RealGM

About the article I've never doubted Kidds abilities as far as a developmental coach. All signs have pointed to that being a strength and is evidence aplenty even without considering giannis.

The question was and is whether he's the right coach to take us past the player development stage into becoming a top tier team and competing for championships.

Baddy Chuck wrote:

ElPeregrino wrote:

Baddy Chuck wrote:In this scenario you're also making the huge assumption that other gms couldn't have made good or obvious moves, which in year nine of Hammond I realize is sometimes hard to believe happens.

Middleton, Giannis, and Brogdon were obvious acquisitions at the time?

What you're doing is looking at every move made and not allowing for the fact that others may have made as good or better moves.

If Hammond were fired after his 5th season we could very well have selected a high potential player slotted around #15, we could have very well have selected an All-American in the second round and we could have very well traded an absolute turd for Middleton and Knight.

Hell, maybe we have Steph Curry, Middleton, Myles Turner, the Lakers pick and Giannis with another GM. That's just the easy "could have been" stuff.

You can say those were easy moves but of the 30 GMs in the league, I don't think a single one would have made all of those moves.

ElPeregrino wrote:You can say those were easy moves but of the 30 GMs in the league, I don't think a single one would have made all of those moves.

But you give the GM to anybody else in 2013 and none of them draft Giannis at 15 and take up Joe Dumars on his offer for Jennings?

To me the only "if Hammond was fired this wouldn't have happened" thing you maybe could even possibly throw out there is drafting Thon. Nothing else was really that out there.

Still no list of the cons. Is it so hard to do?

I don't know if Kidd becomes a good coach or not. But I know he does some important things very well. Most important for me is that he put player development over short term succes. And as long as the important players have faith in him...

And who are the obvious replacements who are available? And why are they available...?

I believe that at this level, until you have someone you're convinced is elite or the moment you know they will never be elite in their position, then you move on. You keep searching until you fill keys roles with those who rank with the best in the sport. I'd consider that to be top 10 and shoot for people regarded as top 5. I can't imagine anyone in the industry considers Kidd to be a top 10 basketball coach on the planet. Same for Hammond as a GM.

Move on asap.

Baddy Chuck wrote:
To me the only "if Hammond was fired this wouldn't have happened" thing you maybe could even possibly throw out there is drafting Thon. Nothing else was really that out there.

That's why last summer I posited that the Thon draft pick would have an outsized impact on Hammond's grade as GM during his tenure. Thon was a big gamble that Hammond staked it all on. And he may have it pay off. Still TBD.

This is how I do it in NBA2k --- young team developmental coach, once they are reaching peak age fire dev. coach sign Xs and Os coach. We're probably 1-2 years away from needing a strategic coach unless Kidd turns into one...

pifhluk23 wrote:This is how I do it in NBA2k --- young team developmental coach, once they are reaching peak age fire dev. coach sign Xs and Os coach. We're probably 1-2 years away from needing a strategic coach unless Kidd turns into one...

Yeah they still have time with Kidd. They aren't winning a championship anytime soon even if the ghost of Red Auerbach walks through that door.

DutchManDanFan wrote:Still no list of the cons. Is it so hard to do?

There have been hundreds of "Fire Kidd!!!" posts shredding his defensive system. I was mocked for defending it, pointing to year one as proof that it can work with competent defenders and communication. And then 13 of 16 happened. Not a peep since. So, since SCHEME!!! is the latest and loudest flavor-of-the-month criticism of Jason Kidd, I'll ask, is it still a problem? Or are guys simply getting comfortable with one another.

JimmyTheKid wrote:

DutchManDanFan wrote:Still no list of the cons. Is it so hard to do?

There have been hundreds of "Fire Kidd!!!" posts shredding his defensive system. I was mocked for defending it, pointing to year one as proof that it can work with competent defenders and communication. And then 13 of 16 happened. Not a peep since. So, since SCHEME!!! is the latest and loudest flavor-of-the-month criticism of Jason Kidd, I'll ask, is it still a problem? Or are guys simply getting comfortable with one another.

Definitely still a problem in my opinion.

