CoolBreeze44 wrote:The notion that Wiggins isn't already driven to excel is just silly. He already works extremely hard and weak minded is the last thing I would call him.
Look, you can place your head in the sand and pretend all the negative Thibodeau reports are baseless. I happen to believe where there's smoke there's fire. But I'm willing to be open minded. I'm not completely against hiring the guy. However, it's completely reasonable to at least question whether he's the best fit for this franchise at this point in time. Jeez, with some of you guys it seems we could take the statue of Red Auerbach away and let Thibs stand there. Come down to earth a bit.
But on the serious side I agree 100%. The notion that just getting Wiggins to "try harder" as your approach to coaching is the worst thing you could do for someone with his personality. He is a thinker, and more calculated. I think it insults his intelligence to make effort your major point in getting across to him. I would be much more detail oriented. He's already shown improvement on some areas. Build on that to address others from a positive perspective, not just get in his grill to show more hustle.
Maybe.
But do any of really know that Thibodeau wouldn't do that? Or that Van Gundy would? Or Brooks? Or Joerger? Or Ollie? Or whomever?
Again, I get it. We all have our favorites. It's great that there are so many options. Good options. I just find some of the claims about knowing exactly what we're going to get personality wise with some of the candidates to be a bit presumptive. I don't know if Van Gundy is super duper detail oriented or if Thibodeau screams at everybody for everything... but I don't think any of us really do.
With coaching... like with players... it's about results. And as fans far removed from the action, it's fun to speculate and assume... but none of us know a damn thing about these guys (players/coaches) or what really drives them.
So I'm going to stick with things I try to normally stick with in my takes... more tangible things. Call it sticking my head in the sand... I call it being pragmatic by using the information I have and making fewer guesses or assumptions.
I for one have not claimed to know exactly what we are going to get. I'm just saying it's reasonable to question whether this particular candidate is the best fit based on available evidence.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:The notion that Wiggins isn't already driven to excel is just silly. He already works extremely hard and weak minded is the last thing I would call him.
Look, you can place your head in the sand and pretend all the negative Thibodeau reports are baseless. I happen to believe where there's smoke there's fire. But I'm willing to be open minded. I'm not completely against hiring the guy. However, it's completely reasonable to at least question whether he's the best fit for this franchise at this point in time. Jeez, with some of you guys it seems we could take the statue of Red Auerbach away and let Thibs stand there. Come down to earth a bit.
But on the serious side I agree 100%. The notion that just getting Wiggins to "try harder" as your approach to coaching is the worst thing you could do for someone with his personality. He is a thinker, and more calculated. I think it insults his intelligence to make effort your major point in getting across to him. I would be much more detail oriented. He's already shown improvement on some areas. Build on that to address others from a positive perspective, not just get in his grill to show more hustle.
Maybe.
But do any of really know that Thibodeau wouldn't do that? Or that Van Gundy would? Or Brooks? Or Joerger? Or Ollie? Or whomever?
Again, I get it. We all have our favorites. It's great that there are so many options. Good options. I just find some of the claims about knowing exactly what we're going to get personality wise with some of the candidates to be a bit presumptive. I don't know if Van Gundy is super duper detail oriented or if Thibodeau screams at everybody for everything... but I don't think any of us really do.
With coaching... like with players... it's about results. And as fans far removed from the action, it's fun to speculate and assume... but none of us know a damn thing about these guys (players/coaches) or what really drives them.
True, but there were Chicago media people who clearly recognize that clearly there were players had gotten exhausted with Thibs culture. That was fairly obvious from what the Chicago reporter was saying in the podcast I cited earlier. I would hardly call his insight speculation, he was around the team all the time. To write off that account as hersay or unsubstantiated is crazy. That being considered, it seemed he still would have hired Thibs as a coach. What is definitely known from the Chicago situation from how I see it:
1. Thibs was having trouble with management
2. Thibs wouldn't work with an expert they brought on to consult on playing time and player health (Would the same stress happen with Kanter?) - this could have been that he already was having trouble with management
3. There were players who wouldn't go on the record who were worn out
All of these issues could be various degrees of seriousness, but all by necessity need to be accounted for by Thibs when he wants a new job.
Sure. Those things should be researched. Find out about context and validity and all that. At the same time, the firm (Taylor) can research why Houston never made it out of the 1st round. Or, whether Van Gundy's principles/philosophies mesh with today's rapidly evolving NBA. And whether Brooks' inability to stagger minutes or design legit inbounds plays helped derail OKC's championship plans. And whether Mark Jackson really is as big of a preachy hypocrite as he seems. And whether... well... you get the point.
