Q12543 wrote:The issue boils down to simple math. With only 5 players per team allowed on the court playing both offense and defense, the strength or weakness of any given player is far more influential than in any other team sport. It's probably only rivaled by QBs in the NFL, but they can only play on one side of the ball. The same goes for elite #1 pitchers, but not only do they play on one side of the ball (there are no Babe Ruth level hitters pitching anymore), they only play every 5 games or so.
A two-way monster like Leonard or LeBron or Hakeem or Jordan just have a massive influence on the game.
So once an NBA team locks in three or four really, really, really good players, they are going to be very competitive as long as those guys stay healthy. You basically only need to surround them with replacement-level guys and some smart vets to stay good.
All that's true. It's worth noting you have to have a good coach to make all that work. You can't just have a guy because another good team with pretty good players with a top level coach can beat a more talented team if the coach isn't good enough.
Not so sure. I will take a super talented team with a mediocre coach over a solid team with a great coach. Hell, look at the Warriors without Kerr. His presence, or lack thereof, doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
I do think great coaches can lift mediocre talent into playing above their weight. But ultimately talent wins in the NBA. Especially veteran talent.
Tyronn Lue has an NBA title. KC Jones has multiple NBA titles.
Players >>>>>>> coaching.
Right, and I think in both of those cases it was about the coaches' relationship with the star (Bird and LeBron respectively).
Once you have a group of veteran all-stars and a clear-cut leader (e.g. Bird, Magic, Jordan, LeBron, etc.), then I think what is required is that said player respects their head coach. That in turn ensures that the top player and head coach form a united front. Everyone else falls in line....Xs and Os take a back seat....
Absolutely the players are more important. I just think you need to have a guy/s put it together. Sure you can have a decent HC as long as he falls in line but it's still a piece of the puzzle. If you want to have legit long term success you can't have just a mediocre coach. Kerr is away from the team sure but he still has influence and Mike Brown isn't some guy that hasn't done anything. He might not be much better than mediocre but at least he has been there before plus Ron Adams is considered one of the best assistants in the game. That stuff matters. GS is a top organization it's not JUST the players. The top organizations tend to get some pretty good players too and tend to find good coaches as well.
The point is...
You can win big with top players and an average coach.
You will never win big with a top coach and average players.
Q12543 wrote:The issue boils down to simple math. With only 5 players per team allowed on the court playing both offense and defense, the strength or weakness of any given player is far more influential than in any other team sport. It's probably only rivaled by QBs in the NFL, but they can only play on one side of the ball. The same goes for elite #1 pitchers, but not only do they play on one side of the ball (there are no Babe Ruth level hitters pitching anymore), they only play every 5 games or so.
A two-way monster like Leonard or LeBron or Hakeem or Jordan just have a massive influence on the game.
So once an NBA team locks in three or four really, really, really good players, they are going to be very competitive as long as those guys stay healthy. You basically only need to surround them with replacement-level guys and some smart vets to stay good.
All that's true. It's worth noting you have to have a good coach to make all that work. You can't just have a guy because another good team with pretty good players with a top level coach can beat a more talented team if the coach isn't good enough.
Not so sure. I will take a super talented team with a mediocre coach over a solid team with a great coach. Hell, look at the Warriors without Kerr. His presence, or lack thereof, doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
I do think great coaches can lift mediocre talent into playing above their weight. But ultimately talent wins in the NBA. Especially veteran talent.
Tyronn Lue has an NBA title. KC Jones has multiple NBA titles.
Players >>>>>>> coaching.
Right, and I think in both of those cases it was about the coaches' relationship with the star (Bird and LeBron respectively).
Once you have a group of veteran all-stars and a clear-cut leader (e.g. Bird, Magic, Jordan, LeBron, etc.), then I think what is required is that said player respects their head coach. That in turn ensures that the top player and head coach form a united front. Everyone else falls in line....Xs and Os take a back seat....
