Please Grade Eddie Jordan as a Coach.

[corwin]

I'm coming to this forum as a Philly fan since our GM is seriously considering hiring Eddie Jordan. Seems he has been fairly unsuccessful in Washington & I'm curious as to why. Thanks for your help.

[mhd]

The #1 gripe here would be his utter refusal to play Haywood major minutes for five years. I can't count how many games we lost because he went to Etan Thomas/Ruffin/smallball. He thought Jarvis Hayes at 6'5 was a PF. He hates bigs and his protect the paint philosophy is the most idiotic thing I've ever seen as a defensive strategy.

[Benjammin]

Media relations: A He is very personable and was well-liked by the media. Of course he was also a hometown guy.

Relationship with players: A- (Except Haywood, infamously keeping him on the bench in the playoffs as Z had his way offensively) Jordan can be considered a "player's" coach. Another way to put that is they like to play for him because he allows them to do what they want.

Offensive system: B+ The Princeton offense can be tough to install because of the personnel requirements, but it did put the Wizards best offensive players in a position to score efficiently. Sometimes the offense breaks down into a weave and heave look.

Defensive system: F Protect the paint at all costs. Double-team guys who aren't threats in the post. Allow wide open 3s all the time. No force rules and poor rotations (chicken with its head cut off defense, chasing after the ball). Did not get Arenas to buy into playing defense and did not demand Jamison play some defense.

Lineups/substitutions: D Loves small ball and "high energy" guys who bring the "force" (Ruffin, Etan Thomas).

Development of young players: (Edit) D- My initial grade of incomplete was too kind. Clearly Kwame is an issue, with a propensity to play older guys over younger ones also problematic.

Overall: a solid and well earned C. He's an average NBA head coach (edit: at best) with some real strengths and weaknesses. He seems to be very stubborn and does not adjust his systems to the talents of his players very easily.

[LyricalRico]

1. Offensive expertise: A (he can make good scorers into great scorers)

2. Defensive expertise: F- (backwards, non-sensical philosophies that always fail)

3. In game decision making: F- (horrible out of timeouts and consistently falters at the end of quarters)

4. Rotations: F- (he hates anybody taller than 6'9 and will consistently play small ball)

5. Developing young players: D - (loves vets and hates young players, especially young bigs)

6. Ability to foster chemisry and a positive attitude: A (he does get guys to like him and each other)

So that's pretty much an overall FAIL from me. I hated the guy for years and couldn't be happier that he's gone. I think he's a great "caretaker" coach for a young team that's trying to change a culture of losing. Give him a lottery team that has guys with offensive talent and he'll get you to the 8th playoff spot. The problem is he won't take you any further. I think that makes him a bad fit for Philly. But I think he'd be a good fit for the Kings over the next few years while they rebuild.

[dobrojim]

+1 on ^

one additional note - on the minus side Jordan was very poor at making
situational end of quarter/half/game substitutions

The philly fans will be shredding him in no time at all.
Should he get that job that is.

[JWizmentality]

1. Offensive expertise: A (he can make good scorers into great scorers)

2. Defensive expertise: F- (backwards, non-sensical philosophies that always fail)

3. In game decision making: F- (horrible out of timeouts and consistently falters at the end of quarters)

4. Rotations: F- (he hates anybody taller than 6'9 and will consistently play small ball)

5. Developing young players: D - (loves vets and hates young players, especially young bigs)

6. Ability to foster chemisry and a positive attitude: A (he does get guys to like him and each other)

So that's pretty much an overall FAIL from me. I hated the guy for years and couldn't be happier that he's gone. I think he's a great "caretaker" coach for a young team that's trying to change a culture of losing. Give him a lottery team that has guys with offensive talent and he'll get you to the 8th playoff spot. The problem is he won't take you any further. I think that makes him a bad fit for Philly. But I think he'd be a good fit for the Kings over the next few years while they rebuild.

Perfect.

[closg00]

1. Offensive expertise: A (he can make good scorers into great scorers)

2. Defensive expertise: F- (backwards, non-sensical philosophies that always fail)

3. In game decision making: F- (horrible out of timeouts and consistently falters at the end of quarters)

4. Rotations: F- (he hates anybody taller than 6'9 and will consistently play small ball)

5. Developing young players: D - (loves vets and hates young players, especially young bigs)

6. Ability to foster chemisry and a positive attitude: A (he does get guys to like him and each other)

So that's pretty much an overall FAIL from me. I hated the guy for years and couldn't be happier that he's gone. I think he's a great "caretaker" coach for a young team that's trying to change a culture of losing. Give him a lottery team that has guys with offensive talent and he'll get you to the 8th playoff spot. The problem is he won't take you any further. I think that makes him a bad fit for Philly. But I think he'd be a good fit for the Kings over the next few years while they rebuild.

