Woj: Dan Hurley of UConn Targeted as new Head Coach

[Tyronn Lue]

If Dan joins this organization under a "long term contract", how long before he's fired?

From a money perspective, it seems like a windfall for Hurley, but from a career satisfaction perspective, it's hard to top what he's already accomplished.

How have college coaches fared in the NBA, not counting the Pomona Pitzer prodigy?

[lefty]

:lmao

[GAustex]

If Dan joins this organization under a "long term contract", how long before he's fired?

From a money perspective, it seems like a windfall for Hurley, but from a career satisfaction perspective, it's hard to top what he's already accomplished.

How have college coaches fared in the NBA, not counting the Pomona Pitzer prodigy?

Duncan coat rider under achieved and ain’t done shit since Duncan left

[Thread]

If Dan joins this organization under a "long term contract", how long before he's fired?

From a money perspective, it seems like a windfall for Hurley, but from a career satisfaction perspective, it's hard to top what he's already accomplished.

How have college coaches fared in the NBA, not counting the Pomona Pitzer prodigy?

Look at Lue: worrying about the GD Lakers 4 o'clock this morning. Grow up.

[Tyronn Lue]

Duncan coat rider under achieved and ain’t done shit since Duncan left
Dan Hurley?

[GAustex]

Dan Hurley?
Pomona Pitzer prodigy

[Tyronn Lue]

Pomona Pitzer prodigy
He's had success in the NBA.

[GAustex]

He's had success in the NBA.
Duncan coat rider under achieved and ain’t done shit since Duncan left

[Tyronn Lue]

Duncan coat rider under achieved and ain’t done shit since Duncan left
It's called rebuilding. Spurs haven't done that since, maybe ever.

[GAustex]

It's called rebuilding. Spurs haven't done that since, maybe ever.

Sure sniffer

[DeadlyDynasty]

Coaches can’t win you a ring, they can only lose it.

[daslicer]

Coaches can’t win you a ring, they can only lose it.

I agree. I feel coaches in the NBA at best influence about around 5-10 percent of the game, which is substitutions, timeouts, instant replays, matchups, and working the refs.

[MultiTroll]

I agree. I feel coaches in the NBA at best influence about around 5-10 percent of the game, which is substitutions, timeouts, instant replays, matchups, and working the refs.
2013 Game 6 Finals
Ginobili had 8 fucking turnovers. He was obviously having some sort of Alzheimer's attack but Numb Nutts just sat there and left him in.

Next was the lead by 6 with 30 seconds to go.

Ya, there is not only influencing a game but a got dammed Championship and undefeated Timmy Dunks Finals record.

[Tyronn Lue]

Sure sniffer
Which Spurs coach was better. I'll wait.

[GAustex]

Which Spurs coach was better. I'll wait.

Has nothing to do with nothing
No other had Duncan and screwed it up

[ambchang]

The warriors went from 1st round fodder to a dynasty because Kerr saw the strengths of the team and ran a style that was never done before.

The spurs went from a pick and roll team to a 4 down team to a motion offence team with the same core.

The bulls went from an iso offence to the triangle, winning 6 titles.

The bad boys pistons went from a high scoring no d team to a rough and tumble style that dominated the 90s on their way to two titles

The rockets went from an iso only offence to an inside out three point shooting team that changed basketball for the next 40 years.

The Celtics went from an undisciplined Jack shots from everywhere team with unorganized defence to one of the most feared defensive team ever.

But coaches make no difference. WTF?

[Thread]

The warriors went from 1st round fodder to a dynasty because Kerr saw the strengths of the team and ran a style that was never done before.

The spurs went from a pick and roll team to a 4 down team to a motion offence team with the same core.

The bulls went from an iso offence to the triangle, winning 6 titles.

The bad boys pistons went from a high scoring no d team to a rough and tumble style that dominated the 90s on their way to two titles

The rockets went from an iso only offence to an inside out three point shooting team that changed basketball for the next 40 years.

The Celtics went from an undisciplined Jack shots from everywhere team with unorganized defence to one of the most feared defensive team ever.

But coaches make no difference. WTF?

How bout the Lakers, professor?

[ambchang]

How bout the Lakers, professor?

They pay.

[DeadlyDynasty]

The warriors went from 1st round fodder to a dynasty because Kerr saw the strengths of the team and ran a style that was never done before.

The spurs went from a pick and roll team to a 4 down team to a motion offence team with the same core.

The bulls went from an iso offence to the triangle, winning 6 titles.

The bad boys pistons went from a high scoring no d team to a rough and tumble style that dominated the 90s on their way to two titles

The rockets went from an iso only offence to an inside out three point shooting team that changed basketball for the next 40 years.

The Celtics went from an undisciplined Jack shots from everywhere team with unorganized defence to one of the most feared defensive team ever.

But coaches make no difference. WTF?

Nobody said they make no difference, gook. They can absolutely torpedo a team’s chances (Doc, Pop in 2013, countless other examples). What they do to actually win you games is such a small percentage of winning. Any stiff can coach superstars and even bad ones can luck into a ring or two just from sheer personnel talent.

