Most disappointing Rookie thus far

[TheFuture]

I hate the coaching argument. Maybe it matters as a kid, but it doesn't mean shit in pro sports. I guess, maybe, they could tell you it is off ... but... you work on it or you don't.

I watched Dame and Curry talk about deep three point shooting. They specified about it being thousands upon thousands of reps before being comfortable doing that in a game. It is not coaching, it is God-given talent combined with want-to.

That being said:

Fire Ryan Saunders. Please, I am begging you Glen. He has no business being an NBA head coach outside of being Flip's son, and I honestly think he would have to fight for a college coaching head job.

First they have to fire Thibs...Jimmy Butler may decide to leave if Thibs is gone, but we have to take that chance. KAT, Wig and Zach will still be here, and they have enough talent to help us compete. Especially if we can negotiate a trade with the Celtics for KG.

KAT
KG
Wig
Zach
Pooh Richardson

Ok, returning to earth. Future, I hear that you don't like the coaching argument. What if we frame it as "accountability" instead? I still think Ant's biggest issue is shot selection. I think if Finch benched him when he didn't limit his game to mostly dunks/layups and threes, Ant would eventually get the message and change his game. All NBA players want court time, and Ant is no different. Finch can't continue to give him 32 minutes if he doesn't change his shot selection. That's accountability.

Ant absolutely should be benched when he's chucking up shots and playing selfishly. One of my favorite coaches for the Wolves was Dwayne Casey, he benched McCants ass when he played selfishly. Wish we had a no-nonsense coach back when Wiggs, Lavine and KAT were coming up. Smitch was ok, but Thibs was terrible and ingrained bad habits into these three. I hope Finch isn't afraid of benching Ant or anybody else loafing on defense or playing selfishly. Wins no longer matter anyway, its about building good habits and development.

When all you have to fall back on is Dwayne Casey, you can accept that your team has fucked up.

[Coolbreeze44]

Also, I'm just going to throw this out there. I believe that individual players are largely responsible for developing their games. They are the ones who have the most control in that aspect. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, so to speak. The player has to buy-in to his own future.

Game management and preparation is entirely different. I do feel like a head coach can make a positive, negative, or no impact at all in that regard. Obviously, if the roster is bad there's only so much that can be done, but you will still be able to see differences between a good coach and a bad coach. We've seen bad teams exceed their projected win totals in part because of good coaching. It's happening this year with the Knicks and the Spurs. We've also seen the opposite, especially in Minnesota, where talented teams fall short of projected win totals in part because of bad or poor coaching. We've seen new coaches take essentially the same roster as the last coach had and implement different schemes to achieve much better results. We've seen coaches use players differently to yield better results. We've seen playoff teams get out-coached in the playoffs leading to unexpected upsets. The idea that coaching just doesn't matter -- even in a star-studded league like the NBA -- is false.

I agree that coaching matters. You mentioned game management and preparation. I would add Gersson's favorite work, "system" - as in designing offensive and defensive systems that fit the players on the roster, blending and maximizing their strengths while minimizing or covering their weaknesses. My small quibble is that I just don't buy this "culture" thing. If there is such a thing as a "winning culture", it comes from winning. And winning comes from a combination of talent, and yes, coaching. When it comes to individual talent, it's not just physical talent, it's also IQ and mental toughness. When it comes to overall talent, it's a matter of having the right blend of talent with complementary skill-sets and adequate balance.

The best example of what I mean was what happened when the Wolves acquired Jimmy Butler and Taj Gibson. Adding one all-star caliber player who was also mentally tough and really smart along with a really solid big man elevated a 21-year old Towns from the lottery to the playoffs in one season. And it likely would have taken him to a 4th or 5th seed of not for Butler's injury. The Wolves had a "winning culture" that season because they had the talent to win and a coach who knew how to get the most out of that talent.

The only time the Wolves had a winning culture was in the best days of the Garnett era. That Butler team had terrible culture even though they won at a decent rate. Lip, you've talked before about how you don't buy into the culture being real, and that's fine. I happen to disagree strongly. Sure, you can throw a bunch of superstars together and they are going to win no matter what. But to maintain long term success I think a good culture from the top on down comes first. Think Utah during the Snyder era. Perfect example in my opinion.

[AbeVigodaLive]

Let's not forget that even during Garnett's heyday... the team escaped the 1st round... only once.

Even then... the team was a major disappointment. Just in a different way. But at least they were respectable.

[Wolvesfan21]

Also, I'm just going to throw this out there. I believe that individual players are largely responsible for developing their games. They are the ones who have the most control in that aspect. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, so to speak. The player has to buy-in to his own future.