I'm cool with Van Gundy getting the job. Very cool with it... even though I prefer Thibodeau. I'm just cautioning against some of the rhetoric that paints either guy definitely a certain way. We have 9 years of anecdotal evidence that Van Gundy is a fun, affable personality on tv. We have leaked reports and Jerry Zgoda's peers that indicate Thibodeau is a grouch.
Van Gundy is highly entertaining in the medium we've been granted to observe him in. It's easy to view Thibodeau in a different light. But it's not exactly an apples to oranges comparison. Van Gundy is naturally going to come across as more personable and friendly because his very profession for nearly a decade called for it. I'd be interested in reading/hearing more takes from when Van Gundy was actually coaching to round out the picture a bit.
TRKO wrote:I lean towards Van Gundy because I view it as a safer move. I would be fine with Thibs and he would actually be my top choice if the noise about him running players into the ground proved to be nonsense. We are set up for a long run, I want a leader that will help us have a nice sustained long run. I just go by reports that could very well be 100% wrong. It's the wolves job to do their research and get this right.
I'm wondering how Van Gundy is the safe move. You realize he hasn't coached in nearly a decade, right? The league has since very much changed. Keep in mind Flip was old school in his coaching methods, some of which got fairly criticized here. Van Gundy is cut from the same cloth. And as noted, his Houston teams struggled in the playoffs. Also, as Abe said, you don't really know how he interacts with players either.
I think Van Gundy could do a swell job here, but saying he's the safer pick doesn't make much sense to me. He has his potential negatives too.
As far as burning the team out, I think Van Gundy is a safer bet. Yes the game has changed significantly since he coached last, but Houston was one of the first teams to embrace analytics and the started under Van Gundy's tenure if I remember correctly. He has been around the game and knows the game has changed, as did Steve Kerr. All I can go by is reports and while they may be mixed, the negative reports on players being worn out by Thibs is a concern for me. It may be baseless, I have no way of proving it though. The Wolves do and should really did deep on it. Thibs is a heck of a coach, but we are set up for a huge 10 year window. We need a coach that does the best job of sustaining that long term success.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:The notion that Wiggins isn't already driven to excel is just silly. He already works extremely hard and weak minded is the last thing I would call him.
Look, you can place your head in the sand and pretend all the negative Thibodeau reports are baseless. I happen to believe where there's smoke there's fire. But I'm willing to be open minded. I'm not completely against hiring the guy. However, it's completely reasonable to at least question whether he's the best fit for this franchise at this point in time. Jeez, with some of you guys it seems we could take the statue of Red Auerbach away and let Thibs stand there. Come down to earth a bit.
1. Nobody said Wiggins wasn't driven to excel. Some of us are saying he needs somebody on his ass harder, pushing him more than he has to this point. I think there's so much more Andrew's capable of, but we haven't seen it yet. A harder style of coaching could help, IMO.
2. I think Hicks said Wiggins would be weak-minded if he wanted to leave because Thibs was too hard on him, which I agree with. Thibs demands full effort. If Andrew has a problem with that, maybe I have a problem with Andrew.
3. Not all of the reports, but a lot of the reports do seem like horseshit that's been spun to make Thibs look worse than the Bulls FO. Again, they are just as, if not more, guilty for whatever went down behind closed doors.
4. Maybe I'm too positive about him (though I have stated multiple times that there are some concerns; not necessarily a perfect hire), but specifically you and LST are too critical of him. That gets just as annoying as me talking him up, I'm sure.
Here's where I think you and I have some disagreement. If you were to rank the importance of each individual on the relative future of the franchise from 1-10, here is where I'd have it ranked:
Thibodeau - 3
Wiggins - 10
So in my opinion the Wiggins can hit the highway rhetoric if he can't play for Thibs is myopic. We can win without Thibs, I'm not so sure we're going very far without Andrew.
TRKO wrote:I lean towards Van Gundy because I view it as a safer move. I would be fine with Thibs and he would actually be my top choice if the noise about him running players into the ground proved to be nonsense. We are set up for a long run, I want a leader that will help us have a nice sustained long run. I just go by reports that could very well be 100% wrong. It's the wolves job to do their research and get this right.
I'm wondering how Van Gundy is the safe move. You realize he hasn't coached in nearly a decade, right? The league has since very much changed. Keep in mind Flip was old school in his coaching methods, some of which got fairly criticized here. Van Gundy is cut from the same cloth. And as noted, his Houston teams struggled in the playoffs. Also, as Abe said, you don't really know how he interacts with players either.
I think Van Gundy could do a swell job here, but saying he's the safer pick doesn't make much sense to me. He has his potential negatives too.
