GHOSTofSIKMA wrote:
a higher profile guy like some of these teams are going with like a svg or like what skiles brought isn't worth the slightly better short term result for the personality at this stage of the ballgame. I think its important that we talk about the coach but we need to be careful about overprioritizing their importance. I think its REALLY important we don't go get a yeller until the guys are older and have won a little more.
I think you're right. I would go further and even dispute the notion that the high-profile guy produces better results of any kind, slight or not. Just look around the league and show me evidence that a Carlisle or S. Van Gundy moves the needle at all.
Many here seem to be stuck on a coaching paradigm they're transferring over from high school ball or have idealized in other ways. Thrusting a Hoosiers Gene Hackman type or a Lombardi-style martinet into an NBA coaching position gets you nothing, or less than nothing. The NBA is a player-controlled league with a free-flowing, improvisational game. As for planned offense, there are three or four variations on setting picks and what happens next, and that's about it. More high-falutin schemes, such as the triangle, are illusions (as SVG himself once said, the triangle is pass the ball a couple of times and make sure it ends up in Jordan's hands).
So as a few vocal contributors here continue to believe in the magic of the scribbled clipboard as a way to sublimate their frustrations with the limitations of the current-edition Bucks, remember that there is no magic construct on either offense or defense that turns a bad shooter into a good one or a bad defender into a stopper. The best you can hope for from a coach is a supportive enabler who gets players to play their best. It would be a shame to lose that just because we're Kidding ourselves that what we need is a great tactician.
"The Bucks in six always. That's for the culture." -- B. Jennings
