khans2k5 wrote:I wasn't a fan of JVG's thoughts on coaches. He deflects blame from coaches who fail doing the same thing over and over without changing. He seems to think coaches should be one of the last ones to get blamed like they have no input on the players that end up on their teams and if any player struggles it is solely on the player and the coach has no part in that struggle. He defended Brooks' playing of Perk just because we don't "know" that the Thunder could have performed better with less Perk because Brooks never tried it like there isn't lineup data available that tells a coach what his best lineups are and who he should play more and who they should play with. Coaches have the most influence in how a team performs because they have input on player acquisition either via the draft or trade/FA and the coach gets to coach the players to play how he wants them to by establishing his system. There are times where coaches lack the talent they need to win, but in year 3, 4, 5 there are no excuses because that is their team by that point. They've OK'd all the players on the roster and established their system they expect the players to carry out. I was disappointed in how he deflected accountability from coaches to other areas of the organization for tenured coaches like Monty and Brooks who were with their teams for at least 5 years.
Don't know if I agree with his specifics either khans, but think he provides great insight. I loved his line that "no one wants to be next in David Blatt's role as the human pinata." And I think that insight is great, players get the glory in wins, coach generally gets the blame in losses. It made me think of Riley and the patience he showed with Spoelstra and really how unique that has been. I remember when everyone just assumed Riley would push Eric aside when the Heat lost to the Mavs. They didn't and now Spoelstra is well respected for his unique approach he took with lineups with the Heat. Basically I agreed with JVG's simple assessment that not everyone will have the improvement that the Warriors have shown when attempt a similar coaching change.
But I don't think coaches take as much heat as the players do with losing. Coaches are evaluated by season accomplishments, but players deal with season accomplishments or lack thereof and individual losses. Kevin Love for years has been dealing with the fact that he couldn't carry a team to the playoffs, but where was the heat thrown at Adelman for not being able to coach us to the playoffs? CP3 could never make it out of the first two rounds and yet where were the criticisms on his coaches?
Coaches really only take heat when their teams perceptually underperform under their watch and JVG was making it sound like there isn't a lot coaches should have to be faulted for which I disagree with. Overall though I think players, especially star players, take a lot more heat for losing than coaches, but coaches take a bigger brunt of the firings because it's harder to get a CP3 or Love than a coaching equivalent to Scott Brooks or Monty Williams. That's why the top tier coaches never move, but the level below that is largely expendable when they don't get the job done.
And I'm not trying to argue your point because I believe that is right as well. I was just frustrated that a former coach like Van Gundy laid out some pretty weak arguments for why Brooks and Williams deserved to stick around longer.
khans2k5 wrote:I wasn't a fan of JVG's thoughts on coaches. He deflects blame from coaches who fail doing the same thing over and over without changing. He seems to think coaches should be one of the last ones to get blamed like they have no input on the players that end up on their teams and if any player struggles it is solely on the player and the coach has no part in that struggle. He defended Brooks' playing of Perk just because we don't "know" that the Thunder could have performed better with less Perk because Brooks never tried it like there isn't lineup data available that tells a coach what his best lineups are and who he should play more and who they should play with. Coaches have the most influence in how a team performs because they have input on player acquisition either via the draft or trade/FA and the coach gets to coach the players to play how he wants them to by establishing his system. There are times where coaches lack the talent they need to win, but in year 3, 4, 5 there are no excuses because that is their team by that point. They've OK'd all the players on the roster and established their system they expect the players to carry out. I was disappointed in how he deflected accountability from coaches to other areas of the organization for tenured coaches like Monty and Brooks who were with their teams for at least 5 years.
Don't know if I agree with his specifics either khans, but think he provides great insight. I loved his line that "no one wants to be next in David Blatt's role as the human pinata." And I think that insight is great, players get the glory in wins, coach generally gets the blame in losses. It made me think of Riley and the patience he showed with Spoelstra and really how unique that has been. I remember when everyone just assumed Riley would push Eric aside when the Heat lost to the Mavs. They didn't and now Spoelstra is well respected for his unique approach he took with lineups with the Heat. Basically I agreed with JVG's simple assessment that not everyone will have the improvement that the Warriors have shown when attempt a similar coaching change.
But I don't think coaches take as much heat as the players do with losing. Coaches are evaluated by season accomplishments, but players deal with season accomplishments or lack thereof and individual losses. Kevin Love for years has been dealing with the fact that he couldn't carry a team to the playoffs, but where was the heat thrown at Adelman for not being able to coach us to the playoffs? CP3 could never make it out of the first two rounds and yet where were the criticisms on his coaches?
Coaches really only take heat when their teams perceptually underperform under their watch and JVG was making it sound like there isn't a lot coaches should have to be faulted for which I disagree with. Overall though I think players, especially star players, take a lot more heat for losing than coaches, but coaches take a bigger brunt of the firings because it's harder to get a CP3 or Love than a coaching equivalent to Scott Brooks or Monty Williams. That's why the top tier coaches never move, but the level below that is largely expendable when they don't get the job done.