As far as burning the team out, I think Van Gundy is a safer bet. Yes the game has changed significantly since he coached last, but Houston was one of the first teams to embrace analytics and the started under Van Gundy's tenure if I remember correctly. He has been around the game and knows the game has changed, as did Steve Kerr. All I can go by is reports and while they may be mixed, the negative reports on players being worn out by Thibs is a concern for me. It may be baseless, I have no way of proving it though. The Wolves do and should really did deep on it. Thibs is a heck of a coach, but we are set up for a huge 10 year window. We need a coach that does the best job of sustaining that long term success.
TRKO wrote:I lean towards Van Gundy because I view it as a safer move. I would be fine with Thibs and he would actually be my top choice if the noise about him running players into the ground proved to be nonsense. We are set up for a long run, I want a leader that will help us have a nice sustained long run. I just go by reports that could very well be 100% wrong. It's the wolves job to do their research and get this right.
I'm wondering how Van Gundy is the safe move. You realize he hasn't coached in nearly a decade, right? The league has since very much changed. Keep in mind Flip was old school in his coaching methods, some of which got fairly criticized here. Van Gundy is cut from the same cloth. And as noted, his Houston teams struggled in the playoffs. Also, as Abe said, you don't really know how he interacts with players either.
I think Van Gundy could do a swell job here, but saying he's the safer pick doesn't make much sense to me. He has his potential negatives too.
As far as burning the team out, I think Van Gundy is a safer bet. Yes the game has changed significantly since he coached last, but Houston was one of the first teams to embrace analytics and the started under Van Gundy's tenure if I remember correctly. He has been around the game and knows the game has changed, as did Steve Kerr. All I can go by is reports and while they may be mixed, the negative reports on players being worn out by Thibs is a concern for me. It may be baseless, I have no way of proving it though. The Wolves do and should really did deep on it. Thibs is a heck of a coach, but we are set up for a huge 10 year window. We need a coach that does the best job of sustaining that long term success.
The safe coach is Brooks.
You may be exactly right, which is why we need to bring him in for an interview.
Nick Fridell from Espn Chicago on May 29th after the Thibs firing on whether or not the disgruntled player reports were leaks from the organization (around 50 min mark):
"To think this would be just a Thibs v Bulls front office argument would be totally inaccurate. No player wanted to come out and crush Thibs, because they respected the time and effort that he's put in over the last 5 years. They respect what they've accomplished, they built this identity of time, and they've all been a part of that. But I've talked to players off and on the whole time, and to think that they weren't frustrated with Tom and wanted to kill him sometimes, and were sick of hearing the same voice and were sick of the fact that there were practices for an hour and a half, 2 hours, and there were shootarounds before every game and there were things that drove them crazy about him. I think that what has gotten lost in this, and everyone deserves blame in that regard."
also,
"To think that it was just them [management] and the players were just going to roll along is just not accurate. I think a lot of the players were sick of the Thibs culture, day to day, and as much as they respected him, they definitely wanted him to pull his foot off the gas a little bit, and in the end it just wasnt enough for this group."
TRKO wrote:I lean towards Van Gundy because I view it as a safer move. I would be fine with Thibs and he would actually be my top choice if the noise about him running players into the ground proved to be nonsense. We are set up for a long run, I want a leader that will help us have a nice sustained long run. I just go by reports that could very well be 100% wrong. It's the wolves job to do their research and get this right.
I'm wondering how Van Gundy is the safe move. You realize he hasn't coached in nearly a decade, right? The league has since very much changed. Keep in mind Flip was old school in his coaching methods, some of which got fairly criticized here. Van Gundy is cut from the same cloth. And as noted, his Houston teams struggled in the playoffs. Also, as Abe said, you don't really know how he interacts with players either.
I think Van Gundy could do a swell job here, but saying he's the safer pick doesn't make much sense to me. He has his potential negatives too.
As far as burning the team out, I think Van Gundy is a safer bet. Yes the game has changed significantly since he coached last, but Houston was one of the first teams to embrace analytics and the started under Van Gundy's tenure if I remember correctly. He has been around the game and knows the game has changed, as did Steve Kerr. All I can go by is reports and while they may be mixed, the negative reports on players being worn out by Thibs is a concern for me. It may be baseless, I have no way of proving it though. The Wolves do and should really did deep on it. Thibs is a heck of a coach, but we are set up for a huge 10 year window. We need a coach that does the best job of sustaining that long term success.
The safe coach is Brooks.
You may be exactly right, which is why we need to bring him in for an interview.
If Mark Jackson is getting an interview I would be shocked if Brooks doesn't get one. Brooks seems to be about the hottest name out there which may be part of the reason for not having the interview set up yet.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:The notion that Wiggins isn't already driven to excel is just silly. He already works extremely hard and weak minded is the last thing I would call him.