Yep, Rico hit all of the key points...and please ignore Eddie Jordans mom who post here as DC Zards

[Wiz99]

My issue with Jordan was his unwillingness or inability to get any of his key players to grow in that 1 extra dimension needed for the Wizards to go from a .500 squad to a contender.

Jamison: no effort on D (one hell of a thing for a coach to accept from his captain - you show me the NBA team that is a contender with bad defense)

Arenas: no leadership, literally a free agent mentally jacking up shots outside the offensive system, gambling for steals and slacking on D. Hasn't matured in this dimension at all.

Haywood: never felt like the coach trusted him, so didn't bring it every night (you could blame both sides)

Young guys: why does it seem Blatche has never learned the system well enough to not miss his assignments, and Nick Young still doesn't know a good shot from a bad one?

Role players: how is it Roger Mason Jr. leaves for San Antonio and evolves into a totally clutch role player, a la John Paxon of the Jordan-era Bulls?

Whole damn team: why are Eddie Jordan's squads perennially among the NBA's 10 worst in most defensive statistics?

If someone hires Jordan, they're getting a coach who knows enough Xs and Os to get his team playing solidly in the middle of the NBA pack. But he doesn't seem to know ANYTHING about how to elevate a squad to be elite, which is mostly getting through to them mentally to improve on the extra dimensions (D, leadership, knowing and excelling in your role).

[mohammed10]

My issue with Jordan was his unwillingness or inability to get any of his key players to grow in that 1 extra dimension needed for the Wizards to go from a .500 squad to a contender.

Jamison: no effort on D (one hell of a thing for a coach to accept from his captain - you show me the NBA team that is a contender with bad defense)

Arenas: no leadership, literally a free agent mentally jacking up shots outside the offensive system, gambling for steals and slacking on D. Hasn't matured in this dimension at all.

Haywood: never felt like the coach trusted him, so didn't bring it every night (you could blame both sides)

Young guys: why does it seem Blatche has never learned the system well enough to not miss his assignments, and Nick Young still doesn't know a good shot from a bad one?

Role players: how is it Roger Mason Jr. leaves for San Antonio and evolves into a totally clutch role player, a la John Paxon of the Jordan-era Bulls?

Whole damn team: why are Eddie Jordan's squads perennially among the NBA's 10 worst in most defensive statistics?

If someone hires Jordan, they're getting a coach who knows enough Xs and Os to get his team playing solidly in the middle of the NBA pack. But he doesn't seem to know ANYTHING about how to elevate a squad to be elite, which is mostly getting through to them mentally to improve on the extra dimensions (D, leadership, knowing and excelling in your role).

Well stated, Wiz99!

[miller31time]

Media relations: A He is very personable and was well-liked by the media. Of course he was also a hometown guy.

Relationship with players: A- (Except Haywood, infamously keeping him on the bench in the playoffs as Z had his way offensively) Jordan can be considered a "player's" coach. Another way to put that is they like to play for him because he allows them to do what they want.

Offensive system: B+ The Princeton offense can be tough to install because of the personnel requirements, but it did put the Wizards best offensive players in a position to score efficiently. Sometimes the offense breaks down into a weave and heave look.

Defensive system: F Protect the paint at all costs. Double-team guys who aren't threats in the post. Allow wide open 3s all the time. No force rules and poor rotations (chicken with its head cut off defense, chasing after the ball). Did not get Arenas to buy into playing defense and did not demand Jamison play some defense.

Lineups/substitutions: D Loves small ball and "high energy" guys who bring the "force" (Ruffin, Etan Thomas).

Development of young players: Incomplete The Wizards during his tenure did not have many talented young guys, although he does seem to favor veterans over young guys.

Overall: a solid and well earned C. He's an average NBA head coach with some real strengths and weaknesses. He seems to be very stubborn and does not adjust his systems to the talents of his players very easily.

I think Lyrical did a good job but I'm more inclined to agree with this assessment. Eddie Jordan wasn't a failure. He did a decent job. He, along with a talented roster, made the Wizards both respectable and relevant. Elite? No. Upper-echelon? No. That's the reason he's not what I would call a "good" coach, but he won't kill your team.

What I think will ultimately determine how successful he is in Philly (if he gets the job) is the coaching staff around him. If he learned from his mistakes in Washington and actually surrounds himself with defensive-oriented assistants who he will actually TURN TO for the defensive system of the 76'ers, then he might be a very good option. I put the chances of that happening as being low, though. As has been mentioned, he's stubborn.

