lipoli390 wrote:Even the Knicks' organization isn't that dumb.
Rumors are thibs will have options this offseason. Rumored with the Knicks, Nets and Rockets
Lip you know the Knicks current POBO Leon Rose is Thibs former agent right?
I didn't know that. Of course that changes my thinking on the odds of the Knicks hiring him as their head coach. The Nets and Rockets, as too veteran teams with multiple stars would be better fits for Thibodeau. I could see him succeeding as head coach for one of those teams for a short period of time. But he won't succeed with a younger team like the Knicks and he won't succeed long term with any team in my view.
Camden wrote:He'll take whatever franchise that hires him to a greater level of success than what they had prior to his arrival. That's his track record whether people like him or not.
He took the Wolves team he inherited from Sam Mitchell and won 2 more games even though the young players he inherited were all more experienced than they were when Sam took over the team a year earlier. But it's even worse than than because the team's winning percentage the last month of the season under Mitchell was much higher. The Wolves jumped to 47 wins the following year because Thibs the GM added Butler, Gibson and Teague. I didn't like those moves as GM because I didn't think they were sustainable, but they were the reason for the team's one season of success under Thibodeau.
He doesn't have a track record like a Larry Brown or Carlisle of taking over different teams as head coach and making them more successful. He was head coach of one team, the Bulls, before he came here. He was a successful head coach in Chicago for several years with the same core group of players. I give him credit for coaching the team up through the injuries to Rose. But he doesn't have the track record you suggested as head coach.
Camden wrote:He'll take whatever franchise that hires him to a greater level of success than what they had prior to his arrival. That's his track record whether people like him or not.
He took the Wolves team he inherited from Sam Mitchell and won 2 more games even though the young players he inherited were all more experienced than they were when Sam took over the team a year earlier. But it's even worse than than because the team's winning percentage the last month of the season under Mitchell was much higher. The Wolves jumped to 47 wins the following year because Thibs the GM added Butler, Gibson and Teague. I didn't like those moves as GM because I didn't think they were sustainable, but they were the reason for the team's one season of success under Thibodeau.
He doesn't have a track record like a Larry Brown or Carlisle of taking over different teams as head coach and making them more successful. He was head coach of one team, the Bulls, before he came here. He was a successful head coach in Chicago for several years with the same core group of players. I give him credit for coaching the team up through the injuries to Rose. But he doesn't have the track record you suggested as head coach.
To be fair...
He's been the head coach of two teams... that became better with him as coach.
Personal feelings aside... that's 2 - 0. I don't know how we could view (THAT PART) of Thibs as unproven or a negative. It's literally a fact, for any reasons you want to cite... you can't dispute that. In fact, you could go through the annals of NBA history and try to besmirch most turnarounds for that very reason if you really wanted to.
Camden wrote:He'll take whatever franchise that hires him to a greater level of success than what they had prior to his arrival. That's his track record whether people like him or not.
He took the Wolves team he inherited from Sam Mitchell and won 2 more games even though the young players he inherited were all more experienced than they were when Sam took over the team a year earlier. But it's even worse than than because the team's winning percentage the last month of the season under Mitchell was much higher. The Wolves jumped to 47 wins the following year because Thibs the GM added Butler, Gibson and Teague. I didn't like those moves as GM because I didn't think they were sustainable, but they were the reason for the team's one season of success under Thibodeau.
He doesn't have a track record like a Larry Brown or Carlisle of taking over different teams as head coach and making them more successful. He was head coach of one team, the Bulls, before he came here. He was a successful head coach in Chicago for several years with the same core group of players. I give him credit for coaching the team up through the injuries to Rose. But he doesn't have the track record you suggested as head coach.
To be fair...
He's been the head coach of two teams... that became better with him as coach.
Personal feelings aside... that's 2 - 0. I don't know how we could view (THAT PART) of Thibs as unproven or a negative. It's literally a fact, for any reasons you want to cite... you can't dispute that. In fact, you could go through the annals of NBA history and try to besmirch most turnarounds for that very reason if you really wanted to.
I'm being fair. I don't see the causal connection between Thibodeau's coaching as the Wolves head coach and the Wolves improvement in his second season here. His first season is telling because the roster was largely a constant from the season before. The next season's improvement is more logically linked to the personnel changes. Thibodeau the PBO can certainly be credited with those personnel improvements. But I'm not the one stretching things in assessing his head coaching tenure here. Those who are stretching things are those who credit his coaching for the Wolves improvement in his second season here in spite of the obvious absence of any improvement in his first year. That first season here was the one that we should look to if we're looking for evidence of his coaching impact.
