Are we looking at this the wrong way?

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

Stay with me here. I don't think anyone would disagree that the Wolves are performing much worse in the first 17 games of this season than they did the final 17 games of last season, but there is vast disagreement about the main reasons for the collapse. I have been advancing a theory that Thibs is the wrong guy for this roster, and that the players are fine but the coach is holding them back. But listening to Lou Nanne on Barreiro yesterday (admittedly a hockey guy, but also a guy who truly understands the psychological makeup of the young athlete and the importance of coaching in pro sports). He talked about his confidence in this roster to eventually become great, and that we had to be patient. He also said that it would be helpful if Thibs dialed back the sideline histrionics a bit, but he did think Thibs could eventually coach this team to success. But he said the main reason for our lack of success this year is that our young players simply are not ready)...to be fair, several here have advanced the same theory.

So, it begs the question...if their youth and experience and not Thibs is the primary reason for the failure of this season to date, why were they so successful at the end of last year...nearly .500 ball after the all-star break with an identical starting 5? Clearly Sam got more out of this roster than Thibs is, but we may be looking at the wrong way. Maybe Thibs is doing okay and that a young roster needs time to "get it", but in contrast Sam significantly overachieved with the same starters last year. It's not like Sam hasn't overachieved before. I've posted before about his 47 wins in 06-07 with a starting five of a young Bosh, Rasho Nesterovich, Anthony Parker, TJ Ford, and Juan Dixon. Let that sink in awhile...47 wins with that collection of afterthoughts (Bosh was only 23 and not yet in his prime) and not much bench behind them. If that wasn't overachieving, I don't know what is. While Sam's personality grates on the media and management, maybe he has a knack for getting his players to play well beyond their capabilities...and that's what happened last year as well as 06-07.

I don't know, but it certainly seems logical. We are on a pace to win 24 games this season after completing 21% of the season, and even that might be tough with 9 games still on the horizon against GS, San Antonio and the Cavs. But after listening to Louie yesterday, I'm wondering if it's not that Thibs should be tar and feathered if he indeed does lead this team to less than 30 wins, but rather a statue of Sam should be commissioned for leading a bunch of teenagers to 29 wins last year. That certainly would make me feel better about our prospects going forward, although not as good about Glen letting a coach go after one very successful season (and of course, like him or not, KG would certainly agree with this take). What do you guys think...is it more about Thibs not being the right guy, or Sam overachieving again with a roster that shouldn't have done so well.

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

The comparison just needs to stop between the end of last year and the beginning of this year. They are on two different playing fields. One is with half a season of learning and adapting to a coaches system while the other is with a different coach and system and 17 games to learn and execute it. It's unreasonable to expect a new coach to come in and get the same play from the players immediately that it took the last coach more than half the season to get working. If it took them 5 months to get going under Sam, why is Thibs not getting the same 5 months? Why is he expected to transform them to play his way immediately especially when he is trying to change their play and tendencies on both ends of the court? He didn't walk into a roster full of winners with the right habits. He walked into a roster with a lot of bad habits on both sides of the court.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

My answer is that neither of the options you provided -- Tom Thibodeau being the wrong man for the job; Sam Mitchell being a good head coach -- are correct. The players need to be held responsible in both cases.

I'll also remind you and the rest of the board that might share your view on this that it took Mitchell an annoyingly long time -- roughly 60 games -- to insert Zach LaVine into the starting lineup at shooting guard, resulting in less minutes for him at point guard, which was arguably the primary reason why the offense played at an elite level from that point on. That situation alone is enough for me to scoff at the notion that Mitchell had any idea what he was doing here. Let's also remember the outright refusal to alter his old school offense to incorporate more three-point shots. As we've already seen this season despite the inconsistencies, this team has (had) the shooters to be much better than they were last year. That too falls on Mitchell. With him, we were always at a disadvantage.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

The comparison just needs to stop between the end of last year and the beginning of this year. They are on two different playing fields. One is with half a season of learning and adapting to a coaches system while the other is with a different coach and system and 17 games to learn and execute it. It's unreasonable to expect a new coach to come in and get the same play from the players immediately that it took the last coach more than half the season to get working. If it took them 5 months to get going under Sam, why is Thibs not getting the same 5 months? Why is he expected to transform them to play his way immediately especially when he is trying to change their play and tendencies on both ends of the court? He didn't walk into a roster full of winners with the right habits. He walked into a roster with a lot of bad habits on both sides of the court.

Khans, Are you sure you have the right cause? I think it has more to do with personnel changes as opposed to the players learning Mitchell's system. As Cam mentioned, within days after getting both Dieng and LaVine inserted into the starting lineup, things began to click. Our bench was bad, but that starting unit was elite offensively.

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

My answer is "all of the above":

- Mitchell wasn't as god-awful as people made him out to be. But to Cam's point, he finally realized that LaVine is not a PG waaaaaaay later than any of us. Shockingly, we became a much better team when he was inserted as a full-time SG.

- Our young guys still don't know how to stay dialed in defensively for 4 quarters. KAT, Wiggins, and LaVine are the three most important players for our future, yet they clearly don't "get it" defensively yet. Their relative youth and inexperience is a plausible explanation (to Nanne's point), but one gets tired of hearing that going on year 3 for a couple of these guys....

