Scalabrine could have stayed, takes shots at Jackson

[bakesale]

Making an easy prediction: Barnes WILL improve next year, plain and simple. Then we'll see what people have to say about him. People forget (I don't) how bad Klay was the previous year (worse than Barnes actually, many were comparing him to Pietrus) and yet he picked himself up and improved his game tremendously to where it looks like he's making the US team and I think (if he continues to improve a bit) will be making next years all stars.

The reason that he wound up starting over Barnes at the beginning of the season was that Barnes got hurt and he stepped up his game and rose to the challenge otherwise Barnes was in the running. I'm not saying we're going to some drastic jump (the way we saw with Klay) but little steps are fine. I don't think he'll be getting enough minutes to do that but I believe they'll be consistent and hopefully quality.

Pietrus > Barnes

I don't think you realize exactly how terrible Barnes was last year

LOL at you and Sleepy's hate for Barnes. Pietrus is better than Barnes eh? Now I've heard it all!

Fark, Honestly I wish there was a way he could personally shove it in you and Sleepy's face for all the utter tripe you guys talk about him.

I maintain that he was poorly utilised. Pietrus? Dorrell Wright? LOL sounds like sour grapes, for what reason, I don't know but it sounds like you guys are out for his balls, for no good reason.

He's 22 and was poorly used. Whatever happened to having some patience? Have a little goddamn faith! FFS!

[Sleepy51]

Barnes played in a lot of crap rotations and was used as crappy iso player and a 4th option even when he wasn't.

I don't agree he got a lot of opportunity to do the things he's best at, but I do agree he got a ton of opportunity to show he was more than a limited role player. If Barnes was elite, he'd look a bit more like a super sub even in benchmob. But he's not.

Barens played 2358 minutes for the Warriors this past season. He played only 900 minutes without Curry on the floor. All that the role/units excuse boils down to is that we didn't play him enough minutes with guys who were good enough to hide him more often. That is not the coach failing to set him up to success, it's him failing to deliver any of what the team needs for him to make a positive contribution. If Jackson should be taken to task for anything with regard to Barens, it's that he threw good money after bad by not letting Draymond play the minutes he had rightfully earned.

The role that Barnes fist is 3rd string smallball PF. That is a totally insignificant niche role and a totally unacceptable outcome for the #7 pick. We needed a capable 2nd string swing man. Blame the front office for blowing a draft pick, not the coach for finding out that the player isn't very good.

I agree Barnes hasn't been very good and is far from elite. Just saying his situation and development as a limited role player was made far worse in the rotations and offense he played in. I think it's fair to blame Jackson for that (and the drop off of all our bench's performance due to a shallow offensive system and bench mob) as a big picture problem. But I certainly don't blame Jackson for Barnes not being great.

He played 61% of his minutes with our best offensive player on the floor. He had ample opportunity to make a contribution with good units and rotations. He made most of those units worse. He has not a very smart or hard working player on the court, in particular away from the ball and that is why he has failed, not because he has missed shots. The excuse is highly overblown.

[Sleepy51]

LOL at you and Sleepy's hate for Barnes. Pietrus is better than Barnes eh? Now I've heard it all!

Fark, Honestly I wish there was a way he could personally shove it in you and Sleepy's face for all the utter tripe you guys talk about him.

I maintain that he was poorly utilised. Pietrus? Dorrell Wright? LOL sounds like sour grapes, for what reason, I don't know but it sounds like you guys are out for his balls, for no good reason.

He's 22 and was poorly used. Whatever happened to having some patience? Have a little goddamn faith! FFS!

Why is it personal for you? My criticism has been about Barnes basketball, not about you for being a fan. This isn't personal for me. for me it is about how he plays the game of basketball. He plays the game wrong, and the ways he plays the game wrong came with him into the league, and have nothing to do with Jackson. He is uncreative, one dimensional, underskilled for his size/natural position, a poor ballhandler, passer and has demonstrated questionable bball IQ. He has clear work rate and activity issues. Oh, and he isn't particularly compelling as a scorer.

The problems were obvious from the first minute he checked into a summer league game and you can go back and check the game thread where we discussed it. He played the game with absolutely dead eyes. He didn't survey or make any effort to observe and process what was happening around him. Instead, he literally stared at the rim from the moment he checked in at the scorer's table. When you watch intelligent, imaginative, unselfish and proactive players they play the game with active eyes. They are constantly looking around the court to observe and process as much input from the game environment as they can. This wasn't a young player game moving too fast issue. This wasn't how that looks. The kids who are trying to process too much to fast have hyperactive eyes and can't handle the volume of information they are taking it. Barnes just wasn't taking it in at all. This was a player who is not in the habit of engaging the game around them issue. That was not a Mark Jackson creation. That is who Harrison Barnes is and who he had been for the preceding 15 or so years he'd been playing organized basketball.