And I'm not trying to argue your point because I believe that is right as well. I was just frustrated that a former coach like Van Gundy laid out some pretty weak arguments for why Brooks and Williams deserved to stick around longer.
The deal with JVG is it bugs the hell out of him that coaches are basically given no power to be coaches. Players run this league plain and simple. That's a major reason why he isn't coaching anywhere because he doesn't want to end up in a situation where he doesn't get to do his job. I agree with a lot of his position. You have to have won championships and basically be considered a Coaching God to be able to do whatever you want as a coach and be safe from being fired. Look back at the coaches the past 10 years that have gotten fired after very good seasons. George Karl, Hollins, Joeger had a job and was I reviewing for another one those are just a few. Sam Mitchell got canned a few months after winning coach of the year. JVG is in the coaches corner and calls it like he sees it. He has his bias but he also has some interesting insight.
khans2k5 wrote:I wasn't a fan of JVG's thoughts on coaches. He deflects blame from coaches who fail doing the same thing over and over without changing. He seems to think coaches should be one of the last ones to get blamed like they have no input on the players that end up on their teams and if any player struggles it is solely on the player and the coach has no part in that struggle. He defended Brooks' playing of Perk just because we don't "know" that the Thunder could have performed better with less Perk because Brooks never tried it like there isn't lineup data available that tells a coach what his best lineups are and who he should play more and who they should play with. Coaches have the most influence in how a team performs because they have input on player acquisition either via the draft or trade/FA and the coach gets to coach the players to play how he wants them to by establishing his system. There are times where coaches lack the talent they need to win, but in year 3, 4, 5 there are no excuses because that is their team by that point. They've OK'd all the players on the roster and established their system they expect the players to carry out. I was disappointed in how he deflected accountability from coaches to other areas of the organization for tenured coaches like Monty and Brooks who were with their teams for at least 5 years.
Don't know if I agree with his specifics either khans, but think he provides great insight. I loved his line that "no one wants to be next in David Blatt's role as the human pinata." And I think that insight is great, players get the glory in wins, coach generally gets the blame in losses. It made me think of Riley and the patience he showed with Spoelstra and really how unique that has been. I remember when everyone just assumed Riley would push Eric aside when the Heat lost to the Mavs. They didn't and now Spoelstra is well respected for his unique approach he took with lineups with the Heat. Basically I agreed with JVG's simple assessment that not everyone will have the improvement that the Warriors have shown when attempt a similar coaching change.
But I don't think coaches take as much heat as the players do with losing. Coaches are evaluated by season accomplishments, but players deal with season accomplishments or lack thereof and individual losses. Kevin Love for years has been dealing with the fact that he couldn't carry a team to the playoffs, but where was the heat thrown at Adelman for not being able to coach us to the playoffs? CP3 could never make it out of the first two rounds and yet where were the criticisms on his coaches?
Coaches really only take heat when their teams perceptually underperform under their watch and JVG was making it sound like there isn't a lot coaches should have to be faulted for which I disagree with. Overall though I think players, especially star players, take a lot more heat for losing than coaches, but coaches take a bigger brunt of the firings because it's harder to get a CP3 or Love than a coaching equivalent to Scott Brooks or Monty Williams. That's why the top tier coaches never move, but the level below that is largely expendable when they don't get the job done.
And I'm not trying to argue your point because I believe that is right as well. I was just frustrated that a former coach like Van Gundy laid out some pretty weak arguments for why Brooks and Williams deserved to stick around longer.
The deal with JVG is it bugs the hell out of him that coaches are basically given no power to be coaches. Players run this league plain and simple. That's a major reason why he isn't coaching anywhere because he doesn't want to end up in a situation where he doesn't get to do his job. I agree with a lot of his position. You have to have won championships and basically be considered a Coaching God to be able to do whatever you want as a coach and be safe from being fired. Look back at the coaches the past 10 years that have gotten fired after very good seasons. George Karl, Hollins, Joeger had a job and was I reviewing for another one those are just a few. Sam Mitchell got canned a few months after winning coach of the year. JVG is in the coaches corner and calls it like he sees it. He has his bias but he also has some interesting insight.
If your goal is to win a title then why does a coach deserve job security if they can't deliver on that goal after a reasonable amount of time has passed? If you haven't won a title or come close you frankly don't deserve full control and max job security. Of the 4 coach/GM's in the league, Flip is the only one not to make it to the title round and 2/4 have won titles. Flip at least made a WCF. Sloan/D Will is the only recent spat I can think of where the star was out of place questioning the coach. That makes me think players for the most part know good coaches and fall in line when they are playing for one. I just think JVG's standard for a good coach is lower than what team's are supposed to be looking for when they hire someone and that made him come off as a coach apologist rather than holding them accountable in areas they deserve to be held accountable.
