Minnesota Sports Forum

He seems fine. He's definitely likeable and I sincerely hope for the best for him. BUT... are we worried about his pedigree?

A young guy doesn't have the experience to have his own identity yet. But that can be fine if he's a true innovator. Or, if he learned from one of the greats about how to look at and appreciate the game in a certain way. So let's look at Saunders' mentors:

Flip
Thibodeau
Randy Wittman
Sam Mitchell

Well... ummm... errr... ummm... Meh.

Not every coach has to be a Pop disciple or from the Riley/Spoelstra factory to be successful. Just pointing out that being young + having mediocre apprenticeships gives me a bit of pause here...

Thoughts?

Wittman is back in an advisory role. So saunders is looking to his past for help. I'm not sure this is a good thing.

I hope he learned from his dad about culture.
I hope he learned a little toughness and swagger from Sam Mitchell.

I think both of those things get overlooked. I think the key is how adaptable he is. Pop has been very adaptable and I hope Saunders can do that. If he can get assistants in here to innovate that would be great.

crazy-canuck wrote:Wittman is back in an advisory role. So saunders is looking to his past for help. I'm not sure this is a good thing.

And Jerry Sichting... he of the Saunders, Tom Crean, Keith Smart and Jeff Hornacek lineage.

meh.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

crazy-canuck wrote:Wittman is back in an advisory role. So saunders is looking to his past for help. I'm not sure this is a good thing.

And Jerry Sichting... he of the Saunders, Tom Crean, Keith Smart and Jeff Hornacek lineage.

meh.

This is innovation in Wolves terms.

He certainly comes across as a more "modern day" coach with a recognition of analytics and how to relate to each player on individual terms. But yeah, if there was a hall of fame for mediocre coaches, the group he worked for would get in on the first vote.

Abe raises a fair point about Saunders' pedigree...it's something I'm sure we will monitor on this board as the season goes on. Unfortunately, few if any of us have confidence in Glen's ability to determine whether Ryan is the right guy or not. I'm fairly certain Ryan will have the interim label removed either before the end of the season or soon after barring one set of circumstances...the Wolves get healthy, but don't show any improvement over Thibs.

So, if my hypothesis is correct and Ryan will be the guy going forward, is there room for optimism? I think there is, if Ryan can take the good from his mentors and reject the bad (as Bleed suggests) and adds his own positive elements (like analytics, as Q points out). The bad news is the offense and defense don't look much different from Thibs' offense and defense, but as Lip and others have said, it's difficult to change schemes in the middle of the season. And many of us list several things that Ryan does different from his mentors in the "what is different" thread. The pedigree is a "watch" situation, but my prediction is Ryan is creative enough to rise above his mentors' bad habits.

To be fair, isn't Abe always the one who says it's all about the players? Give Saunders a big 3 and i think he will be just fine.

CoolBreeze44 wrote:To be fair, isn't Abe always the one who says it's all about the players? Give Saunders a big 3 and i think he will be just fine.

We're only two players away!

But Josh Okogie is like super duper close.

I'm really disappointed in Abe he left out Tubby Smith.

I know some people say the Wolves are going country club for adding guys back to help but it doesn't mean those guys are idiots either. I also think Wittman seemed to chill out a bit the last few months he was on the job for the Wizards. I don't think Ryan needs innovators he needs guys that have been there done that. He doesn't really have anyone like that on his coaching staff except maybe Ed P. Also worth noting Layden is running things as GM...but who knows if he will be here in a few months. There is no assurity that Randy Wittman will be here either in any capacity.

It's an interesting and worthwhile point to mention Ryan's coaching tree. His GM tree isn't exactly top shelf either. I mean who was the best basketball mind he has worked with period?

One thing I learned a few years ago was to be successful you have to have a few things going for you. First you just need to have a base level of comptetence and then if you have great ideas and successful concepts...you still have to be able to effectively communicate those to people you are coaching but also your colleagues and people above you as well. That can be difficult. So even if Ryan is the guy with ideas that are different and good can he effectively communicate those AND will he have some of the right people around him and above him that will support him and help move the team in a positive direction? Hard to know. Only time will tell.