CoolBreeze44 wrote:If the way Sam has jacked Zach around all year was the only thing he did wrong, it would still be enough to fire him. Then you consider:
- The ridiculous substitution patterns
- The fact he never takes any accountability
- Having one of the worst defenses in the league
- His disdain for and treatment of the media
- Single handedly costing us about a dozen games this year.
You would have to be an insane idiot to bring him back for even one more year. The fact this is even being discussed sickens me.
You think the Wolves should be 30 - 28 right now?
No, you don't win every game you should or could win. And a different coach wouldn't change that.
I guess I don't quite understand.
I took it that you think Mitchell cost the Wolves 12 wins. So, other coaches would cost fewer games? 4, 6 or whatever?
Do coaches ever help teams win games they shouldn't win? Does Popovich cost his teams wins? Kerr?
Definitely. No coach is perfect, but it's not unreasonable to think a different coach would have us sitting with a better record. TO BE FAIR, you're taking one point out of context and over dramatizing it.
You said he cost us 12 games. Just asking for clarification because I didn't see the wolves being an above .500 team with any coach.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:If the way Sam has jacked Zach around all year was the only thing he did wrong, it would still be enough to fire him. Then you consider:
- The ridiculous substitution patterns
- The fact he never takes any accountability
- Having one of the worst defenses in the league
- His disdain for and treatment of the media
- Single handedly costing us about a dozen games this year.
You would have to be an insane idiot to bring him back for even one more year. The fact this is even being discussed sickens me.
You think the Wolves should be 30 - 28 right now?
No, you don't win every game you should or could win. And a different coach wouldn't change that.
I guess I don't quite understand.
I took it that you think Mitchell cost the Wolves 12 wins. So, other coaches would cost fewer games? 4, 6 or whatever?
Do coaches ever help teams win games they shouldn't win? Does Popovich cost his teams wins? Kerr?
Definitely. No coach is perfect, but it's not unreasonable to think a different coach would have us sitting with a better record. TO BE FAIR, you're taking one point out of context and over dramatizing it.
You said he cost us 12 games. Just asking for clarification because I didn't see the wolves being an above .500 team with any coach.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:If the way Sam has jacked Zach around all year was the only thing he did wrong, it would still be enough to fire him. Then you consider:
- The ridiculous substitution patterns
- The fact he never takes any accountability
- Having one of the worst defenses in the league
- His disdain for and treatment of the media
- Single handedly costing us about a dozen games this year.
You would have to be an insane idiot to bring him back for even one more year. The fact this is even being discussed sickens me.
You think the Wolves should be 30 - 28 right now?
No, you don't win every game you should or could win. And a different coach wouldn't change that.
I guess I don't quite understand.
I took it that you think Mitchell cost the Wolves 12 wins. So, other coaches would cost fewer games? 4, 6 or whatever?
Do coaches ever help teams win games they shouldn't win? Does Popovich cost his teams wins? Kerr?
Definitely. No coach is perfect, but it's not unreasonable to think a different coach would have us sitting with a better record. TO BE FAIR, you're taking one point out of context and over dramatizing it.
You said he cost us 12 games. Just asking for clarification because I didn't see the wolves being an above .500 team with any coach.
He said about a dozen games, not 12 games exactly. Way to take a ballpark number and over dramatize it to prove a point.
I think you could argue that there's been about 12 games that Sam's coaching directly took us out of contention to win. That's not to say that we would have won the game(s), but his coaching directly made it so that we couldn't. I hope I'm making myself clear. For example, Sam's refusal to get his starters back in the game late in the fourth quarters when it was clear that the bench unit was getting abused to that point. Instead of getting the best players in at the 8-10 minute mark to end the other team's run, Sam waited until 6-7 minute mark when the game was already out of hand. He really has hurt the team with his mismanaging.
Camden wrote:I think you could argue that there's been about 12 games that Sam's coaching directly took us out of contention to win. That's not to say that we would have won the game(s), but his coaching directly made it so that we couldn't. I hope I'm making myself clear. For example, Sam's refusal to get his starters back in the game late in the fourth quarters when it was clear that the bench unit was getting abused to that point. Instead of getting the best players in at the 8-10 minute mark to end the other team's run, Sam waited until 6-7 minute mark when the game was already out of hand. He really has hurt the team with his mismanaging.
I think that's a better way of putting it than I did, and that encapsulates my thoughts completely.
The point I was really focusing on was how anyone could be seriously considering bringing him back.
Camden0916 wrote:I think you could argue that there's been about 12 games that Sam's coaching directly took us out of contention to win. That's not to say that we would have won the game(s), but his coaching directly made it so that we couldn't. I hope I'm making myself clear. For example, Sam's refusal to get his starters back in the game late in the fourth quarters when it was clear that the bench unit was getting abused to that point. Instead of getting the best players in at the 8-10 minute mark to end the other team's run, Sam waited until 6-7 minute mark when the game was already out of hand. He really has hurt the team with his mismanaging.
Well said, Cam. You look at our roster and how healthy we've been compared, for example, to teams like the Blazers, Nuggets, Kings and Knicks and it would seem this team should have at least 24 wins.
I'm not a twitter guy...so maybe I'm misreading the tweet (link in the OP). But it seems like AP guy was saying IF the Wolves end up winning 27-29 games. I certainly can't see that happening. We're at 18 right now with 24 left to go. We'd have to go 9-15 to reach the low end of that range. I just don't see that happening. The fact that they are sitting KG and Pek along with buying out Martin and Miller seems to indicate the tank to the finish is already in effect.
Mitchell started off good (something like 8-8). The defense looked good and at that point I was thinking if they could build on that - then he deserved an extension. But things regressed and as others noted, we've been pretty healthy. So....I'd be shocked if these last 24 games could save his job considering the whole body of work.
Carlos - Your logic is compelling. But this is Glen Taylor and the Wolves organization we're talking about. Actually, Mitchell is fortunate to have gotten those 8 early wins. I think those early wins were fueled a lot by the emotion of Flip's passing. If Mitchell had simply started the season as head coach under normal circumstances we might have 12-14 wins now instead of 18. Then we could possibly beat th Suns and Nets for lottery position.
lipoli390 wrote:Carlos - Your logic is compelling. But this is Glen Taylor and the Wolves organization we're talking about. Actually, Mitchell is fortunate to have gotten those 8 early wins. I think those early wins were fueled a lot by the emotion of Flip's passing. If Mitchell had simply started the season as head coach under normal circumstances we might have 12-14 wins now instead of 18. Then we could possibly beat th Suns and Nets for lottery position.
I think we'll end up winning 26 games.
I hear ya Lip. Speaking of that - we need to dig up that Wins Prediction thread to see how people are doing. I think I had put in for 32 which ain't happening. But the board pessimists should be looking pretty good.