Warriors were puppies who had a surprising run in 2013 to the WCSF and then lost a Game 7 on the road in the first round next year. One first round loss on the road in a Game 7 doesn’t constitute a first round fodder label, imo. They came into their own and it didn’t hurt that the rest of the Western powerhouses from 15-19 were led by choke artists (Harden’s rockets, Durant’s Thunder, Lob City, etc.). Credit to Kerr for some of it, but very small percentage. He did a good job not getting in the way like Mark Jackson did.

Your Spurs example is cancelled out by Pop costing you in 2013.

Celtics got old so Pistons won, Pistons got old so Bulls won. Jordan retired so Rockets won. It’s not fucking rocket science

[DeadlyDynasty]

If you wanted to make a point what good coaches can do, point to 2004, 2006 and 2011. Those teams clearly benefited more than a small percentage from coaching

[Thread]

They pay.

...like Biden states:::"Whatever it takes."

[Tyronn Lue]

Has nothing to do with nothing
No other had Duncan and screwed it up
In the past 40 years only Mike has more rings.

You stupid :lol

[Tyronn Lue]

Nobody said they make no difference, gook. They can absolutely torpedo a team’s chances (Doc, Pop in 2013, countless other examples). What they do to actually win you games is such a small percentage of winning. Any stiff can coach superstars and even bad ones can luck into a ring or two just from sheer personnel talent.

Warriors were puppies who had a surprising run in 2013 to the WCSF and then lost a Game 7 on the road in the first round next year. One first round loss on the road in a Game 7 doesn’t constitute a first round fodder label, imo. They came into their own and it didn’t hurt that the rest of the Western powerhouses from 15-19 were led by choke artists (Harden’s rockets, Durant’s Thunder, Lob City, etc.). Credit to Kerr for some of it, but very small percentage. He did a good job not getting in the way like Mark Jackson did.

Your Spurs example is cancelled out by Pop costing you in 2013.

Celtics got old so Pistons won, Pistons got old so Bulls won. Jordan retired so Rockets won. It’s not fucking rocket science
meh
every team that lost couldn't beat the winning team for some reason.

[MultiTroll]

The ABC Disney Warriors record with Luke Walton and Potatoe Head when Kerr when out with a sore back and vag.

[ambchang]

...like Biden states:::"Whatever it takes."

Is it bad voting machines? Corrupt officials?

[ambchang]

Nobody said they make no difference, gook. They can absolutely torpedo a team’s chances (Doc, Pop in 2013, countless other examples). What they do to actually win you games is such a small percentage of winning. Any stiff can coach superstars and even bad ones can luck into a ring or two just from sheer personnel talent.

Warriors were puppies who had a surprising run in 2013 to the WCSF and then lost a Game 7 on the road in the first round next year. One first round loss on the road in a Game 7 doesn’t constitute a first round fodder label, imo. They came into their own and it didn’t hurt that the rest of the Western powerhouses from 15-19 were led by choke artists (Harden’s rockets, Durant’s Thunder, Lob City, etc.). Credit to Kerr for some of it, but very small percentage. He did a good job not getting in the way like Mark Jackson did.

Your Spurs example is cancelled out by Pop costing you in 2013.

Celtics got old so Pistons won, Pistons got old so Bulls won. Jordan retired so Rockets won. It’s not fucking rocket science

Why do things cancel out? Pop won the spurs some and lost the spurs some. But the spurs wouldn’t even be in the position to lose some without a system that plays to their strengths.

Some people say ceos and executives don’t matter, like organizations can just prosper. My opinion is that they can’t. The right direction has to be set and there has to be a guy to rally the troops. Napoleon made a difference, genghis khan made a difference, Churchill made a difference. Why can’t coaches?

You guys acted like everybody knew the warriors were destined for a dynastic run. That is rewriting history. They were an up and coming team like the grizzlies were a few years ago or Sacramento last year. Or the wolves this year. They weren’t even on the OKC path. The Kerr system and having a revolutionary switch heavy defence with so much emphasis on outside shooting was the key.

[ambchang]

The ABC Disney Warriors record with Luke Walton and Potatoe Head when Kerr when out with a sore back and vag.

Whose system was it? Coaches don’t just put in day to day game to game changes. They set directions. Sure there are the cases in which coaches adjust and get one ups on the other team, like the tit for tat in the wolves nuggets series, but the most important aspect is the overall style and direction that plays to a teams strength.

Ultimately a team still need talent, but if you put a so so coach with great talent, the guidance will not be there.

[TD 21]

But the spurs wouldn’t even be in the position to lose some without a system that plays to their strengths.

You guys acted like everybody knew the warriors were destined for a dynastic run. That is rewriting history. They were an up and coming team like the grizzlies were a few years ago or Sacramento last year. Or the wolves this year. They weren’t even on the OKC path. The Kerr system and having a revolutionary switch heavy defence with so much emphasis on outside shooting was the key.

:lmao Either that or the all time great player and core that are conveniently found on virtually every multi time champion.

:lmao They're not a dynasty, they benefitted from an all time run of luck (Curry's ankles making him underpaid, an unprecedented cap spike and insecure core/Durant joining them and an unprecedented run of opponent injury luck/avoidance).