Game management and preparation is entirely different. I do feel like a head coach can make a positive, negative, or no impact at all in that regard. Obviously, if the roster is bad there's only so much that can be done, but you will still be able to see differences between a good coach and a bad coach. We've seen bad teams exceed their projected win totals in part because of good coaching. It's happening this year with the Knicks and the Spurs. We've also seen the opposite, especially in Minnesota, where talented teams fall short of projected win totals in part because of bad or poor coaching. We've seen new coaches take essentially the same roster as the last coach had and implement different schemes to achieve much better results. We've seen coaches use players differently to yield better results. We've seen playoff teams get out-coached in the playoffs leading to unexpected upsets. The idea that coaching just doesn't matter -- even in a star-studded league like the NBA -- is false.

I agree that coaching matters. You mentioned game management and preparation. I would add Gersson's favorite work, "system" - as in designing offensive and defensive systems that fit the players on the roster, blending and maximizing their strengths while minimizing or covering their weaknesses. My small quibble is that I just don't buy this "culture" thing. If there is such a thing as a "winning culture", it comes from winning. And winning comes from a combination of talent, and yes, coaching. When it comes to individual talent, it's not just physical talent, it's also IQ and mental toughness. When it comes to overall talent, it's a matter of having the right blend of talent with complementary skill-sets and adequate balance.

The best example of what I mean was what happened when the Wolves acquired Jimmy Butler and Taj Gibson. Adding one all-star caliber player who was also mentally tough and really smart along with a really solid big man elevated a 21-year old Towns from the lottery to the playoffs in one season. And it likely would have taken him to a 4th or 5th seed of not for Butler's injury. The Wolves had a "winning culture" that season because they had the talent to win and a coach who knew how to get the most out of that talent.

The only time the Wolves had a winning culture was in the best days of the Garnett era. That Butler team had terrible culture even though they won at a decent rate. Lip, you've talked before about how you don't buy into the culture being real, and that's fine. I happen to disagree strongly. Sure, you can throw a bunch of superstars together and they are going to win no matter what. But to maintain long term success I think a good culture from the top on down comes first. Think Utah during the Snyder era. Perfect example in my opinion.

I think "culture" is mostly bullshit as well. Did the Lakers have great culture between Kobes last seasons and acquiring LeBron? No they sucked. They were terrible with Kobe when he was older.

What is this culture thing exactly. Is it based on ownership, coaching or organizational? Because both the Celtics and Lakers had many pathetic seasons and have done so consecutively but they also have history of winning A LOT of NBA Titles.

I would say culture comes first from the players themselves if this culture thing is real. Then ownership and coaching. Players themselves need to lead others. Jordan went to a horrible franchise. I think no matter where Jordan went he would have ended up succeeding. Maybe not to the degree he did but he certainly would have won a few rings still. He was that good and also demanded his teammates to reach levels they needed.

LeBron wins no matter where he goes, but he also brings along superstars too. But on the flip side he and a bunch of basically avg NBA players were in the finals pre-supersteam Heat days.

Let's say LeBron somehow chose the Wolves over LA. Would the Wolves not be a favorite or close to right now to win the NBA Title if not won it already?

Would GSW won any Titles if Kahn chose Steph over Flynn? How would their culture be?

Players make organizations winners, not the other way around.

[Coolbreeze44]

Also, I'm just going to throw this out there. I believe that individual players are largely responsible for developing their games. They are the ones who have the most control in that aspect. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, so to speak. The player has to buy-in to his own future.

Game management and preparation is entirely different. I do feel like a head coach can make a positive, negative, or no impact at all in that regard. Obviously, if the roster is bad there's only so much that can be done, but you will still be able to see differences between a good coach and a bad coach. We've seen bad teams exceed their projected win totals in part because of good coaching. It's happening this year with the Knicks and the Spurs. We've also seen the opposite, especially in Minnesota, where talented teams fall short of projected win totals in part because of bad or poor coaching. We've seen new coaches take essentially the same roster as the last coach had and implement different schemes to achieve much better results. We've seen coaches use players differently to yield better results. We've seen playoff teams get out-coached in the playoffs leading to unexpected upsets. The idea that coaching just doesn't matter -- even in a star-studded league like the NBA -- is false.

I agree that coaching matters. You mentioned game management and preparation. I would add Gersson's favorite work, "system" - as in designing offensive and defensive systems that fit the players on the roster, blending and maximizing their strengths while minimizing or covering their weaknesses. My small quibble is that I just don't buy this "culture" thing. If there is such a thing as a "winning culture", it comes from winning. And winning comes from a combination of talent, and yes, coaching. When it comes to individual talent, it's not just physical talent, it's also IQ and mental toughness. When it comes to overall talent, it's a matter of having the right blend of talent with complementary skill-sets and adequate balance.

