's when his teams were average and then it clicked in New England. Did help to have Tom Brady but just saying.
Look, what the heck does it matter, this is the direction the team is going, we all will support the team. Let's hope it works out... DD
Rockets had injuries in prior years also, but there were not any guys that "developed" into anything good.
Even before the Alston trade, Brooks' minutes were being increased by Adelman. Brooks topped out at 25+ minutes a game in December. That's more than all of the other players picked after the 25th pick in 2007. The only other player that comes close in that draft would be Carl Landry and Marc Gasol.
I think his rep as a failed gm is overblown. The guy drafted garnett and they were in the playoffs almost every year. I like mchale and I think he will be fine as a coach. Let me add about x and o's stuff. Coaches don't or shouldn't call many plays. Whenyou mico manage basketball, you fail. This was the critique of carisle as the piston and pacers couch. In dallas, he doesn't do it nearly as much. Your basketball sets will eliminate all the playcalling. To be honest, play calling wasn't adelmans stregnth either. Rudy T won't be confused with einstein of the chalkboard. Bottomline,getting player to buy what ur selling is half the battle. Having a guy who commands a room will be helpful in the future.
The question is WHEN these players developed. For example, Landry did not make any improvements over the course of any seasons. When he came onto the scene as a rookie, he was already a high-energy guy with insane finishing ability. And he basically played the same way for the rest of the year. Since then, he made his improvements in the offseason. But he never went from crappy->great over the course of a season itself. Beyond just getting more adjusted to play over time. Head coaches in general do not strike me as "developmental" guys. Players also don't seem to improve their game during the season. They may put up better stats with more playing time or being more comfortable in their roles. But you see more sharp improvements after an offseason. And I'm pretty damn sure Adelman didn't spend his entire summers teaching his rookies how to play.
"Why are we down on McHale"? Because he has a losing record as a coach and because he was a disaster as a GM (the freaking Matt Millen of the NBA). I don't care that he has a good personality or that he is a Hall of Famer. There are plenty of ex-basketball stars that can't coach. The truth is we hired a guy with virtually no coaching track-record (and what little he had wasn't great), and a terrible track-record as a GM. Excuse me if I'm a little put off by this move. Truly, i'm not sure if anyone out there was better than what we had, which makes the lack of eagerness to resign Adelman all the more absurd. This one is a head scratcher.
For whatever its worth: http://blog.chron.com/nba/2011/05/h...evin-mchale-can-he-exceed-expectations-again/ [rquoter] Actually, if Doc had stepped down, Ainge was likely to hire McHale in Boston. In most of the years Bird and Ainge have looked for a coach, McHale did not want to be one. — Jonathan [/rquoter]
I wouldn't be surprised if Ainge had mentioned McHale as a great coaching candidate someday, when Morey used to work for the Celtics' front office. I am just surprised that McHale would reject Bird and Ainge, but then come back to coaching. I suppose Bird and Ainge could have been offering only the assistant coaching position, when he wanted to be a head coach.
Agreed. It is just hard right now. Over the Weekend I was here: Now I am here: by time the season start I will be here: Rocket River
quit acting like adelman had nothing to do with the decision to part ways. he recently made comments that he would like the gm job in portland, and has no desire to return to the "stressful aspects of coaching." i think it was pretty obvious by his body language and by his plain english that he was burnt out on coaching this year. this year's adelman is not the same as 22-win-streak-adelman. just as players have peaks, coaches also have peaks, and adelmans best days are behind him. he had a great career and i have respect for all that he has accomplished. but now its time to move on.
The GM and coaching roles are two very different things. Its a flawed argument to assume he'll fail at coaching because he sucked as a GM. THat's a bunch of BS. The man is an unknown in terms of coaching, can't really judge the guy yet. That's why I think everyone is a little down on McHale, nobody knows how he is going to do. An unknown commodity, the Rockets usually have always had a coach with experience, this guy is not that type of guy. So he's freaking some people out. I think he'll be fine, even if he isn't its not like he can't be fired.