I said at that moment in that game thread that Barnes had better turn out to be a virtuoso scorer, because he's not going to be good at anything else. Lo and behold, he is NOT particularly good at anything else and unfortunately he has turned out to not be a virtuoso scorer.

Have faith? Faith is earned, not entitled. Now we get to the character issue. He's had a TON of opportunity here. The results have been poop. You add to that the poor competitive spirit demonstrated by his failure to WIN the starting position in what was supposedly available in an open competition, and then he puts a cherry on top of that failure by pouting what little game he had into the tank and you are talking about a loser. Have faith in WHAT exactly?

At this point the guys still championing Barnes are now talking almost about exclusively putting him on the receiving end of assists. Either a corner 3 specialist, or a finisher at the rim who doesn't create for themself or others ... an alley-oop target, a back-door cut specialist. Fantastic, so "using him correctly" would yield the upside or 6-8 points per game on open 3's or highlight dunks y'all that half a dozen other guys on the team who contribute more on D and/or away from the ball than Barnes could finish every bit as well. That's not an upside, that's a dead cat bounce. Cut the loss and open the minutes for Draymond already.

[Jester_]

Jackson is a turd sandwich, but blaming him for Barnes' development is hillarious. If there's one thing he did well, it's player development. Klay, Draymond, Rush, Jack, Udoh, Ezeli, Curry etc all exceeded expectations under his tenure. Barnes had every opportunity to do well -- but no, he's the special snowflake that needs an offense personally crafted for him to look halfway useful.

It's lazy reporting. Take off your rose-tinted goggles about this kid, he's a terrible basketball player, and there's a reason his stock has dropped like a rock since high school. There's a reason most of us were shell shocked when our FO picked him.

[Left*My*Heart]

If I were Lacob, I would fire Myers and cut ties with West for convincing me to take Barnes over Drummond. On top of it, Barnes could have been traded multiple times when he had a perceived value, but no, Myers had to compound his mistake by hanging on to him.

[Muggsy Bogues]

Jackson is a turd sandwich, but blaming him for Barnes' development is hillarious. If there's one thing he did well, it's player development. Klay, Draymond, Rush, Jack, Udoh, Ezeli, Curry etc all exceeded expectations under his tenure. Barnes had every opportunity to do well -- but no, he's the special snowflake that needs an offense personally crafted for him to look halfway useful.

It's lazy reporting. Take off your rose-tinted goggles about this kid, he's a terrible basketball player, and there's a reason his stock has dropped like a rock since high school. There's a reason most of us were shell shocked when our FO picked him.

Klay was developed by Erman (according to several interviews in which he mentioned it), while Green came in with the BBIQ of a veteran and has been largely responsible for his own development. That said, I really wish we'd move Barnes. Every game he's on the team is another game that he'll get PT over someone better because the FO is obsessed with him.

[Frank Mulely]

Scal is a lifetime scrub. He's lucky Boston wants him because I sure wouldn't hire him after running his mouth in the media like this.

[InWestWeTrust]

All this Barnes talk is giving me Anthony Randolph flashbacks

[Twinkie defense]

Scalabrine was right, Steph wants to defend guys. Mark Jackson was flapping his lips, Scalabrine has every right to respond.

[Mylie10]

Jackson is a turd sandwich, but blaming him for Barnes' development is hillarious. If there's one thing he did well, it's player development. Klay, Draymond, Rush, Jack, Udoh, Ezeli, Curry etc all exceeded expectations under his tenure. Barnes had every opportunity to do well -- but no, he's the special snowflake that needs an offense personally crafted for him to look halfway useful.

It's lazy reporting. Take off your rose-tinted goggles about this kid, he's a terrible basketball player, and there's a reason his stock has dropped like a rock since high school. There's a reason most of us were shell shocked when our FO picked him.

Klay was developed by Erman (according to several interviews in which he mentioned it), while Green came in with the BBIQ of a veteran and has been largely responsible for his own development. That said, I really wish we'd move Barnes. Every game he's on the team is another game that he'll get PT over someone better because the FO is obsessed with him.

Jackson helped to foster and developers all the guys that played major roles for the Warriors. There are things more than just the basketball part of the game. Jackson instilled confidence in these guys and put full trust into them. There's a reason that these guys were willing to run through a wall for him. That's important and tough to find.

