Minnesota Sports Forum

monsterpile wrote:I tend to agree with Cam on getting a guy that has legit experience and there are plenty of worthwhile options with experience deep in the playoffs. Heck there are 2 coaches available that have coached in an NBA finals. I'll say this about Donovan that his coaching staff had a pretty rough season he lost some really good assistants and those guys matter. I was t sure what I thought about Donovan as an NBA coach but I think there was plenty to keep that team back to judge his first season as a disappointment.

.

55-27, finishing behind two of the best teams over the last 20 years. I can't wait until we can be a disappointment like that.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:

monsterpile wrote:I tend to agree with Cam on getting a guy that has legit experience and there are plenty of worthwhile options with experience deep in the playoffs. Heck there are 2 coaches available that have coached in an NBA finals. I'll say this about Donovan that his coaching staff had a pretty rough season he lost some really good assistants and those guys matter. I was t sure what I thought about Donovan as an NBA coach but I think there was plenty to keep that team back to judge his first season as a disappointment.

.

55-27, finishing behind two of the best teams over the last 20 years. I can't wait until we can be a disappointment like that.

Yeah totally but it seems like that's another team that's never really gotten on track. I haven't watched the games but yeah it's not like the pooped out and are sitting outside the playoffs or something but of course they have some nice players too. ;)

55 - 27 is good. But it's not really an improvement from what got the previous coach fired.

Brooks also had a 55-win season that was followed up with three straight better regular seasons. Oddly enough, last year might have been one of his best coaching jobs. Westbrook missed 15 games. Ibaka missed 18 games. Durant missed 55 games.

And the team still won 45 games. I think Donovan has been fine. But I don't know if he's an upgrade over Brooks. Maybe we'll find out in the playoffs. After all, the Thunder have 2 of the top 7 players in basketball. And they probably coasted quite a bit this season after it was clear they weren't catching SAS or GSW.

This is the third time I've tried to post this response so pardon me if it isn't as well-explained as it should be.

The Thunder have lost 15 games by five or less points this year. 15. They have two perennial MVP candidates and a surplus of other really talented players. Losing 15 close games is too many for a team that's supposed to be elite. Crunch time is arguably the most important time for a head coach. Some thrive (Pop, Carlisle, Stevens) and some don't (Karl, Brooks, Adelman). Donovan has to take the blame for those.

That's actually to be expected from a young coach though. The thing is, I'm ready for a vet HC to come in and get this team winning basketball games again. I don't really want to a young coach and a young team to try and figure it out together. That doesn't sound like total success to me. Think these guys need someone that's won in the league already. Someone that knows what it takes already. Not someone that's fresh into the NBA hoping to stick around long enough to maybe know how to get the job done.

I think Brooks is a solid coach, he just isn't a coach that puts the team over the top. I think Thibs does.

Why don't we just trade our first round pick for Ainge and Stevens? How lucky is Boston to have those two guys?

I do have my reservations of giving one guy too much power. I don't think one guy being HC/GM is a recipe for success. I know guys have done it, but a coach and GM have a different mindset. For example I think some of Flip's mistakes came from Flip the coach making decisions instead of Flip the GM. A rebuilding team trading a first round pick for Young who had an expiring contract. A rebuilding team trading a first round pick for Payne. Now you can say on the whole Flip was great and so will the next guy. I think if I were doing the hiring I would want a HC and a GM, not one guy filling both.

As far as GM, I think Danny Ferry would be a solid get for us.

Camden wrote:This is the third time I've tried to post this response so pardon me if it isn't as well-explained as it should be.

The Thunder have lost 15 games by five or less points this year. 15. They have two perennial MVP candidates and a surplus of other really talented players. Losing 15 close games is too many for a team that's supposed to be elite. Crunch time is arguably the most important time for a head coach. Some thrive (Pop, Carlisle, Stevens) and some don't (Karl, Brooks, Adelman). Donovan has to take the blame for those.

That's actually to be expected from a young coach though. The thing is, I'm ready for a vet HC to come in and get this team winning basketball games again. I don't really want to a young coach and a young team to try and figure it out together. That doesn't sound like total success to me. Think these guys need someone that's won in the league already. Someone that knows what it takes already. Not someone that's fresh into the NBA hoping to stick around long enough to maybe know how to get the job done.