I don't want to take away that we have had some truly GREAT wins during this stretch, but there are some similarities to early in the season, below I have the 3pt % rank in the league and for some where they rank in volume. Come playoff time, I think our issues will still be there, but obviously getting Midds back helps and so do trimming the rotation a bit.

W Clippers 4th great win
W Raptors 12th no Lowry, 23rd in volume
W Sixers 23rd tanking
W Pacers 6th, but 27th in volume
W Wolves 20th, 30th in volume
L Grizz 22nd
W Clippers 4th great win
W Lakers 21st tanking
L Warriors 3rd
W Blazers 5th great win
W Kings 8th tanking
W Hawks 25th no Horford
L Bulls 27th but on fire
W Hornets 18th
W Celtics 14th great win

buckboy wrote:I know this is fairly idiotic, but are we the Eastern Conference favorites with Pop as coach?

Just curious what others think. I think probably so.

Kidd's play is based in athleticism. Pop is the opposite.. "smart" basketball, as in using your brains above your athleticism. Team would need at least some restructuring. But a great coach nevertheless.

I don't know how well Kidd will do in the playoffs. Its like, you know, players play basketball. Great coaches are just great managers of lineups or boosting morale or identifying a situation and counter it, or enhance it for their team. If Kidd fails, I'd like to see him stay as a development coach if he'd take the role(name it something impressive to sugarcoat it). I'd also like to see how Sweeney would work(unless you get an actual window of opportunity at Pop. I don't mind how some say he's old. He's still a great coach, better than anyone else Bucks have had, imo).

ampd wrote:
The question was and is whether he's the right coach to take us past the player development stage into becoming a top tier team and competing for championships.

These last couple of games and our Playoff series will be the deciding factor for me.

Coaching, as a commodity, is fairly overrated in NBA circles. So to me, that doesn't mean that you blindly stick with a guy based on the bare minimum threshold of "success" in this league. Going 43-39 and simply "getting to the playoffs" should not be the criteria on which Kidd should be retained as HC. I always look at two things first and foremost:

A) Are the players buying into what the coach is saying?

B) Is there any level of consistency and upward growth trajectory independent of the talent on the floor?

Ron Swanson wrote:Coaching, as a commodity, is fairly overrated in NBA circles. So to me, that doesn't mean that you blindly stick with a guy based on the bare minimum threshold of "success" in this league. Going 43-39 and simply "getting to the playoffs" should not be the criteria on which Kidd should be retained as HC. I always look at two things first and foremost:

A) Are the players buying into what the coach is saying?

B) Is there any level of consistency and upward growth trajectory independent of the talent on the floor?

I agree, with some points to add:
A1) How is team chemistry?
A2) Are the players able to play the way (defensive scheme) the coach wants?

B1) Are individual players getting better?
B2) Are they playing better as a team?

DutchManDanFan wrote:

Ron Swanson wrote:Coaching, as a commodity, is fairly overrated in NBA circles. So to me, that doesn't mean that you blindly stick with a guy based on the bare minimum threshold of "success" in this league. Going 43-39 and simply "getting to the playoffs" should not be the criteria on which Kidd should be retained as HC. I always look at two things first and foremost:

A) Are the players buying into what the coach is saying?

B) Is there any level of consistency and upward growth trajectory independent of the talent on the floor?

I agree, with some points to add:
A1) How is team chemistry?
A2) Are the players able to play the way (defensive scheme) the coach wants?

B1) Are individual players getting better?
B2) Are they playing better as a team?

The only thing I can say with any confidence about Kidd is that he's done a tremendous job with player development. But team chemistry and "are we playing better as a team" are pretty arbitrary aspects that are sometimes completely independent of the coach's influence. If you asked this question 1.5 months ago, both would have been a resounding "No"....

Ron Swanson wrote:

DutchManDanFan wrote:

Ron Swanson wrote:Coaching, as a commodity, is fairly overrated in NBA circles. So to me, that doesn't mean that you blindly stick with a guy based on the bare minimum threshold of "success" in this league. Going 43-39 and simply "getting to the playoffs" should not be the criteria on which Kidd should be retained as HC. I always look at two things first and foremost:

A) Are the players buying into what the coach is saying?

B) Is there any level of consistency and upward growth trajectory independent of the talent on the floor?

