LUKE23 wrote:Great read:
http://www.brewhoop.com/2013/1/10/38575 ... iles-bucksbut the way things ended with Skiles it's pretty clear that the Bucks were looking for (a) the coach who already understood the limitations of the roster and (b) someone not named Scott Skiles.
Yup. Thats about right.
I don't expect much to change for the players, but in a way this will be a test for the surly fans who consistently offered up criticisms of Skiles. Here's your chance to prove you meant what you said. To me, the hyper-criticisms of Skiles mostly express misdirected anger of discontented fans.
Is this guy serious? "Prove you meant what you said?" What does that even mean?
If Skiles has stubbornly stunted the development of a budding contender, I've never heard that stated directly.
I don't think I've seen anyone state that either. Not pro-Skiles Bucks fans. Not anti-Skiles Bucks fans. So whats this guy's point?
In any case, now is the time for every Skiles detractor to prove that they meant what they said.
Really?
Ok, I'll start.
1) I've criticized Skiles for not playing his best players the most minutes. Not just this year. But almost every year he was the Bucks' coach. Guess who played his best players the most minutes in his first two games as head coach? Jim Boylan
2) I've criticized Skiles for his 12 man rotations. Guess who had nice, tight, 9 man rotations in his first two games as head coach? Jim Boylan
3) I've criticized Skiles for being a bad communicator. Guess who's done a nice job communicating with his team during the first two games as a head coach? Jim Boylan
Whether any of this is reflected in the W/L record remains to be seen. 2-0 is a nice start. But at least Boylan is handling the 'Coaching 101' criticisms I had of Skiles the right way.