Thx for posting, monster. Interesting to hear the perspective of an Ames journalist who is much closer to the situation than the national media. He makes a lot of the same points that some of us have made about why Hoiberg if likely to jump this summer, but also adds that a loyal guy like Hoiberg is more likely to leave when the cupboard is full (which it is). I wish that there was more than a passing reference to the Wolves in the article.
khans2k5 wrote:I wasn't a fan of JVG's thoughts on coaches. He deflects blame from coaches who fail doing the same thing over and over without changing. He seems to think coaches should be one of the last ones to get blamed like they have no input on the players that end up on their teams and if any player struggles it is solely on the player and the coach has no part in that struggle. He defended Brooks' playing of Perk just because we don't "know" that the Thunder could have performed better with less Perk because Brooks never tried it like there isn't lineup data available that tells a coach what his best lineups are and who he should play more and who they should play with. Coaches have the most influence in how a team performs because they have input on player acquisition either via the draft or trade/FA and the coach gets to coach the players to play how he wants them to by establishing his system. There are times where coaches lack the talent they need to win, but in year 3, 4, 5 there are no excuses because that is their team by that point. They've OK'd all the players on the roster and established their system they expect the players to carry out. I was disappointed in how he deflected accountability from coaches to other areas of the organization for tenured coaches like Monty and Brooks who were with their teams for at least 5 years.
Don't know if I agree with his specifics either khans, but think he provides great insight. I loved his line that "no one wants to be next in David Blatt's role as the human pinata." And I think that insight is great, players get the glory in wins, coach generally gets the blame in losses. It made me think of Riley and the patience he showed with Spoelstra and really how unique that has been. I remember when everyone just assumed Riley would push Eric aside when the Heat lost to the Mavs. They didn't and now Spoelstra is well respected for his unique approach he took with lineups with the Heat. Basically I agreed with JVG's simple assessment that not everyone will have the improvement that the Warriors have shown when attempt a similar coaching change.
But I don't think coaches take as much heat as the players do with losing. Coaches are evaluated by season accomplishments, but players deal with season accomplishments or lack thereof and individual losses. Kevin Love for years has been dealing with the fact that he couldn't carry a team to the playoffs, but where was the heat thrown at Adelman for not being able to coach us to the playoffs? CP3 could never make it out of the first two rounds and yet where were the criticisms on his coaches?
Coaches really only take heat when their teams perceptually underperform under their watch and JVG was making it sound like there isn't a lot coaches should have to be faulted for which I disagree with. Overall though I think players, especially star players, take a lot more heat for losing than coaches, but coaches take a bigger brunt of the firings because it's harder to get a CP3 or Love than a coaching equivalent to Scott Brooks or Monty Williams. That's why the top tier coaches never move, but the level below that is largely expendable when they don't get the job done.
And I'm not trying to argue your point because I believe that is right as well. I was just frustrated that a former coach like Van Gundy laid out some pretty weak arguments for why Brooks and Williams deserved to stick around longer.
The deal with JVG is it bugs the hell out of him that coaches are basically given no power to be coaches. Players run this league plain and simple. That's a major reason why he isn't coaching anywhere because he doesn't want to end up in a situation where he doesn't get to do his job. I agree with a lot of his position. You have to have won championships and basically be considered a Coaching God to be able to do whatever you want as a coach and be safe from being fired. Look back at the coaches the past 10 years that have gotten fired after very good seasons. George Karl, Hollins, Joeger had a job and was I reviewing for another one those are just a few. Sam Mitchell got canned a few months after winning coach of the year. JVG is in the coaches corner and calls it like he sees it. He has his bias but he also has some interesting insight.
If your goal is to win a title then why does a coach deserve job security if they can't deliver on that goal after a reasonable amount of time has passed? If you haven't won a title or come close you frankly don't deserve full control and max job security. Of the 4 coach/GM's in the league, Flip is the only one not to make it to the title round and 2/4 have won titles. Flip at least made a WCF. Sloan/D Will is the only recent spat I can think of where the star was out of place questioning the coach. That makes me think players for the most part know good coaches and fall in line when they are playing for one. I just think JVG's standard for a good coach is lower than what team's are supposed to be looking for when they hire someone and that made him come off as a coach apologist rather than holding them accountable in areas they deserve to be held accountable.
I don't disagree with what you are saying. I am just saying the perspective that JVG has is worth considering. It's a different time now though there isn't much loyalty or maybe a better way of putting it waiting around to see if one guy can succeed a year or two from now or if you aren't getting along well enough part ways one way or another. It's rare to see anyone stay long term with the same organization in just about any sphere in this country and not that long ago staying long term was more so the ideal. There are positive things about having that latitude of movement but there are downsides also. Coaching is always a murky thing to truly understand when it comes to success and influence. I think JVG underlying point is that some coaches just don't get the support they need from the team and players that they really need to implant what they want to do. In some cases possible a lot or quite frankly most cases that probably means that coach just isn't quite good enough for whatever the expectations are for the team. Maybe for some guys a different time some other guys would have had more success. It's a tough job no doubt and finding the right guy is a very tough thing to do. The Spurs are lucky they held onto Pop when at one point things weren't looking too rosy. Obviously you still need a coach that can help your team win but nobody here is denying that.