The best example of what I mean was what happened when the Wolves acquired Jimmy Butler and Taj Gibson. Adding one all-star caliber player who was also mentally tough and really smart along with a really solid big man elevated a 21-year old Towns from the lottery to the playoffs in one season. And it likely would have taken him to a 4th or 5th seed of not for Butler's injury. The Wolves had a "winning culture" that season because they had the talent to win and a coach who knew how to get the most out of that talent.

The only time the Wolves had a winning culture was in the best days of the Garnett era. That Butler team had terrible culture even though they won at a decent rate. Lip, you've talked before about how you don't buy into the culture being real, and that's fine. I happen to disagree strongly. Sure, you can throw a bunch of superstars together and they are going to win no matter what. But to maintain long term success I think a good culture from the top on down comes first. Think Utah during the Snyder era. Perfect example in my opinion.

I think "culture" is mostly bullshit as well. Did the Lakers have great culture between Kobes last seasons and acquiring LeBron? No they sucked. They were terrible with Kobe when he was older.

What is this culture thing exactly. Is it based on ownership, coaching or organizational? Because both the Celtics and Lakers had many pathetic seasons and have done so consecutively but they also have history of winning A LOT of NBA Titles.

I would say culture comes first from the players themselves if this culture thing is real. Then ownership and coaching. Players themselves need to lead others. Jordan went to a horrible franchise. I think no matter where Jordan went he would have ended up succeeding. Maybe not to the degree he did but he certainly would have won a few rings still. He was that good and also demanded his teammates to reach levels they needed.

LeBron wins no matter where he goes, but he also brings along superstars too. But on the flip side he and a bunch of basically avg NBA players were in the finals pre-supersteam Heat days.

Let's say LeBron somehow chose the Wolves over LA. Would the Wolves not be a favorite or close to right now to win the NBA Title if not won it already?

Would GSW won any Titles if Kahn chose Steph over Flynn? How would their culture be?

Players make organizations winners, not the other way around.

How did all those great players do in Houston? How about the Knicks? The Wizards? Think the 76ers had good culture under Brown? All the great players the Clippers have had recently, major under-achievement. Shouldn't Atlanta be better? Of course none of these things could have anything to do with culture.

[FNG]

This "culture" thing probably deserves its own thread, because our opinions here are so diverse. I don't think you have to look any further than Twin Cities professional basketball to see that culture is an overrated factor in a team's success. There seems to be a general consensus here that Glen Taylor is a terrible owner and has created a terrible losing culture for the Wolves. Well, the same Glen Taylor owns the Lynx, and during the past decade, they won 4 championships and finished 2nd 2 times...no other WNBA franchise was as successful as them during the decade. Glen does all the hiring and firing for both franchises...why does one have a terrific culture, while the other is a disaster. I think the Wolves' futility has nothing to do with culture...rather it can be summed up in three bullet points that doomed them:

1) The Joe Smith deal: Glen's foolish dishonest deal cost the Wolves 5 consecutive first round draft picks in the early 2000s. No team could thrive with that kind of penalty

2) Our unbelievably bad luck in the draft in the 1990s defied any odds. Not only did we move down in the draft almost every year, but we can all name 5 or 6 times that there was a big drop off between the players drafted directly before us and the consensus pick in our slot. Just think how close we were to getting Shaquille O'Neal, Alonzo Mourning, Chris Webber, Anfernee Hardaway, Glenn Robinson, or Jason Kidd, and how different our fortunes would have been with one or two of them.

3) Finally, Glen's horrible POBO choices. Time after time he has hired the wrong guy, and the poor moves by our various POBOs have set this franchise back.

It's the same pasty-faced Glen sitting in the same seat for both Wolves games and Lynx games. But for some reason, he has made better hires with the Lynx, and the Lynx have had better luck in the draft. And that's the difference between a winning franchise and a losing franchise...not culture.

[thedoper]

I think calling on the Lynx success as an affirmation of his basketball business ability is silly. It is a low stakes charity venture with very little stakes and way more talent available relative to the number of teams and opportunities. When high stakes business decisions (NBA business) need to be made Glen cares primarily about his financial position over winning. This is a huge culture problem. The only positive thing Glen has done for this franchise is keep it in Minnesota, and he well should have as the public contributed to his ownership stake at all levels of his ownership.