Kerr got lucky to arrive at the right time and because he's white and was a part of and friendly with the media, they pretended his genius propelled them forward.

He even admitted he had Green penciled in as a 15-20 mpg backup wing/forward and that he only became a starting/closing forward/small ball five due to injuries. That stroke of dumb luck organically lent itself to switching . . . don't kid yourself, it's always about the players.

[ambchang]

:lmao Either that or the all time great player and core that are conveniently found on virtually every multi time champion.

:lmao They're not a dynasty, they benefitted from an all time run of luck (Curry's ankles making him underpaid, an unprecedented cap spike and insecure core/Durant joining them and an unprecedented run of opponent injury luck/avoidance).

Kerr got lucky to arrive at the right time and because he's white and was a part of and friendly with the media, they pretended his genius propelled them forward.

He even admitted he had Green penciled in as a 15-20 mpg backup wing/forward and that he only became a starting/closing forward/small ball five due to injuries. That stroke of dumb luck organically lent itself to switching . . . don't kid yourself, it's always about the players.

Curry was an anomoly and a three point heavy driven offence was unprecedented. Nobody tried it and Kerr did. GSW was solidly in the novelty act category like those don nelson teams before they won their first title.

To say GSW is not a dynasty is just insane at this point. 4 titles within a decade. Changed the entire offensive direction of a league. If that’s not a dynasty I’m not sure what is.

He was flexible enough to use Draymond. Every team has some luck. The key is to take advantage of it.

[Thread]

Curry was an anomoly and a three point heavy driven offence was unprecedented. Nobody tried it and Kerr did. GSW was solidly in the novelty act category like those don nelson teams before they won their first title.

To say GSW is not a dynasty is just insane at this point. 4 titles within a decade. Changed the entire offensive direction of a league. If that’s not a dynasty I’m not sure what is.

He was flexible enough to use Draymond. Every team has some luck. The key is to take advantage of it.

Of course on a Friday...amb brings it in his inimitable way. On Friday.

amb

I'll go again...

amb

[TD 21]

Curry was an anomoly and a three point heavy driven offence was unprecedented. Nobody tried it and Kerr did. GSW was solidly in the novelty act category like those don nelson teams before they won their first title.

To say GSW is not a dynasty is just insane at this point. 4 titles within a decade. Changed the entire offensive direction of a league. If that’s not a dynasty I’m not sure what is.

He was flexible enough to use Draymond. Every team has some luck. The key is to take advantage of it.

Yeah and it was driven by him, just like the Spurs prime Duncan offense was driven by his ISO scoring in the low-mid post, back to the basket or facing. It didn't take ingenuity to figure that out.

Kerr got them as they were entering their prime. Had it been the other way around, with the same unprecedented breaks with Jackson, they have the same success.

Only if you're a casual or part of the brainwashed masses. The first 3 have zero credibility and the 4th barely does. Influence on the game doesn't quality them for it either.

No, he didn't have much choice due to injuries (namely Lee) and the rest is history.

[ambchang]

Yeah and it was driven by him, just like the Spurs prime Duncan offense was driven by his ISO scoring in the low-mid post, back to the basket or facing. It didn't take ingenuity to figure that out.

Kerr got them as they were entering their prime. Had it been the other way around, with the same unprecedented breaks with Jackson, they have the same success.

Only if you're a casual or part of the brainwashed masses. The first 3 have zero credibility and the 4th barely does. Influence on the game doesn't quality them for it either.

No, he didn't have much choice due to injuries (namely Lee) and the rest is history.

Jackson sucked. You can argue he was the coach that held the warriors back but nobody was arguing for a motion offence for the warriors. Kerr and his staff did. They also put in a solid defence (routinely top 5) that allowed them to win it all multiple times. To say Kerr just lucked into it is just asinine.

Whether they have credibility is outside of your point. You don’t get to write history. They won 4.

[TD 21]

Jackson sucked. You can argue he was the coach that held the warriors back but nobody was arguing for a motion offence for the warriors. Kerr and his staff did. They also put in a solid defence (routinely top 5) that allowed them to win it all multiple times. To say Kerr just lucked into it is just asinine.

Whether they have credibility is outside of your point. You don’t get to write history. They won 4.

No, Jackson was largely irrelevant, just like Kerr (he just inherited them when they were further along) and all the others. If his magical system had so much impact, then why were they at the bottom of the league when injuries finally struck? Criticize Jackson all you want, but they were terrible defensively for eons and became a solid defensive team under him and without great personnel. But who needs facts?

Wrong, it is my point and I get to contextualize and determine my standard the same way you do. They were too gutless to attempt to earn it (even if you want to set aside the non Durant ones, that leaves 2 which is obviously not a dynasty), so they don't get to have their cake and eat it too.

[ambchang]

No, Jackson was largely irrelevant, just like Kerr (he just inherited them when they were further along) and all the others. If his magical system had so much impact, then why were they at the bottom of the league when injuries finally struck? Criticize Jackson all you want, but they were terrible defensively for eons and became a solid defensive team under him and without great personnel. But who needs facts?