- Thibs has taken the ball out of Rubio's hands. In the short term, that has led to a less potent offense. In the long run, perhaps it's the right thing to do. So Coach Thibs takes a hit for that move, but may be it ultimately proves valuable IF the other guys learn how to become better play makers and we don't need to rely on a ball-dominant PG.

[AbeVigodaLive]

The comparison just needs to stop between the end of last year and the beginning of this year. They are on two different playing fields.

We've been through this multiple times:
It's been noted that the Wolves finished 10 - 10 last season.

- Is it a large enough sample size? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on your view, I guess.
- Let's review closer...

W(1): Beat Brooklyn without Thad Young and Brook Lopez.
W(2): Beat OKC.
W(3): Beat Memphis without Conley, Gasol, Randolph.
W(4): Beat Sacramento without Cousins
W(5): Beat the Wizards.
W(6): Beat Phoenix.
W(7): Beat GSW.
W(8 ): Beat Sacramento without Cousins.
W(9): Beat Portland.
W(10): Beat New Orleans without Davis and Holiday.

There are some nice wins in there. GSW! OKC. Portland. Washington. All legit. Those offered a lot of hope. But there are also some wins over some bad teams and/or teams decimated by injuries. The Wolves shouldn't apologize for those wins. But there is some context in them that we shouldn't ignore. To be fair, this year's team has one of those wins already when Memphis conceded that game early in the year. Last year, Minnesota was a young team that was not tanking or resting players. They were trying to win sometimes vs. teams with winning as a lesser priority. It's the typical end-of-season grind. Kudos to the Wolves for taking advantage of those. That's what teams need to do to be considered legit.

[Coolbreeze44]

I can handle Thibs bashing more readily than Mitchell praise. But both are highly inappropriate right now. Mitchell sucked - I'm sorry but that's not arguable. And Thibs is just getting started. You know me, I can't stand apologists. But Thibs hasn't even coached 20 games yet. It's very possible our slow start isn't anyone's "fault" per se. It might just be a combination of a new coach getting to know a very young roster. It wouldn't be the first time a regime change resulted in some growing pains. The ole "he had to play for 4 different coordinators in 3 years" syndrome. Just relax, I think we're going to be okay.

[Coolbreeze44]

My answer is "all of the above":

- Mitchell wasn't as god-awful as people made him out to be. But to Cam's point, he finally realized that LaVine is not a PG waaaaaaay later than any of us. Shockingly, we became a much better team when he was inserted as a full-time SG.

- Our young guys still don't know how to stay dialed in defensively for 4 quarters. KAT, Wiggins, and LaVine are the three most important players for our future, yet they clearly don't "get it" defensively yet. Their relative youth and inexperience is a plausible explanation (to Nanne's point), but one gets tired of hearing that going on year 3 for a couple of these guys....

- Thibs has taken the ball out of Rubio's hands. In the short term, that has led to a less potent offense. In the long run, perhaps it's the right thing to do. So Coach Thibs takes a hit for that move, but may be it ultimately proves valuable IF the other guys learn how to become better play makers and we don't need to rely on a ball-dominant PG.

The bold parts are pure fallacy on your part. Mitchell might have been worse than he was made out to be. And Rubio has the ball in his hands 90% of the possessions he's on the floor. It's hardly been the complete transformation you think it has.

[BizarroJerry [enjin:6592520]]

How many threads do we need to have this same conversation?

[Q12543 [enjin:6621299]]

My answer is "all of the above":

- Mitchell wasn't as god-awful as people made him out to be. But to Cam's point, he finally realized that LaVine is not a PG waaaaaaay later than any of us. Shockingly, we became a much better team when he was inserted as a full-time SG.

- Our young guys still don't know how to stay dialed in defensively for 4 quarters. KAT, Wiggins, and LaVine are the three most important players for our future, yet they clearly don't "get it" defensively yet. Their relative youth and inexperience is a plausible explanation (to Nanne's point), but one gets tired of hearing that going on year 3 for a couple of these guys....

- Thibs has taken the ball out of Rubio's hands. In the short term, that has led to a less potent offense. In the long run, perhaps it's the right thing to do. So Coach Thibs takes a hit for that move, but may be it ultimately proves valuable IF the other guys learn how to become better play makers and we don't need to rely on a ball-dominant PG.

The bold parts are pure fallacy on your part. Mitchell might have been worse than he was made out to be. And Rubio has the ball in his hands 90% of the possessions he's on the floor. It's hardly been the complete transformation you think it has.

In terms of judging Mitchell, I don't know how you can call something pure fallacy that can't really be proven. I didn't say he was a great or even good coach. I just don't think he was as god-awful as some folks made him out to be. The fact he got that team to win 29 games last year was solid work given the circumstances. How soon we forget that he was made their head coach under tragic circumstances!

As for Rubio, yes, he still brings the ball up the floor and runs some amount of PnR. But they run far less action through him than before. Perhaps I exaggerated for effect - they haven't literally taken the ball out of his hands. But anyone watching the games can see that he isn't as involved in the offense as he was in years past.