I think he was a good coach for the Bulls team. And I think he could be a good coach for the right VETERAN team, which would not be the Knicks. But this notion that every team he's coached has improved because of him is a huge stretch and unsupported by the evidence. He's been a head coach for two different teams and the only evidence we have of him as a good head coach is his stint with the Bulls where he coached them up when Derrick Rose went down. I thought that was pretty impressive but he did have all allstar talent in their prime with Butler and Noah along with a very solid roster around them. As I see it, there's no multiple team track record of Thibodeau's prowess as an NBA head coach. I think there are a lot of better alternatives than Thibodeau, even for veteran teams, in today's NBA.
Camden wrote:He'll take whatever franchise that hires him to a greater level of success than what they had prior to his arrival. That's his track record whether people like him or not.
He took the Wolves team he inherited from Sam Mitchell and won 2 more games even though the young players he inherited were all more experienced than they were when Sam took over the team a year earlier. But it's even worse than than because the team's winning percentage the last month of the season under Mitchell was much higher. The Wolves jumped to 47 wins the following year because Thibs the GM added Butler, Gibson and Teague. I didn't like those moves as GM because I didn't think they were sustainable, but they were the reason for the team's one season of success under Thibodeau.
He doesn't have a track record like a Larry Brown or Carlisle of taking over different teams as head coach and making them more successful. He was head coach of one team, the Bulls, before he came here. He was a successful head coach in Chicago for several years with the same core group of players. I give him credit for coaching the team up through the injuries to Rose. But he doesn't have the track record you suggested as head coach.
To be fair...
He's been the head coach of two teams... that became better with him as coach.
Personal feelings aside... that's 2 - 0. I don't know how we could view (THAT PART) of Thibs as unproven or a negative. It's literally a fact, for any reasons you want to cite... you can't dispute that. In fact, you could go through the annals of NBA history and try to besmirch most turnarounds for that very reason if you really wanted to.
I'm being fair. I don't see the causal connection between Thibodeau's coaching as the Wolves head coach and the Wolves improvement in his second season here. His first season is telling because the roster was largely a constant from the season before. The next season's improvement is more logically linked to the personnel changes. Thibodeau the PBO can certainly be credited with those personnel improvements. But I'm not the one stretching things in assessing his head coaching tenure here. Those who are stretching things are those who credit his coaching for the Wolves improvement in his second season here in spite of the obvious absence of any improvement in his first year. That first season here was the one that we should look to if we're looking for evidence of his coaching impact.
I think he was a good coach for the Bulls team. And I think he could be a good coach for the right VETERAN team, which would not be the Knicks. But this notion that every team he's coached has improved because of him is a huge stretch and unsupported by the evidence. He's been a head coach for two different teams and the only evidence we have of him as a good head coach is his stint with the Bulls where he coached them up when Derrick Rose went down. I thought that was pretty impressive but he did have all allstar talent in their prime with Butler and Noah along with a very solid roster around them. As I see it, there's no multiple team track record of Thibodeau's prowess as an NBA head coach. I think there are a lot of better alternatives than Thibodeau, even for veteran teams, in today's NBA.
Thibs has coached 7 full NBA seasons he has made the playoffs 6 times. In the 5 seasons since Thibs is firing the Bulls have made the playoffs 1 time in 5 years and they were the 8th seed that season. In the Wolves 1st full season without Thibs they didn't make the playoffs and are the 3rd worse team in the NBA. They also had a worse winning % after Thibs was fired mid way through the season.
I do agree that the Wolves should of been better in the wolves 1st season with Thibs. I will say though I think it is a little unfair to compare the seasons of Thibs to Sam Mitchell. Remember the Wolves won 10 of their last 20 in Sam Mitchell year with 9 of those wins coming against teams missing their best player and in some cases their top 2. The Wolves went 19-43 in those other games besides that late stretch where wolves massive injury/tanking luck. Also I wouldn't say the roster was massively the same. 3 starters were gone in Lavine (injury), KG, Prince along with good role player in Kevin Martin were not on Thibs first year.
I can't believe I am defending Thibs again because I don't know if he will ever be the long term solution for any team. If Thibs does end up with the Knicks he would coach with arguable the 3 worst owners in the NBA. Does that say more about the Owner or Thibs, Im not sure.