Wrong, it is my point and I get to contextualize and determine my standard the same way you do. They were too gutless to attempt to earn it (even if you want to set aside the non Durant ones, that leaves 2 which is obviously not a dynasty), so they don't get to have their cake and eat it too.

To say coaching is irrelevant based on Jacksons and kerrs results are beyond illogical. Just because the team struggled when players got injuries doesn’t mean the coaching was irrelevant. The system was installed with the players in mind. Of course it will struggle without the players. The players are a huge part of the reason teams win or lose. You can’t put yinka dare and stromile swift in place of Duncan and expect to win a title, let alone five. You can’t green substitute shaq for Duncan and expect them to win, or duncan for Dirk. The system plays to the strengths and weaknesses of these players which is the entire point of how coaching is relevant.

As for your point about them not being a dynasty, you getting to contextualize what is originally a subjective point, while the vast majority of people agree the warriors are a dynasty, underlines how your point is out of touch with reality. You can apply this thinning to every single point and detach yourself from reality, makes you do different from the MAGA crowd, some homocidal terrorist or lunatic shouting at the corner of the street (in terms of thinking pattern).

[TD 21]

To say coaching is irrelevant based on Jacksons and kerrs results are beyond illogical. Just because the team struggled when players got injuries doesn’t mean the coaching was irrelevant. The system was installed with the players in mind. Of course it will struggle without the players. The players are a huge part of the reason teams win or lose. You can’t put yinka dare and stromile swift in place of Duncan and expect to win a title, let alone five. You can’t green substitute shaq for Duncan and expect them to win, or duncan for Dirk. The system plays to the strengths and weaknesses of these players which is the entire point of how coaching is relevant.

As for your point about them not being a dynasty, you getting to contextualize what is originally a subjective point, while the vast majority of people agree the warriors are a dynasty, underlines how your point is out of touch with reality. You can apply this thinning to every single point and detach yourself from reality, makes you do different from the MAGA crowd, some homocidal terrorist or lunatic shouting at the corner of the street (in terms of thinking pattern).

No, it's largely irrelevant period; at least in the way most easy to judge, which is X's and O's. The notion that certain ones know something that other ones don't or are going to utilize it in a way unforeseen or trick someone, is asinine.

The vast majority of people just base things off of results. They see the number 4 and that's enough for them. It was for me too pre Warriors, who (along with Scumbag) distorted results and I'm not rewarding them for it by mentioning them in the same breathe with the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls and Spurs, who earned the designation. That's not the same as saying I don't acknowledge the results; they just lack credibility.

Imagine plopping in Olajuwon on the Bulls in '92 or Bryant on the Spurs in '04, etc.

[Thread]

No, it's largely irrelevant period; at least in the way most easy to judge, which is X's and O's. The notion that certain ones know something that other ones don't or are going to utilize it in a way unforeseen or trick someone, is asinine.

The vast majority of people just base things off of results. They see the number 4 and that's enough for them. It was for me too pre Warriors, who (along with Scumbag) distorted results and I'm not rewarding them for it by mentioning them in the same breathe with the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls and Spurs, who earned the designation. That's not the same as saying I don't acknowledge the results; they just lack credibility.

Imagine plopping in Olajuwon on the Bulls in '92 or Bryant on the Spurs in '04, etc.

Because in the bitter end it is commanded by "just" "results" I learned that the punishing way when the Lakers couldn't persevere over the Celtics. WTF could I do but go back home and suffer the indignation of total loss. Then lo & hold we did persevere vs. the Celtics, and you know what MSM did? Yeah, they did this: said it wasn't that big of deal, that just making the Finals, the playoff was good enough from that day forward. Can imagine purporting that to Dale?

Uh, uh. We started one way some 60+ years ago, and we ain't a changin.. Not for money, marbles nor chalk.

...Make the playoffs & win the last game you play, or, your human garbage.

Let us proceed...

[TD 21]

Because in the bitter end it is commanded by "just" "results" I learned that the punishing way when the Lakers couldn't persevere over the Celtics. WTF could I do but go back home and suffer the indignation of total loss. Then lo & hold we did persevere vs. the Celtics, and you know what MSM did? Yeah, they did this: said it wasn't that big of deal, that just making the Finals, the playoff was good enough from that day forward. Can imagine purporting that to Dale?

Uh, uh. We started one way some 60+ years ago, and we ain't a changin.. Not for money, marbles nor chalk.

...Make the playoffs & win the last game you play, or, your human garbage.

Let us proceed...

At least in the cases of the Warriors and Scumbag, not to me, it isn't. They gamed the system, so they don't get to sit at the table with those who didn't.

I know you're old and probably stuck in your ways, but the worst explanation for something is defaulting to that's how it's always been.

[Thread]

At least in the cases of the Warriors and Scumbag, not to me, it isn't. They gamed the system, so they don't get to sit at the table with those who didn't.

I know you're old and probably stuck in your ways, but the worst explanation for something is defaulting to that's how it's always been.

The system is liable to be gamed. I got no problem citing them for gaming it. I wish the Lakers would game it instead of honoring Minnesota Floyd instead.

[RC_Drunkford]

no coach in the world can save this shittyass Laker roster. They won't even make the play-in next season

[Thread]

no coach in the world can save this shittyass Laker roster. They won't even make the play-in next season

Heartily agreed. We were both lucky and cursed to have James ring like that. We ain't done shit since cept chase down White people.

