At the usual gushing and hyperbole or thinking Kerr has done anything meaningful in 4+ years. Greatest team of all-time; based on what? Congratulations, a team with an MVP and 2 All-Stars beat a team with 1 All-Star (who played with a separated rib).
They literally had Curry defending an overdue for progression to the mean Curry in clutch time, with a combination of Kanter and Leonard (inexplicably mostly dropping), closing at center.
And as much as the Rockets squandered an opportunity, again: One MVP and 2 All-Stars vs one MVP and maybe 1 All-Star (you can debate whether Paul is still of that caliber).
Why are people pretending as if they'd have made 5 straight Finals if not for an all-time fluke? Let's plop Olajuwon into the mid 90s Bulls and say Jordan doesn't retire. How many do they reel off? Or Duncan into the early 00s Lakers? What about Garnett into the mid 00s Spurs?
This team has still accomplished very little that doesn't come with a giant asterisk. The '16 WCF is really about it.
Last edited by TD 21; 05-21-2019 at 05:20 PM.
True, he tried to come back in a game then re-injured himself a couple minutes in, IIRC. Heading into that game, they were saying they were going to work him back in slowly. But point remains that Lee started the entire preseason and Green only became a starter as fast as he did due to a lucky injury.
True, true. Kerr was helped by the fact that the Warriors coasted to the best record in the league but yeah he deserves credit for not going the Thibodeau route.
There it is.
Losing coach = terrible. Winning coach = elite.
Players will always be >>>> coaches in determining success, but why are some folks acting as if coaching didn't matter at all?
Basically, the job of a coach is ing up the least so that you can maximize the talent of your team. The thing is that there are so many different ways in which a coach can the potential of a team up, that you just can't ignore their importance. From the system that you decide to run, to rotations, to lineup decisions, to specific play calls, to use of timeouts, etc, etc, etc.
Most often than not, coaches tend to up in some of these things. When a coach doesn't, it's worthy of recognition, tbh.
Curry, Thompson, Green vs Durant, Harden, Westbrook (and Ibaka).
Similar cores in talent. In fact, many (most?) would say the former OKC core was better. One core went to become a dynasty, the other never won (think about it, 3 MVP's in their primes and they never won).
What's the difference? One franchise got the right coach in time to not blow it up, while the other franchise didn't. Tell me if coaching is as unimportant as you say it is.
Eh the FO is to blame tooCurry, Thompson, Green vs Durant, Harden, Westbrook (and Ibaka).
Similar cores in talent. In fact, many (most?) would say the former OKC core was better. One core went to become a dynasty, the other never won (think about it, 3 MVP's in their primes and they never won
What's the difference? One franchise got the right coach in time to not blow it up, while the other franchise didn't. Tell me if coaching is as unimportant as you say it is.
Uh, one blew up their core. The other didn't. Tbh.Curry, Thompson, Green vs Durant, Harden, Westbrook (and Ibaka).
Similar cores in talent. In fact, many (most?) would say the former OKC core was better. One core went to become a dynasty, the other never won (think about it, 3 MVP's in their primes and they never won
What's the difference? One franchise got the right coach in time to not blow it up, while the other franchise didn't. Tell me if coaching is as unimportant as you say it is.
Trading away Harden after making the Finals has to be the dumbest move of the last 20 years.
Just 20 years?
Maybe if they would have had a good enough coach, they would have won the whole thing before blowing it up. That was my point.
Stotts' game 1 strategy was to give Curry and Thompson open looks.There it is.
Losing coach = terrible. Winning coach = elite.
They never had a real opportunity. The first year those youngins were out of diapers they made it to the Finals and won the first game. That summer, Presti traded away Harden in order to keep Kendrick PerkinsJust 20 years?
Maybe if they would have had a good enough coach, they would have won the whole thing before blowing it up. That was my point.
Casey Holdahl
@CHold
The Trail Blazers and head coach Terry Stotts have come to terms on a multi-year contract extension.
You better then that LJ.There it is.
Losing coach = terrible. Winning coach = elite.
I mean Doc Rivers lost but he was able to make things happen.
It was pretty obvious that that was a bad coaching job by Trail Blazers coach. You need to make demands from your D to stop the ball. Go back to transition. No lazy switches etc. Players effort is a diferent story here. But you need to set things up.
Curry had plenty of space to operate at the 3 pt line. Dray had few kilometers of space every game. Zero adjustments what so ever. Counter the traps of GS? Where was it? Kerr could demand to trap Lilard and Portland had wasted possession.
You telling me that winning and losing has nothing to do how players are coached?
I don't think anyone is arguing that coaching doesn't matter "at all," and you're right that the biggest impact they have is with rotations/lineup (which are probably informed by front office data, so who knows how much influence coaches really have), timeout usage, and maybe end game play calls. What's certainly myth is how fans and media think coaches are playing some proverbial "chess match" with one another, and that the winning coach employed some super secret voodoo tactics the opposing coach had no answer for.Players will always be >>>> coaches in determining success, but why are some folks acting as if coaching didn't matter at all?
Basically, the job of a coach is ing up the least so that you can maximize the talent of your team. The thing is that there are so many different ways in which a coach can the potential of a team up, that you just can't ignore their importance. From the system that you decide to run, to rotations, to lineup decisions, to specific play calls, to use of timeouts, etc, etc, etc.
Most often than not, coaches tend to up in some of these things. When a coach doesn't, it's worthy of recognition, tbh.
I'll refer to the infamous 2004 Western Semis backdoor sweep the Lakers put on us. The Lakers could not stop Duncan and Parker from going ape in the paint during the first two games. Phil decided to pack the paint to limit them and force our shooters to beat them. The Spurs were already prepared for that move since the big off-season signings were shooters (Horry, Turk). Duncan and Parker were limited after Game 2 and our shooters underperformed in key games (the Spurs shot .306 from 3 in the series). Other factor was Kobe having a huge game 4 for 42 points in an 8 point loss. Phil didn't employ some chess master level thinking to out think Pop. He make a basic adjustment in which the basic counter is to simply make shots. We didn't make shots. So Pop is usually right when the media probes him for "answers," maybe hoping for some in-depth Xs and Os explanations, when in fact it came down to not making shots and the other team making shots (i.e. Kobe game 4). But the narrative following that series was how Phil "outcoached" Pop.
Last edited by midnightpulp; 05-22-2019 at 06:36 AM.
I agree with you on the coaching but c'mon, everyone knows Harden got traded because Clay Bennett's wealth was evaporating before his eyes and he didn't want to flirt with paying the luxury tax so he salary dumped Harden (as timvp already said, he could have avoided the luxury tax by amnestying Perkins, so it was a historically ty move, but it had more to do with salary dumping than anything else). It had nothing to do with the fact they came up short after getting further than they were expected to as a team that young.Just 20 years?
Maybe if they would have had a good enough coach, they would have won the whole thing before blowing it up. That was my point.
Last edited by Will Hunting; 05-22-2019 at 11:24 AM.
I'm not sure if this is what you were saying DAF86, but the one argument I would agree with is that it might have been harder for Bennett to justify trading Harden if Brooks wasn't handling him with kid gloves and stunting his development. By his 3rd year in the league (2012), Harden shouldn't have still been taking a clear backseat to Westbrook and Durant as the 6th man who only gets to handle the ball when Westbrook is off the court. He took half as many shots as Westbrook in 2012 despite being a significantly more efficient scorer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