This is interesting, since the rap on Rubio has always been "he can't close games", which I've always been skeptical about of course, and, more broadly, the foursome of Love/Rubio/Pek/Martin back in 2013-14 couldn't close games. Yet OKC has two of the most dynamic one-on-one offensive players in the NBA - of all time perhaps. Durant is the ultimate shot creator. So perhaps it's not just about having shot creators???

Things like getting defensive stops, not turning the ball over, set play design after timeouts, and good old fashioned luck may be have something to do with it too!

Q12543 wrote:

Camden wrote:This is the third time I've tried to post this response so pardon me if it isn't as well-explained as it should be.

The Thunder have lost 15 games by five or less points this year. 15. They have two perennial MVP candidates and a surplus of other really talented players. Losing 15 close games is too many for a team that's supposed to be elite. Crunch time is arguably the most important time for a head coach. Some thrive (Pop, Carlisle, Stevens) and some don't (Karl, Brooks, Adelman). Donovan has to take the blame for those.

That's actually to be expected from a young coach though. The thing is, I'm ready for a vet HC to come in and get this team winning basketball games again. I don't really want to a young coach and a young team to try and figure it out together. That doesn't sound like total success to me. Think these guys need someone that's won in the league already. Someone that knows what it takes already. Not someone that's fresh into the NBA hoping to stick around long enough to maybe know how to get the job done.

This is interesting, since the rap on Rubio has always been "he can't close games", which I've always been skeptical about of course, and, more broadly, the foursome of Love/Rubio/Pek/Martin back in 2013-14 couldn't close games. Yet OKC has two of the most dynamic one-on-one offensive players in the NBA - of all time perhaps. Durant is the ultimate shot creator. So perhaps it's not just about having shot creators???

Things like getting defensive stops, not turning the ball over, set play design after timeouts, and good old fashioned luck may be have something to do with it too!

"good old fashioned luck" you can't win with that anymore you need modern luck. ;)

I think a younger coach (or one with little NBA experience) could be a problem with a more veteran team, but with a younger team like ours it's fine, and actually probably an asset to have a younger coach (if the coach is good).

Young or new to the NBA coaches have trouble with veteran teams. Vets tend to feel like their coaches need to have earned respect, and they give them shorter leashes (just think of how crazy that idea of players having coaches on leashes is!). It's crazy, but that's the way a lot of veteran players act. This explains to some degree why Holberg has had problems in Chicago, why Fisher had problems in NY, Blatt in Cleveland, and why Kidd had problems in Brooklyn but hasn't had those problems in Milwaukee.

By contrast, younger or less NBA-experienced coaches tend to be much better with younger teams like ours. Look at Bradley in Boston as maybe the best example. Especially if those coaches are coming out of the college game, younger players are generally more familiar and comfortable with that style of coaching. Younger coaches tend to be more hands-on and expect a lot of buy-in and sacrifice from their players. That can backfire with vets who have been given too much slack from veteran coaches, but that is GREAT for younger teams starting to form an identity. Younger players tend to more readily buy into a system, accept a role, play all out, take some of the (hopefully constructive) criticism that coaches have to dish out.

The potential problem with veteran coaches is that they can tend to be more Adelman-like in being hands off when this team really needs a high-energy, hands-on coach who demands a lot from the players. And while a lot of these veteran NBA coaches we're mentioning may have had NBA experience, they've also been fired, sometimes more than once. That makes me a little wary that we may not know the whole story.

If a coach sucks, they suck no matter how much or how little NBA experience they have. So whoever we get needs to be good, obviously! But with that as the starting point, I'd lean toward a younger (good) coach and let them shape the culture of the team and establish their reputation over the long haul (like Pop, Carlisle, Spoelstra, Doc). Those coaches were really given the time to establish their culture and earn respect over the long haul and now they are crucial assets to their teams.

We know we're going to be good in the coming years. But the question is whether we're going to be a talented team that brings in a series of veteran coaches, or whether we'll build something lasting with a coach and culture and become the next Spurs. With a team as young and good as we are, I'd go for the latter.

Edit: This was supposed to quote the earlier Cam and Cool discussion about younger vs. older coaches, but obviously I don't know what I was doing.

Let's keep in mind there is no absolute formula for finding an elite head coach. It's not just luck either but young coaches older coaches ones with a lot of experience some with no experience have reached that. I thought it was interesting what Jim Pete was saying during the NO game that if you don't win in your first 4 years with a team you probably won't do it.