Minnesota Sports Forum

leado01 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

leado01 wrote:

Camden0916 wrote:I've seen it hinted a number of times -- not just on this forum, but other platforms -- so it clearly needs to be said.

You do not get to use your relationship with your boss/superior as an excuse for why you didn't do your job. There's an independent responsibility to do the job you signed up to do regardless of who overlooks your work. Andrew Wiggins failed to do his job the last couple years and the blame falls squarely on his shoulders.

What I'm seeing from some fans is a desire to use Tom Thibodeau as the excuse for Wiggins' individual development regressing. I don't know if that makes them feel better inside or if that's a ploy to build Wiggins up in their mind, but it's a fallacy.

Wiggins seems to be an improved player based on early returns, which is very good for all parties involved. He should get the large majority of the credit for that.

And when his past is discussed, the same line of thinking should be applied. You are ultimately responsible for your own career regardless of the direction it goes, up or down. Wiggins is a grown ass man. He can handle that.

I don't known what you do for work Cam, but I would argue (and have for the last 2 years) that Wiggins was doing what he was asked to do. Mostly that was take a corner and find space as the 4th option bailout on offense, and focus on defending. He was also asked to create in the 4th having not been involved in the offense in a meaningful way.

The idea that players, or workers, careers aren't dramatically impacted by leaderships marching orders is fully bunk.

Every year I know my company's strategy changes, and it's my job to execute on that strategy whether I believe it's to my direct benefit or not.

The math isn't that hard. Wiggins numbers were good, and increased during his first three years. They decreased as Thibs offense was implemented more fully.

I think Wiggins could end up averaging 28, 5, 4 and make the allstar team and you would hold your position that he's a bum.

Right now I'm happy with the way he's playing. His assists will likely decrease when Teague returns, but that doesn't mean he's a less effective player, it means he's doing the job he's being asked to do.

No coach in NBA history has asked a player to be significantly less effective.

Marching orders... Meh.

People continue to put entirely too much stock in NBA coaches. Whether he was just "told to stand in the corner" or not... Wiggins still took a team high 19 shots per game in year one under Thibs. He still led the team in shot attempts in year two... on a team with All NBA players Jimmy Butler and Karl Anthony Towns. And he took 16.6 attempts last season (#2).

Was it also part of Thibodeau's marching orders to shoot only 64% from the line?

For the 2,490th time... I don't want to be a fan/follower of a league where a frumpy middle-aged ogre in a suit has THAT much clout over who is good and who sucks and who wins games. NOBODY does. And guess what? That's not how the NBA works. It's never worked that way...

Players make plays. Good, engaged players make more good plays than bad players. Simple as that.

Are you implying that Adre Drummond could overcome Laurence Frank? That Rip Hamilton could overcome John Kuester?

You play within a system. I had 4 head coaches and my numbers were absolutely impacted by the systems those coaches ran and where I fit into that system.

You also practice, as a team and individually, based on coaching, to benefit that system.

Wiggins absolutely has to take responsibility for his poor performance under Thibs and directly in the aftermath. That being said, Thibs absolutely put Wiggins in a pisspoor position within the offense particularly when Butler came to town. He also worked, during practice, on giving Wiggins a skillset that mirrored Butler's (which was folly).

If I'm asking Jordan McLaughlin to work on his post up game, and work on his Rolling hook shot, I'm not helping him. But he's still responsible for his performance.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:There has been some very talented teams that never reached potential due to coaching. Doug Collins couldn't get Jordan and company over the top, but Phil came in and did it. Same with the clowns who could not get Kobe and Shaq rings. Again it was Phil who got them over the top. The Houston teams of the last few years have been extremely talented but have been held back by Dantoni. Put another coach on that team and they easily could have won a title. It takes a complete organization - owner - GM - Coach - Players. Players can't do it by themselves. Not even the Warriors could win until Kerr replaced Jackson.

Wait.

So now we're changing the goalposts from "shitty basketball stats from one player" to "team championships?" If so... we're arguing entirely different things.

Jordan was a superstar with Doug Collins, before Phil Jackson.
Shaq was a superstar with Matt Goukas, Brian Hill, Del Harris and even Kurt Rambis, before Phil Jackson.
Kobe was on his way to being a superstar before Phil Jackson.
Curry was a budding superstar with Mark Jackson.