[ambchang]

No, it's largely irrelevant period; at least in the way most easy to judge, which is X's and O's. The notion that certain ones know something that other ones don't or are going to utilize it in a way unforeseen or trick someone, is asinine.

The vast majority of people just base things off of results. They see the number 4 and that's enough for them. It was for me too pre Warriors, who (along with Scumbag) distorted results and I'm not rewarding them for it by mentioning them in the same breathe with the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls and Spurs, who earned the designation. That's not the same as saying I don't acknowledge the results; they just lack credibility.

Imagine plopping in Olajuwon on the Bulls in '92 or Bryant on the Spurs in '04, etc.
Or Barkley with olajuwon and drexler or Malone and Payton with shaq and Kobe. Or Dwight and nash with MVPau and kobe. Didn’t work out. Players have shown that they are horrible in X and Os historically, either as a broadcaster, or a coach. Other than a few high end PGs players have also shown they can’t develop plays that well either.

All this without even mentioning the ego massaging and baby sitting aspects.

[TD 21]

Or Barkley with olajuwon and drexler or Malone and Payton with shaq and Kobe. Or Dwight and nash with MVPau and kobe. Didn’t work out. Players have shown that they are horrible in X and Os historically, either as a broadcaster, or a coach. Other than a few high end PGs players have also shown they can’t develop plays that well either.

All this without even mentioning the ego massaging and baby sitting aspects.

I don't know what you're talking about, but Barkley, Olajuwon, Drexler, Malone, Payton and Nash were all past their prime when those teams formed and Howard was playing hurt.

That's not at all comparable to Durant signing with the Warriors when they were all in their prime.

:lmao It's a cerebral game, but it's not rocket science either. These guys have received the so called best coaching throughout their careers, yet they don't retain any information? Just stop.

[MultiTroll]

Whose system was it? Coaches don’t just put in day to day game to game changes. They set directions. Sure there are the cases in which coaches adjust and get one ups on the other team, like the tit for tat in the wolves nuggets series, but the most important aspect is the overall style and direction that plays to a teams strength.

Ultimately a team still need talent, but if you put a so so coach with great talent, the guidance will not be there.
Please inform how rookie coach Avery Johnsons system beat GOAT Craig Popplevichs most stacked lineup system in the 2006 playoffs.
:corn:

[MultiTroll]

Can the Lakers get Magic back after Hurley rejects them?

Magic knows everything.

[ambchang]

I don't know what you're talking about, but Barkley, Olajuwon, Drexler, Malone, Payton and Nash were all past their prime when those teams formed and Howard was playing hurt.

That's not at all comparable to Durant signing with the Warriors when they were all in their prime.

:lmao It's a cerebral game, but it's not rocket science either. These guys have received the so called best coaching throughout their careers, yet they don't retain any information? Just stop.

My mistake, mistook you using the Durant situation as an example of coaching doesn't matter, but point stands, there were an incredible amount on talent on certain teams that don't win, because the styles do not mesh. I have no problems saying that Durant's level of cowardice was unprecedented, and I also believe they do not deserve any credit as some soft of team building genius, but as a team of pure dominance? The team was stacked, they can only be considered a dynasty, especially in an age where long terms dominance is tough to do due to the cap rules.

As for players not retain information, you make is sound like every team is the same, they are not. You cannot have the same system with Olajuwon as you have with Curry, nor can you have a Jordan centred system applied to the Bad Boys. This isn't a cut and paste exercise, there are many different ways to win, even though there are some basic required building blocks (talent, defensive and offensive systems, bench, etc ...)

[GAustex]

Joe Mazzulla bitch slapping main stream media one question at a time

[GAustex]

And Hurley turned down BronBron and the Avengers

[TD 21]

My mistake, mistook you using the Durant situation as an example of coaching doesn't matter, but point stands, there were an incredible amount on talent on certain teams that don't win, because the styles do not mesh. I have no problems saying that Durant's level of cowardice was unprecedented, and I also believe they do not deserve any credit as some soft of team building genius, but as a team of pure dominance? The team was stacked, they can only be considered a dynasty, especially in an age where long terms dominance is tough to do due to the cap rules.

As for players not retain information, you make is sound like every team is the same, they are not. You cannot have the same system with Olajuwon as you have with Curry, nor can you have a Jordan centred system applied to the Bad Boys. This isn't a cut and paste exercise, there are many different ways to win, even though there are some basic required building blocks (talent, defensive and offensive systems, bench, etc ...)

No, because they were old, sometimes ego got in the way and other times the fit wasn't great.

All of their level of cowardice was unprecedented, those weasels just allowed Durant take the entirety of it (to be sure, he deserved the most since no one had a gun to his head) because they were too gutless to admit their role in it.

The dominance didn't happen organically though, so it's irrelevant. Just like it'd have with the examples I cited.

You again missed the point. It's not about "system", it's about you acting as if most of the players are clueless and need coaches to hold their hands when in comes to X's and O's, which is ridiculous.

[Thread]

Can the Lakers get Magic back after Hurley rejects them?