Development is not just in running a drill.....the mental game is huge and as important as the other parts.

[Mylie10]

Scalabrine was right, Steph wants to defend guys. Mark Jackson was flapping his lips, Scalabrine has every right to respond.

Scalabrine's a tool. So is Jackson for other reasons, but propping up Scalabrine and Darren sir tapes a lot Erman while tearing down Jackson is tiresome.

It was all flawed, but important in changing the culture of the franchise's direction. Same with Lacob and his front office committee. It sounds great as an idea, but also flawed. It's cool thought because the franchise is moving in a positive direction.

I know many want drastic moves, but stability and growth as a unit seems to be a real important idea with this group and that philosophy takes time and patience. I for one am grateful we don't have the former regime still in power and am willing to allow for mistakes.

They moved on from Jackson and I'm glad for that.....the team seems to be moving on as well and I look forward to this season's transition. The evaluation of certain players will be able to made with more info and we should see some player movement next off season with a clearer direction based on style of play.

[Sleepy51]

Scalabrine was right, Steph wants to defend guys. Mark Jackson was flapping his lips, Scalabrine has every right to respond.

Scalabrine's a tool. So is Jackson for other reasons, but propping up Scalabrine and Darren sir tapes a lot Erman while tearing down Jackson is tiresome. .

All three of thesecoaches that we know the Lacob hired hired had major personality defects and were a terrible combination. Jackson was an unprepared egomaniac with no attention to detail or preparation for the job and a major distraction in his dual vocation as a religious leader, Erman was an insecure and paranoid creep with severely limited communication and interpersonal skills. Scal was a firey, admittedly mouth (by his own advocate, Danny Ainge) insubordinate who exhibited every bit of his generation's narcissistic and entitled attitudes about their right to be heard, hierarchy, chain of command and total lack of awareness or respect for authority not vested in themselves.

The common thread between this ship of fools was that Lacob hired all of them. For a wildly successful venture capital executive, Lacob completely shocked me absolutely s ing the bed on his coaching hires. I was certain he would nail the personnel stuff. That's most of the VC job, identifying and building the right leadership teams to take talent farther than it can go without leadership. Yet, in his hiring he demonstrated NO understanding of what makes a coach successful and how to build a support team around that coach and he got flat out flim flammed into turning over control of his half a billion dollar enterprise to a glorified Rucker League MC. This was never going to be a winning formula on the bench, and Lacob was 100% in charge of the mixture.

That somehow 90% of the criticism for the coaching debacle stops before reaching Lacob's desk on this whole mess is ridiculous. The three worst influences int he Warriors basketball organization were Lacob's direct hires. There is a clear problem here in that Lacob does not know what he does not know about internal basketball operations. I guess Jerry West is supposed to be guiding him on this stuff but is largely absentee or grumpy.

The single biggest reason to be skeptical of the Kerr hire is that this was another decision made almost entirely in Lacob's office.

[Sleepy51]

All this Barnes talk is giving me Anthony Randolph flashbacks

At least Randolph wasn't afraid to try, even if it meant spectacular failures from time to time. Barnes hides on the court. And now has criticized his former coach for not hiding him better. I would trade Barnes for AR and a 2nd round pick in a heartbeat.

[azwfan]

Scalabrine was right, Steph wants to defend guys. Mark Jackson was flapping his lips, Scalabrine has every right to respond.

Scalabrine's a tool. So is Jackson for other reasons, but propping up Scalabrine and Darren sir tapes a lot Erman while tearing down Jackson is tiresome. .

All three of thesecoaches that we know the Lacob hired hired had major personality defects and were a terrible combination. Jackson was an unprepared egomaniac with no attention to detail or preparation for the job and a major distraction in his dual vocation as a religious leader, Erman was an insecure and paranoid creep with severely limited communication and interpersonal skills. Scal was a firey, admittedly mouth (by his own advocate, Danny Ainge) insubordinate who exhibited every bit of his generation's narcissistic and entitled attitudes about their right to be heard, hierarchy, chain of command and total lack of awareness or respect for authority not vested in themselves.

The common thread between this ship of fools was that Lacob hired all of them. For a wildly successful venture capital executive, Lacob completely shocked me absolutely s ing the bed on his coaching hires. I was certain he would nail the personnel stuff. That's most of the VC job, identifying and building the right leadership teams to take talent farther than it can go without leadership. Yet, in his hiring he demonstrated NO understanding of what makes a coach successful and how to build a support team around that coach and he got flat out flim flammed into turning over control of his half a billion dollar enterprise to a glorified Rucker League MC. This was never going to be a winning formula on the bench, and Lacob was 100% in charge of the mixture.