All of those guys showed steady, consistent growth and improvement and even star stats and impact (even if you think the coaching sucked).



[Note: On a side note, I also disagree about your take on D'Antoni. Not being able to get Houston past the Warriors seems like an odd hill to die on.]

lipoli390 wrote:Q - Have you been watching Andrew's passing tonight? He's doing far more than just kick-outs. Quantum leap. Maybe not. But his passing is MUCH better than ever before.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:There has been some very talented teams that never reached potential due to coaching. Doug Collins couldn't get Jordan and company over the top, but Phil came in and did it. Same with the clowns who could not get Kobe and Shaq rings. Again it was Phil who got them over the top. The Houston teams of the last few years have been extremely talented but have been held back by Dantoni. Put another coach on that team and they easily could have won a title. It takes a complete organization - owner - GM - Coach - Players. Players can't do it by themselves. Not even the Warriors could win until Kerr replaced Jackson.

Wait.

So now we're changing the goalposts from "shitty basketball stats from one player" to "team championships?" If so... we're arguing entirely different things.

Jordan was a superstar with Doug Collins, before Phil Jackson.
Shaq was a superstar with Matt Goukas, Brian Hill, Del Harris and even Kurt Rambis, before Phil Jackson.
Kobe was on his way to being a superstar before Phil Jackson.
Curry was a budding superstar with Mark Jackson.

All of those guys showed steady, consistent growth and improvement and even star stats and impact (even if you think the coaching sucked).



[Note: On a side note, I also disagree about your take on D'Antoni. Not being able to get Houston past the Warriors seems like an odd hill to die on.]

The reason for my post was your point that it's a players league only. I don't agree and cited examples as to why.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:There has been some very talented teams that never reached potential due to coaching. Doug Collins couldn't get Jordan and company over the top, but Phil came in and did it. Same with the clowns who could not get Kobe and Shaq rings. Again it was Phil who got them over the top. The Houston teams of the last few years have been extremely talented but have been held back by Dantoni. Put another coach on that team and they easily could have won a title. It takes a complete organization - owner - GM - Coach - Players. Players can't do it by themselves. Not even the Warriors could win until Kerr replaced Jackson.

Wait.

So now we're changing the goalposts from "shitty basketball stats from one player" to "team championships?" If so... we're arguing entirely different things.

Jordan was a superstar with Doug Collins, before Phil Jackson.
Shaq was a superstar with Matt Goukas, Brian Hill, Del Harris and even Kurt Rambis, before Phil Jackson.
Kobe was on his way to being a superstar before Phil Jackson.
Curry was a budding superstar with Mark Jackson.

All of those guys showed steady, consistent growth and improvement and even star stats and impact (even if you think the coaching sucked).



[Note: On a side note, I also disagree about your take on D'Antoni. Not being able to get Houston past the Warriors seems like an odd hill to die on.]

The reason for my post was your point that it's a players league only. I don't agree and cited examples as to why.

Reread. I was very specific in pointing out that it was about the players and their development.

You bringing up championships is indeed a strawman or disingenuous... you choose. But its an entirely different discussion that has NOTHING to do with this Andrew Wiggins discussion about the onus of a players development being on the players vs. coaches.

Camden wrote:I've seen it hinted a number of times -- not just on this forum, but other platforms -- so it clearly needs to be said.

You do not get to use your relationship with your boss/superior as an excuse for why you didn't do your job. There's an independent responsibility to do the job you signed up to do regardless of who overlooks your work. Andrew Wiggins failed to do his job the last couple years and the blame falls squarely on his shoulders.

What I'm seeing from some fans is a desire to use Tom Thibodeau as the excuse for Wiggins' individual development regressing. I don't know if that makes them feel better inside or if that's a ploy to build Wiggins up in their mind, but it's a fallacy.

Wiggins seems to be an improved player based on early returns, which is very good for all parties involved. He should get the large majority of the credit for that.

And when his past is discussed, the same line of thinking should be applied. You are ultimately responsible for your own career regardless of the direction it goes, up or down. Wiggins is a grown ass man. He can handle that.