Magic knows everything.

Knew enough to not reject the Celtics on & off the court, but to embrace them, humanized them and finally beat them. Those get together's by CBS with him and Bird were a riot. Magic would be all buddy-buddy and lovin' him some Bird and Bird would sit there with that pained smile on his face like he couldn't pass water. I don't know whether, truth be told he was conning the Celtics and Bird, or, being genuinely kind, but they were hard to watch. It'd get to Bird's turn to smootch ass and his heart wasn't in it. I'd go over to TCM real quick...I was uncomfortable. I was embarrassed for Bird, for getting conned into these things by Stern.

[Thread]

Excusing that mutton headed Mult this conversation by you fellows is super fine.

Good memories.

[Tyronn Lue]

:lol Lakers friend zoned

[Tyronn Lue]

Knew enough to not reject the Celtics on & off the court, but to embrace them, humanized them and finally beat them. Those get together's by CBS with him and Bird were a riot. Magic would be all buddy-buddy and lovin' him some Bird and Bird would sit there with that pained smile on his face like he couldn't pass water. I don't know whether, truth be told he was conning the Celtics and Bird, or, being genuinely kind, but they were hard to watch. It'd get to Bird's turn to smootch ass and his heart wasn't in it. I'd go over to TCM real quick...I was uncomfortable. I was embarrassed for Bird, for getting conned into these things by Stern.
What's it like, living in the past?

[Tyronn Lue]

No, it's largely irrelevant period; at least in the way most easy to judge, which is X's and O's. The notion that certain ones know something that other ones don't or are going to utilize it in a way unforeseen or trick someone, is asinine.

The vast majority of people just base things off of results. They see the number 4 and that's enough for them. It was for me too pre Warriors, who (along with Scumbag) distorted results and I'm not rewarding them for it by mentioning them in the same breathe with the Celtics, Lakers, Bulls and Spurs, who earned the designation. That's not the same as saying I don't acknowledge the results; they just lack credibility.

Imagine plopping in Olajuwon on the Bulls in '92 or Bryant on the Spurs in '04, etc.
Steve didn't do much to "fix" the Warriors. Mark did a lot to fuck them up though so all Steve needed to do was actually coach instead of preach and rap to them.

[Thread]

What's it like, living in the past?

It's who I am, Lue. I love it.

[ambchang]

No, because they were old, sometimes ego got in the way and other times the fit wasn't great.

All of their level of cowardice was unprecedented, those weasels just allowed Durant take the entirety of it (to be sure, he deserved the most since no one had a gun to his head) because they were too gutless to admit their role in it.

The dominance didn't happen organically though, so it's irrelevant. Just like it'd have with the examples I cited.

You again missed the point. It's not about "system", it's about you acting as if most of the players are clueless and need coaches to hold their hands when in comes to X's and O's, which is ridiculous.

Never said that. I said coaches matter. They absolutely do. Time after time coaching has changed a team. It’s more than X’s and O’s and if you refuse to admit it thenthere really is nothing to talk about. It really is like talking to the MAGA crowd.


As for the GSW, nothing you stated disqualified them from being a dynasty.

[TD 21]

Never said that. I said coaches matter. They absolutely do. Time after time coaching has changed a team. It’s more than X’s and O’s and if you refuse to admit it thenthere really is nothing to talk about. It really is like talking to the MAGA crowd.


As for the GSW, nothing you stated disqualified them from being a dynasty.

Nah, that's the narrative the media has fed the masses (of course, the young, mostly black players couldn't have figured anything out without the mostly middle aged - old white coaches) and like many, you've lapped it up.

Sure, if you're fine with starting on the two-yard line.

[Tyronn Lue]

It's who I am, Lue. I love it.
Are you sure you love it or will you need to reflect in 10 years to reassess?

[Tyronn Lue]

Nah, that's the narrative the media has fed the masses (of course, the young, mostly black players couldn't have figured anything out without the mostly middle aged - old white coaches) and like many, you've lapped it up.

Sure, if you're fine with starting on the two-yard line.
Steph and Klay (and at that time, Bogut) are either white or latte. Your crusade doesn't have any fact based foundation.

[Thread]

Are you sure you love it or will you need to reflect in 10 years to reassess?

No, I knew it as a young boy. I couldn't explain, nor reason it out, but I knew.

And that epitaph..."The past is prologue."

I don't believe I have 10 years left, Lue. I got a cancer streak both paternal and maternal that is 99% throughout the both trees.

[GAustex]

^
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

[TD 21]

Steph and Klay (and at that time, Bogut) are either white or latte. Your crusade doesn't have any fact based foundation.

I wasn't talking about them specifically but the coaching-player dynamic in general and how the media (who is often in bed with those they incessantly slurp) portrays their supposed importance to the public.

[Thread]

^
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Gets the blood to boilin' for sure, GA.

Thank you.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Good for Hurley, proving he's not some starstruck sucker. No self-respecting coach is going to be held hostage to select Lebron's sprog

[Tyronn Lue]

I wasn't talking about them specifically but the coaching-player dynamic in general and how the media (who is often in bed with those they incessantly slurp) portrays their supposed importance to the public.
Do you think the media convinces ownership to pay tens of millions for coaches? Sure, the media skews the truth to sell clicks, no doubt. I think it's clear though that Jackson was a limiting factor with the Warriors just as Brad Stevens was a limiting factor in Boston and Mike D'Antoni was a limiting factor in Houston when he was there.