Look, you can place your head in the sand and pretend all the negative Thibodeau reports are baseless. I happen to believe where there's smoke there's fire. But I'm willing to be open minded. I'm not completely against hiring the guy. However, it's completely reasonable to at least question whether he's the best fit for this franchise at this point in time. Jeez, with some of you guys it seems we could take the statue of Red Auerbach away and let Thibs stand there. Come down to earth a bit.
1. Nobody said Wiggins wasn't driven to excel. Some of us are saying he needs somebody on his ass harder, pushing him more than he has to this point. I think there's so much more Andrew's capable of, but we haven't seen it yet. A harder style of coaching could help, IMO.
2. I think Hicks said Wiggins would be weak-minded if he wanted to leave because Thibs was too hard on him, which I agree with. Thibs demands full effort. If Andrew has a problem with that, maybe I have a problem with Andrew.
3. Not all of the reports, but a lot of the reports do seem like horseshit that's been spun to make Thibs look worse than the Bulls FO. Again, they are just as, if not more, guilty for whatever went down behind closed doors.
4. Maybe I'm too positive about him (though I have stated multiple times that there are some concerns; not necessarily a perfect hire), but specifically you and LST are too critical of him. That gets just as annoying as me talking him up, I'm sure.
Here's where I think you and I have some disagreement. If you were to rank the importance of each individual on the relative future of the franchise from 1-10, here is where I'd have it ranked:
Thibodeau - 3
Wiggins - 10
So in my opinion the Wiggins can hit the highway rhetoric if he can't play for Thibs is myopic. We can win without Thibs, I'm not so sure we're going very far without Andrew.
Not to speak for everyone, but I think EVERYBODY agrees Wiggins is more important than any coach he'll ever play for. Same with Towns. But I don't think that's where people were going.
I think there was simply lost in translation. Or, in context. I'm trying to think how to explain it without getting more in the weeds...
Let's put it this way... maybe we misunderstood your original take or took it out of context and it went from there. After all, it's not like you were saying Wiggins didn't want to be pushed. Or, wasn't willing to be pushed. I think you were just saying that you think it's a possibility that Thibodeau would push him too far. Fair enough.
As noted many times... the likelihood of that from Thibodeau varies by poster depending on who they want in charge.
CoolBreeze44 wrote:The notion that Wiggins isn't already driven to excel is just silly. He already works extremely hard and weak minded is the last thing I would call him.
Look, you can place your head in the sand and pretend all the negative Thibodeau reports are baseless. I happen to believe where there's smoke there's fire. But I'm willing to be open minded. I'm not completely against hiring the guy. However, it's completely reasonable to at least question whether he's the best fit for this franchise at this point in time. Jeez, with some of you guys it seems we could take the statue of Red Auerbach away and let Thibs stand there. Come down to earth a bit.
1. Nobody said Wiggins wasn't driven to excel. Some of us are saying he needs somebody on his ass harder, pushing him more than he has to this point. I think there's so much more Andrew's capable of, but we haven't seen it yet. A harder style of coaching could help, IMO.
2. I think Hicks said Wiggins would be weak-minded if he wanted to leave because Thibs was too hard on him, which I agree with. Thibs demands full effort. If Andrew has a problem with that, maybe I have a problem with Andrew.
3. Not all of the reports, but a lot of the reports do seem like horseshit that's been spun to make Thibs look worse than the Bulls FO. Again, they are just as, if not more, guilty for whatever went down behind closed doors.
4. Maybe I'm too positive about him (though I have stated multiple times that there are some concerns; not necessarily a perfect hire), but specifically you and LST are too critical of him. That gets just as annoying as me talking him up, I'm sure.
Here's where I think you and I have some disagreement. If you were to rank the importance of each individual on the relative future of the franchise from 1-10, here is where I'd have it ranked:
Thibodeau - 3
Wiggins - 10
So in my opinion the Wiggins can hit the highway rhetoric if he can't play for Thibs is myopic. We can win without Thibs, I'm not so sure we're going very far without Andrew.
Not to speak for everyone, but I think EVERYBODY agrees Wiggins is more important than any coach he'll ever play for. Same with Towns. But I don't think that's where people were going.
I think there was simply lost in translation. Or, in context. I'm trying to think how to explain it without getting more in the weeds...
Let's put it this way... maybe we misunderstood your original take or took it out of context and it went from there. After all, it's not like you were saying Wiggins didn't want to be pushed. Or, wasn't willing to be pushed. I think you were just saying that you think it's a possibility that Thibodeau would push him too far. Fair enough.
As noted many times... the likelihood of that from Thibodeau varies by poster depending on who they want in charge.