[Wolvesfan21]

Also, I'm just going to throw this out there. I believe that individual players are largely responsible for developing their games. They are the ones who have the most control in that aspect. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, so to speak. The player has to buy-in to his own future.

Game management and preparation is entirely different. I do feel like a head coach can make a positive, negative, or no impact at all in that regard. Obviously, if the roster is bad there's only so much that can be done, but you will still be able to see differences between a good coach and a bad coach. We've seen bad teams exceed their projected win totals in part because of good coaching. It's happening this year with the Knicks and the Spurs. We've also seen the opposite, especially in Minnesota, where talented teams fall short of projected win totals in part because of bad or poor coaching. We've seen new coaches take essentially the same roster as the last coach had and implement different schemes to achieve much better results. We've seen coaches use players differently to yield better results. We've seen playoff teams get out-coached in the playoffs leading to unexpected upsets. The idea that coaching just doesn't matter -- even in a star-studded league like the NBA -- is false.

I agree that coaching matters. You mentioned game management and preparation. I would add Gersson's favorite work, "system" - as in designing offensive and defensive systems that fit the players on the roster, blending and maximizing their strengths while minimizing or covering their weaknesses. My small quibble is that I just don't buy this "culture" thing. If there is such a thing as a "winning culture", it comes from winning. And winning comes from a combination of talent, and yes, coaching. When it comes to individual talent, it's not just physical talent, it's also IQ and mental toughness. When it comes to overall talent, it's a matter of having the right blend of talent with complementary skill-sets and adequate balance.

The best example of what I mean was what happened when the Wolves acquired Jimmy Butler and Taj Gibson. Adding one all-star caliber player who was also mentally tough and really smart along with a really solid big man elevated a 21-year old Towns from the lottery to the playoffs in one season. And it likely would have taken him to a 4th or 5th seed of not for Butler's injury. The Wolves had a "winning culture" that season because they had the talent to win and a coach who knew how to get the most out of that talent.

The only time the Wolves had a winning culture was in the best days of the Garnett era. That Butler team had terrible culture even though they won at a decent rate. Lip, you've talked before about how you don't buy into the culture being real, and that's fine. I happen to disagree strongly. Sure, you can throw a bunch of superstars together and they are going to win no matter what. But to maintain long term success I think a good culture from the top on down comes first. Think Utah during the Snyder era. Perfect example in my opinion.

I think "culture" is mostly bullshit as well. Did the Lakers have great culture between Kobes last seasons and acquiring LeBron? No they sucked. They were terrible with Kobe when he was older.

What is this culture thing exactly. Is it based on ownership, coaching or organizational? Because both the Celtics and Lakers had many pathetic seasons and have done so consecutively but they also have history of winning A LOT of NBA Titles.

I would say culture comes first from the players themselves if this culture thing is real. Then ownership and coaching. Players themselves need to lead others. Jordan went to a horrible franchise. I think no matter where Jordan went he would have ended up succeeding. Maybe not to the degree he did but he certainly would have won a few rings still. He was that good and also demanded his teammates to reach levels they needed.

LeBron wins no matter where he goes, but he also brings along superstars too. But on the flip side he and a bunch of basically avg NBA players were in the finals pre-supersteam Heat days.

Let's say LeBron somehow chose the Wolves over LA. Would the Wolves not be a favorite or close to right now to win the NBA Title if not won it already?

Would GSW won any Titles if Kahn chose Steph over Flynn? How would their culture be?

Players make organizations winners, not the other way around.

How did all those great players do in Houston? How about the Knicks? The Wizards? Think the 76ers had good culture under Brown? All the great players the Clippers have had recently, major under-achievement. Shouldn't Atlanta be better? Of course none of these things could have anything to do with culture.

Knicks don't have great players, not since the Jordan era. Wizards? Besides Beal who is a great player? You can't win with one guy unless he is head and shoulders the best like LeBron. Anthony Davis made the playoffs twice before joining LeBron. One guy just means you are avg.

Did the Clippers underachieve or Playoff P who hits the side of the backboard? James Harden hasn't proven anything yet, not deep in the playoffs anyways. Chris Paul is known to be a playoff choker and Westbrook has never gotten it done either. Harden has proven to be a playoff loser. Your argument might hold some water if he has won somewhere else then failed in Houston. But otherwise it doesn't make sense. Same for the other cities, did they have LeBron?

The 76ers were young but then a bounce away from the finals were they not? My bet is on the Nets still "if healthy" but we'll see. Looks as if Embiid is finally playing up to his potential this season.

[BloopOracle]

Warriors fans and media are starting to turn on Wiseman solely for the fact that he isn't lamelo