[TD 21]

Do you think the media convinces ownership to pay tens of millions for coaches? Sure, the media skews the truth to sell clicks, no doubt. I think it's clear though that Jackson was a limiting factor with the Warriors just as Brad Stevens was a limiting factor in Boston and Mike D'Antoni was a limiting factor in Houston when he was there.

Convinces would be an overstatement, but yeah some of these bigs wigs are in contact with certain owners, so when they're talking up some coach who feeds them information, be it directly or it's through TV, digital, podcasts, whatever, yeah they're influencing or at least attempting to do so.

Clear based on what? Results that occurred with better teams and more favorable breaks.

[Tyronn Lue]

Convinces would be an overstatement, but yeah some of these bigs wigs are in contact with certain owners, so when they're talking up some coach who feeds them information, be it directly or it's through TV, digital, podcasts, whatever, yeah they're influencing or at least attempting to do so.

Clear based on what? Results that occurred with better teams and more favorable breaks.
Funny people blame Pop for Spurs woes but then say coaches don't matter.

[ambchang]

Nah, that's the narrative the media has fed the masses (of course, the young, mostly black players couldn't have figured anything out without the mostly middle aged - old white coaches) and like many, you've lapped it up.

Sure, if you're fine with starting on the two-yard line.

I never said that. If your stance is that it’s either the coaches matter for 100% for the winning or none of it, then you are way stupider than I gave you credit for.

Hey, the supporting players matter too, I guess the media narrative is giving way too much credit to the superstar.

[TD 21]

Funny people blame Pop for Spurs woes but then say coaches don't matter.



I never said that. If your stance is that it’s either the coaches matter for 100% for the winning or none of it, then you are way stupider than I gave you credit for.

Hey, the supporting players matter too, I guess the media narrative is giving way too much credit to the superstar.

If you want to argue the whole "building relationships, getting buy-in" angle (though we're not privy to that), I'd be more amendable to that then the notion that one's "system" or X's and O's acumen is some sort of difference maker.

That's nonsense. These guys are all well versed in that stuff (it's mostly the same things anyway, just different vernacular) or they wouldn't sniff the NBA.

[ambchang]

If you want to argue the whole "building relationships, getting buy-in" angle (though we're not privy to that), I'd be more amendable to that then the notion that one's "system" or X's and O's acumen is some sort of difference maker.

That's nonsense. These guys are all well versed in that stuff (it's mostly the same things anyway, just different vernacular) or they wouldn't sniff the NBA.

And yet time and again, through being a GM, coach or even an analyst, have shown that ex-players are often average to terrible basketball minds. Mark Jackson being a perfect example. It's like saying some random move generator with a whole bunch of queens will beat an expert chess player every time. it took years to generate big blue and have it beat a chess master, and it is with deliberate learning over the years to do so.

Many times, it's not even the knowledge level, it's about specialization. A player would spend all day every day training to improve his game, he doesn't have the time to look at another team's strengths and weakneses, then come up with a game plan, nor does he have time to evaluate himself and his teammates to see what is the best way to proceed. A coach, often a player in his younger days who couldn't make it to the top due to limited physical abilities, would focus on learning the intricacies of the game and think through things.

Other than throwing race-baiting garbage out there, you have yet to show anything related to that. You have also failed to demonstrate any knowledge of the history of basketball, when it actually started with a bunch of white guys shooting around, then slowly developed into changes in strategy with a coach. Why would there be a white coach to march the white kids around back then? Why was it even necessary? Was the media involved back then? Why would overseas league require coaches? Your entire myopic race-baiting views falls apart once you look outside of what is immediate right now happening in the US. You look anywhere else and the entire argument falters.

[TD 21]

And yet time and again, through being a GM, coach or even an analyst, have shown that ex-players are often average to terrible basketball minds. Mark Jackson being a perfect example. It's like saying some random move generator with a whole bunch of queens will beat an expert chess player every time. it took years to generate big blue and have it beat a chess master, and it is with deliberate learning over the years to do so.

Many times, it's not even the knowledge level, it's about specialization. A player would spend all day every day training to improve his game, he doesn't have the time to look at another team's strengths and weakneses, then come up with a game plan, nor does he have time to evaluate himself and his teammates to see what is the best way to proceed. A coach, often a player in his younger days who couldn't make it to the top due to limited physical abilities, would focus on learning the intricacies of the game and think through things.

Other than throwing race-baiting garbage out there, you have yet to show anything related to that. You have also failed to demonstrate any knowledge of the history of basketball, when it actually started with a bunch of white guys shooting around, then slowly developed into changes in strategy with a coach. Why would there be a white coach to march the white kids around back then? Why was it even necessary? Was the media involved back then? Why would overseas league require coaches? Your entire myopic race-baiting views falls apart once you look outside of what is immediate right now happening in the US. You look anywhere else and the entire argument falters.