[Wiz99]

And don't listen to any garbage about injuries limiting what Eddie Jordan could do with this team.

Look at Boston and Orlando right now, each missing a key player (Garnett and Nelson), and one of them is going to the eastern conference finals.

By contrast, Eddie Jordan's teams never exceeded .500 ball. Totally mediocre, even with 3 all stars and one of the league's best defensive centers (Haywood).

2008-2009: .091 winning percent (1-10) when they fired him
2007-2008: .524
2006-2007: .500
2005-2006: .512
2004-2005: .549
2003-2004: .305

He just doesn't know how to help individuals and the squad take the next step to elite.

[Wiz99]

I'm with miller.

EJ is mediocre.

[MJG]

He's a solid C to me; plenty of good points and bad points that combine to form a typical mid-tier coach. Here's what I'd expect if he goes to a new team:

+ In general: offense improves, defense plummets.

+ Tweeners will play more at the bigger of their two positions. For example, I'd expect more of Brand at C rather than PF, Young at PF instead of SF, and so on.

+ More minutes for any energy guys (aka players without a ton of athleticism or skill, but who hustle and play hard). Evans is the one that comes to mind.

+ In the role player battle between the steady veteran and the talented yet inconsistent kid, expect the former to win out. If you draft a SG for example, don't expect him to steal Green's minutes for at least a few years.

+ A majority of those involved with the team will like him a lot. Players, beat writers, local sportscasters, etc. By all accounts he seems like a great guy who charms pretty much everyone he meets. Also, not that this hurts the team per se, but the downside as a fan is that it makes the media more reluctant to call him out on his mistakes; it can be frustrating not hearing his name brought up even when he's blatantly screwed up.

+ More minutes for your best few players. Iguodala over 40 (he'll almost for sure lead the league again), Brand and Young (and Miller too, if he doesn't drop off at all) around 37-38.

Like I said, pretty much a C. Your team's end result will probably be about the same whether EJ is there or not; the only difference will be the path you take to get there.

[doclinkin]

What's this, hey gasoline, right? I can't tell, let me strike a match...

Eddie is an ideal offensive fit for Philly's young uptempo roster. At all positions you have young long athletic offensively skilled players who can handle the ball and give good effort.

Eddie is a great player-relations coach, tends to cover for his players in the media and handle offcourt issues in-house. Occasionally he'll give up on a guy, but he'll never shout them down, merely use wry sarcasm to let them know he's expecting more from them. His players tend to love him, will give max effort in the worst circumstances.

Runs a dynamic offensive system, difficult to cover for opposing defenses. He'll find wrinkles every offseason to maximize the strength of his personnel. He prefers to have at least one skilled face-up shooter/passer in the frontcourt, to open up room for wing attackers. With the roster you have your team will fly up and down the court, unselfish, finishing on the break, banging the offensive glass, active.

EJ caught flack for the defense but the personnel consistently lost key performers, and the players who fit his style on one end were not a great fit at the other end. That's where you get the biggest griping on this board, he overlooked a big seven footer (who had attitude issues early on) since he wasn't a great fit for the offense. Your squad will not have that problem.

Eddie's maybe over-reliant on steals, and occasionally too patient with a line-up in game, not the best at defensive adjustments on-the-fly. He works best when he has a key floor leader. He and Andre Miller should click.

He coaches best when his back is against the wall, always remaining positive despite ridiculously impossible circumstances. His Wizard teams caught a suck-storm of poorly timed injuries to the best personnel, and should have drowned in the whirlpool but with grit and attitude they remained competitive. One fair criticism is that he leaned heavily on vets in favor of developing his (lackluster and sometimey) highly talented youth. At times he played untalented vets who gave max energy output, on the principle that he would reward effort more than talent, in hopes that young talent would take the example to try to max-out their potential and not coast. This occasionally backfired even as a motivational tactic. Again, your squad doesn't really look to have that problem. Maybe Speights won't get enough PT.

Ultimately a net positive for your team. I'm in the camp that counts his tenure as a B+ given what he had to work with. Haywood was a misstep, but they'd patched it up by the end, which takes big men in both respects.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Media relations: A He is very personable and was well-liked by the media. Of course he was also a hometown guy.

Relationship with players: A- (Except Haywood, infamously keeping him on the bench in the playoffs as Z had his way offensively) Jordan can be considered a "player's" coach. Another way to put that is they like to play for him because he allows them to do what they want.

Offensive system: B+ The Princeton offense can be tough to install because of the personnel requirements, but it did put the Wizards best offensive players in a position to score efficiently. Sometimes the offense breaks down into a weave and heave look.