Absolutely the players are more important. I just think you need to have a guy/s put it together. Sure you can have a decent HC as long as he falls in line but it's still a piece of the puzzle. If you want to have legit long term success you can't have just a mediocre coach. Kerr is away from the team sure but he still has influence and Mike Brown isn't some guy that hasn't done anything. He might not be much better than mediocre but at least he has been there before plus Ron Adams is considered one of the best assistants in the game. That stuff matters. GS is a top organization it's not JUST the players. The top organizations tend to get some pretty good players too and tend to find good coaches as well.
The point is...
You can win big with top players and an average coach.
You will never win big with a top coach and average players.
Agreed. I think a lot of us will agree that "Average" when it comes to head coaches is very broad and how good some of the guys in that category can be more valueable either positively or negatively depending on the roster which again gets back to the players. Both the coach and players have to buy in at some point.
A few years ago I didn't think Spolstra was all that great he had the big 3 etc. The last few years I've continued to be convinced he is an elite level coach. A few years from now we might view Lue in the same way. We will see but I'm biased because I'm a Lue guy although I don't put him up there yet. Coaching is difficult to evaluate. It matters. How much? A lot does depends on the roster. If you have the wrong average-ish coach it won't be good enough.
All I am saying is when I hear PLAYERS PLAYERS PLAYERS it feels like the coaching component gets lost and do I think it matters. That's all.
The reality is that if players matter that much (and they do) we should probably keep trying to load up on some top level players even if one of them is more of an elite do it all guy. I think that's is why so many here and other folks I have read and listened to have Isaac as a good fit here.
monsterpile wrote:Fun game so far. That last couple minutes of the first was a killer for the Cavs letting GS go on a run with Lebron on the bench.
I think Lue (and LeBron, assuming he's the real head coach) are making a serious mistake trying to play fast-paced/quick shot basketball. It's one thing to push it off misses and you have numbers. It's another to take quick shots against a set halfcourt defense and the Cavs took a number of just terrible, ill-advised shots without any ball movement prior to the shot.
The other thing I expected to see was Love, Thompson, and LeBron beating up Golden State more on the offensive glass, but Golden State has been excellent corralling defensive rebounds and any 50/50 balls that get tipped out of the scrum.
It's just really hard seeing Cleveland win more than one game in this series. The one advantage they have on paper (size and strength along the front line) isn't bearing any fruit. They aren't going to out-shoot the Warriors, that's for sure.
monsterpile wrote:Fun game so far. That last couple minutes of the first was a killer for the Cavs letting GS go on a run with Lebron on the bench.
I think Lue (and LeBron, assuming he's the real head coach) are making a serious mistake trying to play fast-paced/quick shot basketball. It's one thing to push it off misses and you have numbers. It's another to take quick shots against a set halfcourt defense and the Cavs took a number of just terrible, ill-advised shots without any ball movement prior to the shot.
The other thing I expected to see was Love, Thompson, and LeBron beating up Golden State more on the offensive glass, but Golden State has been excellent corralling defensive rebounds and any 50/50 balls that get tipped out of the scrum.
It's just really hard seeing Cleveland win more than one game in this series. The one advantage they have on paper (size and strength along the front line) isn't bearing any fruit. They aren't going to out-shoot the Warriors, that's for sure.
I thought early in the game the Cavs were playing a more controlled pace. But then Kyrie and Shump took some of those shots you were referring to.
I just saw a commercial for a show with JVG and Mcgrady. That would be interesting. JVG sort of hilarious he just looks like a little geeky accountant or something. Not only was a he a good couch he he is also terrific on TV.
It felt like the Cavs gave away their shot to have a chance there at the end. What was Kyrie doing on that one possession? I really thought they were in a good position with a couple minutes left. Like Kahns said Durant especially that 3 was killer.
Regardless it was a heck of a game. Both teams competed big time. Hopefully we get at least 1 more game like that.
Well, if there was any doubt that Kevin Durant was an upgrade to Harrison Barnes.....Nah, I doubt there was any doubt.
They are virtually unbeatable, even if LeBron is at his very best. They have three of the greatest shooters in NBA history on one team and one of the greatest swiss-army-knife role players of all time. Any old crab that says, "Well our Lakers or Celtics or Pistons teams would have beaten these guys!" is out of their mind. No they wouldn't have.