I agree, with some points to add:
A1) How is team chemistry?
A2) Are the players able to play the way (defensive scheme) the coach wants?

B1) Are individual players getting better?
B2) Are they playing better as a team?

The only thing I can say with any confidence about Kidd is that he's done a tremendous job with player development. But team chemistry and "are we playing better as a team" are pretty arbitrary aspects that are sometimes completely independent of the coach's influence. If you asked this question 1.5 months ago, both would have been a resounding "No"....

That's where A2 comes to mind. Is the defensive scheme working with Jabari and without Khris?

DutchManDanFan wrote:

Ron Swanson wrote:

DutchManDanFan wrote:I agree, with some points to add:
A1) How is team chemistry?
A2) Are the players able to play the way (defensive scheme) the coach wants?

B1) Are individual players getting better?
B2) Are they playing better as a team?

The only thing I can say with any confidence about Kidd is that he's done a tremendous job with player development. But team chemistry and "are we playing better as a team" are pretty arbitrary aspects that are sometimes completely independent of the coach's influence. If you asked this question 1.5 months ago, both would have been a resounding "No"....

That's where A2 comes to mind. Is the defensive scheme working with Jabari and without Khris?

Let's say the scheme is good (it isn't) with Khris. And we're assuming it sucked because he was out.

The fact that Kidd made zero adjustments to it while Mids was out is mind-boggling. He's a terrible game coach. Period.

He's still doing the same stuff he's been doing. Same crap offense where we have to work hard as hell just to get a shot off. Same crap D scheme. Tons of ISO on offense. Not nearly enough pnr. Not taking advantage of matchups. And same silly handling of the rotation.

Because we've been winning lately doesn't mean Kidd has finally figured things out. I figured some people would succumb to this thinking.

VooDoo7 wrote:Let's say the scheme is good (it isn't) with Khris. And we're assuming it sucked because he was out.

The fact that Kidd made zero adjustments to it while Mids was out is mind-boggling. He's a terrible game coach. Period.

This argument can be made as a pro as well. Why change a system because one of your best players is not available, but he will be eventually? If you believe in the system you want to play, then you stick with it, also if it's bad for short term results. In a long NBA season you can do this, certainly if the grand price is still a few years away.

VooDoo7 wrote:He's still doing the same stuff he's been doing.
- Same crap offense where we have to work hard as hell just to get a shot off.
- Same crap D scheme.
- Tons of ISO on offense.
- Not nearly enough pnr.
- Not taking advantage of matchups.
- And same silly handling of the rotation.

Because we've been winning lately doesn't mean Kidd has finally figured things out. I figured some people would succumb to this thinking.

Finally you listed some cons. At the moment, the Bucks are winning, also against good teams. But I guess we'll have to wait how it goes in the playoffs if it's all bad or if it works when it really counts.

DutchManDanFan wrote:

VooDoo7 wrote:Let's say the scheme is good (it isn't) with Khris. And we're assuming it sucked because he was out.

The fact that Kidd made zero adjustments to it while Mids was out is mind-boggling. He's a terrible game coach. Period.

This argument can be made as a pro as well. Why change a system because one of your best players is not available, but he will be eventually? If you believe in the system you want to play, then you stick with it, also if it's bad for short term results. In a long NBA season you can do this, certainly if the grand price is still a few years away.

VooDoo7 wrote:He's still doing the same stuff he's been doing.
- Same crap offense where we have to work hard as hell just to get a shot off.
- Same crap D scheme.
- Tons of ISO on offense.
- Not nearly enough pnr.
- Not taking advantage of matchups.
- And same silly handling of the rotation.

Because we've been winning lately doesn't mean Kidd has finally figured things out. I figured some people would succumb to this thinking.

Finally you listed some cons. At the moment, the Bucks are winning, also against good teams. But I guess we'll have to wait how it goes in the playoffs if it's all bad or if it works when it really counts.

Good luck with this on some of the blind Kidd haters. I've tried. Even when the entire organization, including Kidd, say "we're playing the long game," and prove it by not mortgaging the future with any "win now" moves at the deadline, some folks still call for a complete overhaul of the system.