Defensive system: F Protect the paint at all costs. Double-team guys who aren't threats in the post. Allow wide open 3s all the time. No force rules and poor rotations (chicken with its head cut off defense, chasing after the ball). Did not get Arenas to buy into playing defense and did not demand Jamison play some defense.

Lineups/substitutions: D Loves small ball and "high energy" guys who bring the "force" (Ruffin, Etan Thomas).

Development of young players: Incomplete The Wizards during his tenure did not have many talented young guys, although he does seem to favor veterans over young guys.

Overall: a solid and well earned C. He's an average NBA head coach with some real strengths and weaknesses. He seems to be very stubborn and does not adjust his systems to the talents of his players very easily.

I think Lyrical did a good job but I'm more inclined to agree with this assessment. Eddie Jordan wasn't a failure. He did a decent job. He, along with a talented roster, made the Wizards both respectable and relevant. Elite? No. Upper-echelon? No. That's the reason he's not what I would call a "good" coach, but he won't kill your team.

What I think will ultimately determine how successful he is in Philly (if he gets the job) is the coaching staff around him. If he learned from his mistakes in Washington and actually surrounds himself with defensive-oriented assistants who he will actually TURN TO for the defensive system of the 76'ers, then he might be a very good option. I put the chances of that happening as being low, though. As has been mentioned, he's stubborn.

I agree with Benjammin and with miller31time, and also before them with what mhd said.

What not many have said is if not for injuries, Eddie Jordan's record of wins and losses would have been much better.

Like any other coach a lot depended on his personnel. I don't think it's a coincidence that Jordan's best winning percentage, and the time he advanced beyond round one in the playoffs was when he had better defensive personnel. (Hughes at SG, Jeffries at SF, and EJ actually played Haywood 30 minutes/game in the playoffs). Defense got worse after both Hughes and Jeffries left.

Some of what made EJ unsuccessful beyond the injuries was the porous defense of his big three, Arenas, Butler, and Jamison. However, EJ compounded the problem by sitting Haywood. Very bad move that he made for about three years, before he was ultimately fired. Sitting Haywood that entire Cleveland series convinced me that Jordan's an exceptionally poor defensive coach.

His defensive philosophy of protecting the paint with all smalls on the court was beyond dumb.

How he'll do in Philly depends on the coaches around him and whether he learned a thing as Wizards coach. Iguodala should have a career year under EJ. Miller, Williams, and Green will love him. I'm thinking Dalembert won't play much because he's too tall. Brand and Evans will probably be the Cs now. They're undersized veterans.

I think EJ can be okay for a while in Philly because the team has a talented player in Young along with Igoudala. However, Speights and Jason Smith might never play all season under EJ. Too big and too young, both of them.

[clubbing_caveman]

Pretty much concur with previous posters. I would add that I dont think he is good head coaching material. However, given the possible coaches available, I guess Philly doesnt have too many choices (I do hear that Thebes is available). EJ makes one heck of an assistant coach. He can run the O. But there is the other half of the game called defense...EJ wouldnt know what to do here.

[closg00]

EJ rode the coat-tails of the trio when the East was at it's weakest.

He fixated on how he thought he could win games and failed to adapt when his strategy failed. Not creative and doesn't make proper use of existing talent.

[Wizards2Lottery]

His defensive weaknesses completely neutralize his offensive strengths. His defense will lose you as many games as his offensive will win.

For a young team, he's an awful coach to have because by the time he's fired, your players will have a defensive IQ of about 0. At the end of the day, be ready to watch some pretty exciting offensive ball and be ready to bang your head against the wall when he plays favorites and his defense allows an NBA record number of three pointers allowed.

[Agent0_MVP]

I give him a B.

Hes a nice guy and an all around good coach. He would still be in Washington if not for the injuries. He might have been out of the first round, maybe even nearer to the ECF.

I think Phillys his best chance. Thats where I would go if I were him. Im going to hate playing against him though.

GL Eddy!

[DaRealHibachi]

I give him a B.

Hes a nice guy and an all around good coach. He would still be in Washington if not for the injuries. He might have been out of the first round, maybe even nearer to the ECF.

I think Phillys his best chance. Thats where I would go if I were him. Im going to hate playing against him though.

GL Eddy!

I would love to play him, we would light him up for 110 points a night...

EJ has no clue on D, his rotations/subs make no sense, plays "effort" over production, loves small ball, overplays his stars, also claimed he was missing a defensive big, when he left a beast rottin on the bench...

He's overrated on O, he had 3 way above average scorers, so scoring was never a problem on this team... The Princeton offense is just a bunch of puff, puff, pass on the perimeter...

He's a nice dude though, good players coach and he rocks the best suits...