This is cliched, stereotypical nonsense. There's 9-10 rotation players per team; these guys all know the NBA game and each other's tendencies after they've been around for a while. Once you know that, combined with your own strength and weaknesses on your team, cultivating a "system" and "game plan" becomes relatively easy.

But my point wasn't so much that or in terms of developing players from a grassroots level as it is, the notion that at the professional level certain coaches are geniuses and others are idiots.

I don't do race-baiting, I do truth telling. Unfortunately many people (usually white and white adjacent) squirm at the mere mention of it, when most of the time I'm not accusing them of anything but racial bias and how certain ideologies are drilled into people's minds until it becomes the gospel.

[Tyronn Lue]

This is cliched, stereotypical nonsense. There's 9-10 rotation players per team; these guys all know the NBA game and each other's tendencies after they've been around for a while. Once you know that, combined with your own strength and weaknesses on your team, cultivating a "system" and "game plan" becomes relatively easy.

But my point wasn't so much that or in terms of developing players from a grassroots level as it is, the notion that at the professional level certain coaches are geniuses and others are idiots.

I don't do race-baiting, I do truth telling. Unfortunately many people (usually white and white adjacent) squirm at the mere mention of it, when most of the time I'm not accusing them of anything but racial bias and how certain ideologies are drilled into people's minds until it becomes the gospel.
Idiots, no, bull headed assholes? Sure. Some coaches get in their own way.

[ambchang]

No, Jackson was largely irrelevant, just like Kerr (he just inherited them when they were further along) and all the others. If his magical system had so much impact, then why were they at the bottom of the league when injuries finally struck? Criticize Jackson all you want, but they were terrible defensively for eons and became a solid defensive team under him and without great personnel. But who needs facts?

Wrong, it is my point and I get to contextualize and determine my standard the same way you do. They were too gutless to attempt to earn it (even if you want to set aside the non Durant ones, that leaves 2 which is obviously not a dynasty), so they don't get to have their cake and eat it too.


This is cliched, stereotypical nonsense. There's 9-10 rotation players per team; these guys all know the NBA game and each other's tendencies after they've been around for a while. Once you know that, combined with your own strength and weaknesses on your team, cultivating a "system" and "game plan" becomes relatively easy.

But my point wasn't so much that or in terms of developing players from a grassroots level as it is, the notion that at the professional level certain coaches are geniuses and others are idiots.

I don't do race-baiting, I do truth telling. Unfortunately many people (usually white and white adjacent) squirm at the mere mention of it, when most of the time I'm not accusing them of anything but racial bias and how certain ideologies are drilled into people's minds until it becomes the gospel.

Unfortunately that’s not what you said. I wouldn’t call saying some of the most celebrated coaches in the history of the league irrelevant is the same as saying some are geniuses and others are idiots. Once again, you have reduced the entire issue as extremes, which nobody is doing other than you.

Hanging your entire argument on the media selling white coach good black player dumb is exhibit a of race baiting. Jack Ramsay and red auebach played teams with dozens of white players. What’s their excuse of being heralded as some of the best basketball minds? Coach K who coached teams of largely white players. What’s your excuse? Owners spending millions year over year on a useless position because the media told them to? Who came up with this bullshit argument? Did you even read through what your wrote? It is no different than those racist hillbillies who insisted black folks are inferior despite mountains of data arguing otherwise. Ultimately, your way of thinking is the same as those you portray to hate.


I’m on the side of saying there aren’t too many great black coaches due to racial bias (not getting the introductory jobs, not being promoted despite good performance, getting to bad teams with no chance of winning when they actually make pro) but to say coaches are useless and a figment of the racist media is just stupid.

[Thread]

Idiots, no, bull headed assholes? Sure. Some coaches get in their own way.

Hey Lue, this is as good as it's gonna get, and it'll never get this good again.

You remember that, daddy-O.

[TD 21]

Once again, you have reduced the entire issue as extremes

Hanging your entire argument on the media selling white coach good black player dumb. Owners spending millions year over year on a useless position because the media told them to? Ultimately, your way of thinking is the same as you portray to hate.


I’m on the side of saying there aren’t too many great black coaches due to racial bias (not getting the introductory jobs, not being promoted despite good performance, getting to bad teams with no chance of winning when they actually make pro) but to say coaches are useless and a figment of the racist media is just stupid.

No, you have because you're too dense to understand basic things and too fixated on one specific comment that you predictably took the wrong way and have blown out of proportion.

I've listed a combination of reasons that I'm not going to bother doing again.

Oh, so you can that and it's not "race baiting", but if I bring up anything have to do with the word, it is? I'm done here.

[ambchang]

No, you have because you're too dense to understand basic things and too fixated on one specific comment that you predictably took the wrong way and have blown out of proportion.

I've listed a combination of reasons that I'm not going to bother doing again.

Oh, so you can that and it's not "race baiting", but if I bring up anything have to do with the word, it is? I'm done here.

As in backtracking from coaches being irrelevant to now being a distinction? List it out. Quote your own posts in this thread. Your entire argument is around biased media putting white coaches ahead of black players which somehow would force billionaire owners who are smart people to spend tens of millions of dollars on something useless.