That somehow 90% of the criticism for the coaching debacle stops before reaching Lacob's desk on this whole mess is ridiculous. The three worst influences int he Warriors basketball organization were Lacob's direct hires. There is a clear problem here in that Lacob does not know what he does not know about internal basketball operations. I guess Jerry West is supposed to be guiding him on this stuff but is largely absentee or grumpy.

The single biggest reason to be skeptical of the Kerr hire is that this was another decision made almost entirely in Lacob's office.

I'm pretty sure Jackson said that he was in full control of hiring and firing his assistants (and i'm pretty sure Warriors management indicated the same thing). However, that doesn't overshadow the fact that Lacob did hire Jackson... and Jackson ended up not being a good hire.

[Sleepy51]

I'm pretty sure Jackson said that he was in full control of hiring and firing his assistants (and i'm pretty sure Warriors management indicated the same thing). However, that doesn't overshadow the fact that Lacob did hire Jackson... and Jackson ended up not being a good hire.

You have to take Jackson's comments with a grain of salt. In a post firing interview he's not going to paint himself as more impotent than was already obvious for pride's sake. He's nothing if not prideful. from the management side, Woj is the one who wrote that Jackson was having issues "with guys he hired." We now know that Woj misrepresented material facts in that report.

Erman was part of the 1st year staff that included Malone as co-head coach. That was clearly a staff hired by the front office. Jackson frankly hadn't been in the job long enough to recruit that staff when they were hired. The team did that hiring. Scal was a boston legacy that Lacob also knew during his time there. And Lacob and Ainge had a good relationship. I'm sure Jackson had input into the 2nd year hires and likely was in favor of hiring Scal, but Jackson also used up a lot of his hiring capital by refusing to hire another co-head coach level assistant and sticking up for Pete Meyers as head assistant. As far as the demotion and the firing, Jackson was half fired by that point anyway. Those things were definitely not under his autonomous control.

[azwfan]

I'm pretty sure Jackson said that he was in full control of hiring and firing his assistants (and i'm pretty sure Warriors management indicated the same thing). However, that doesn't overshadow the fact that Lacob did hire Jackson... and Jackson ended up not being a good hire.

You have to take Jackson's comments with a grain of salt. In a post firing interview he's not going to paint himself as more impotent than was already obvious for pride's sake. He's nothing if not prideful. from the management side, Woj is the one who wrote that Jackson was having issues "with guys he hired." We now know that Woj misrepresented material facts in that report.

Erman was part of the 1st year staff that included Malone as co-head coach. That was clearly a staff hired by the front office. Jackson frankly hadn't been in the job long enough to recruit that staff when they were hired. The team did that hiring. Scal was a boston legacy that Lacob also knew during his time there. And Lacob and Ainge had a good relationship. I'm sure Jackson had input into the 2nd year hires and likely was in favor of hiring Scal, but Jackson also used up a lot of his hiring capital by refusing to hire another co-head coach level assistant and sticking up for Pete Meyers as head assistant. As far as the demotion and the firing, Jackson was half fired by that point anyway. Those things were definitely not under his autonomous control.

Malone was hired right away. Erman was hired 2 months after Jackson took over as head coach which is about the same amount of time that Kerr hired Gentry. I'll assume you just remember incorrectly.

Edit: While i would take everyone's statements with a grain of salt, the fact that they all said the same thing kinda outweighs the assumption many made (including myself) due to circumstantial evidence. It is possible that Lacob recommended Erman, but he could have recommended half a dozen guys that weren't hired also. It was Jackson's hire... per everyone that knows. I'll go with them.

[TaylorMonkey]

He played 61% of his minutes with our best offensive player on the floor. He had ample opportunity to make a contribution with good units and rotations. He made most of those units worse. He has not a very smart or hard working player on the court, in particular away from the ball and that is why he has failed, not because he has missed shots. The excuse is highly overblown.

Even in those lineups he was a 4th option and an afterthought without much instruction or a well defined role. But I do agree it shows Barnes isn't particularly smart or creative.

I think we agree more than not. We just differ in that I think Jackson is no excuse for Barnes not being a goodish player, while you think Jackson is no excuse for Barnes not being a passable NBA player at all. Lol.

For what it's worth, I still think Jackson was a good hire for the time and for his purpose.