Is Fred Hoiberg an NBA Level Coach?

[Red Larrivee]

Fred's a rookie coach and deserves to have enough time to learn the game. I think that time is starting to run out, and if the team were to continue underachieving by the All-Star break next season, you'd look to make a change.

So far this season, there's a few big takeaways:

1.) This team no longer plays with urgency or passion.

2.) They no longer play defense, despite recently being a strong defensive team with the same personnel. In fact, they've gotten worse each month at defense, and on a microlevel, I've personally noticed Portis taking steps backwards defensively as well.

Let's stop here.

1. The team didn't play with urgency or passion at all last season under the coachiest of coaches in Thibodeau, but on most nights they were still talented enough to win. This is basically the same team, but when you consider the amount of individual regression combined with the injuries and improved Eastern Conference, it makes sense why they're worse.

2. The defense was 11th last year, which isn't awful, but last year was a good indication that the scrappy band of try-hards was no more. Still, I didn't expect the defense to fall as much as it has this year, though a big factor is Joakim Noah missing 53 games. It's magnified by having to play Pau Gasol at center.

Hoiberg has issues obviously. It's a big step going from 19-20 something year old kids to 28-35 year old NBA veterans. For me at least, if Hoiberg doesn't pan out, I won't look back at his rookie season and say "this is why we knew he wouldn't work."

Here's a flaw with your argument. Noah was a non factor all of last season. And this still played him, and after the team supposedly tuned him out,the defense was still 11th and the offense which is supposed to be Hoibergs realm got way worse.

I mentioned this in #1. There's been more individual regression this season.

Noah struggled offensively last year but he wasn't a non factor defensively.

[nitetrain8603]

Let's stop here.

1. The team didn't play with urgency or passion at all last season under the coachiest of coaches in Thibodeau, but on most nights they were still talented enough to win. This is basically the same team, but when you consider the amount of individual regression combined with the injuries and improved Eastern Conference, it makes sense why they're worse.

2. The defense was 11th last year, which isn't awful, but last year was a good indication that the scrappy band of try-hards was no more. Still, I didn't expect the defense to fall as much as it has this year, though a big factor is Joakim Noah missing 53 games. It's magnified by having to play Pau Gasol at center.

Hoiberg has issues obviously. It's a big step going from 19-20 something year old kids to 28-35 year old NBA veterans. For me at least, if Hoiberg doesn't pan out, I won't look back at his rookie season and say "this is why we knew he wouldn't work."

Here's a flaw with your argument. Noah was a non factor all of last season. And this still played him, and after the team supposedly tuned him out,the defense was still 11th and the offense which is supposed to be Hoibergs realm got way worse.

I mentioned this in #1. There's been more individual regression this season.

Noah struggled offensively last year but he wasn't a non factor defensively.

He was worse than he's ever been including this year.

That's why I think its crazy how people keep talking about how he needs to get a roster that fits him, then want to trade or let go of the best players for Bismayck Biyombo of all people as well as other specialists.

This team needs impact two way players first which we have 1, maybe 2?? I don't trust GarPax in obtaining those players.

[coldfish]

I was watching a section of last night's game. As the Bulls were getting drilled, I thought I would try to diagnose the problems. Who was causing the issue?

After watching virtually no semblance of an offense nor any seeming defensive concept, the potential answers are rather stark:
Either
- There is no effective coaching going on. The Bulls, almost all the way through the season look like a bunch of guys who just met each other playing a pick up game.
- The players are completely and utterly ignoring the coach.
- Some combination of the above

To get wacked in back to back games like that against a bad team, mostly healthy, is just awful. The Bulls players look like they actually WANT to miss the playoffs. Hoiberg is either a bad coach with intractable players or a completely awful one depending on the answer above. There is no scenario where he is presently even an average NBA coach.

Gar has painted himself into a corner. The situation with fit, attitude, coaching, health and contracts is pretty bad. I really have no idea how you get out of this mess but one thing you absolutely have to do is upgrade the assistants behind Hoiberg this offseason. I would get rid of all of them. I really don't see the downside and its relatively easy to do.

[HearshotKDS]

One thing that really concerns me about Hoiberg is the teams lack of success on play's coming out of a time out/pause in the game. I think these types of scenarios are a good measure to see how well of a grasp the coach has on his teams strengths/other teams weaknesses. As of an article last week, the Bulls had run 17 straight plays out of a timeout without scoring a basket... that screams to me that Hoiberg is having trouble identifying how to create good looks for his personnel. This is a problem because most teams rely on their coach to do just that: identify how best to apply your own teams strengths and take advantage of the other teams weaknesses.

[Shill]

Here's a flaw with your argument. Noah was a non factor all of last season. And this still played him, and after the team supposedly tuned him out,the defense was still 11th and the offense which is supposed to be Hoibergs realm got way worse.

This team is the same as last year's, only a year older and much more injured.

[MrSparkle]

Just my 2c, but typically I'd like to see a head coach (rookie, at that) show that his system "works", in some capacity, before I start making major personnel moves in favor of his system.

Between the off-season and the deadline, Fred had plenty of time to sit with the FO and be like, "I need these types of players for this to work."

#1. If he didn't fore-see that there'd be issues with his projected line-ups for his system and as such, didn't consult the FO anytime between August and February 20th, then that's a sign of unpreparedness, and in my opinion, bad coaching, since he was unable to anticipate what he had on his hands. Before we talk about "injuries", he had a healthy roster in December, and we still looked like disorganized crap. We won most of our (early season) games basically with iso ball between Pau and Jimmy, and solid defensive efforts from the Noah/Taj/Kirk (the 'old' brigade) bench. Which is entirely a result of Thibs' 5-year coaching style.

I'm not talking about major blockbuster trades, but Kirk for Justin Holiday was the type of trade they could've executed 4 more times if this collective organization had any semblance of a brain and realized that: Brooks popping ill-advised 3Ps, Bairstow being completely unfit for anything called "up-tempo offense", Snell being Snell and having 3 starter-caliber low-post players who fit best at center (in Fred's "system", at least), would not work in "Hoiball."

#2. Not 1 player has radically improved besides Doug. But with Doug, it was to be expected that he could score if you give him minutes -- I'm having a hard time coming around to the fact that Fred telling Doug "I believe in you" is "good coaching." It's of course a game of confidence/volume with Doug's shooting. However, his defense is not a game of confidence -- a scheme/concept and fundamentals need to be taught for him to succeed on that end. And I have not seen 1 hint of his defense improving. I've just seen him get more comfortable on an NBA court. Which for all we know, might've happened in his second year with Thibs anyway, with Snell deciding to prematurely quit on his NBA career and MDJ missing most the season.

The second Skiles came here, you immediately saw that some guys are on their way out (in fact, the veterans were indeed shipped, and you could tell Jamal wouldn't last), while his "type" of players excelled (Kirk, Pargo, Blount, Chandler - newcomers A. Davis, JYD).

So I'm really concerned. I keep drawing parallels to D'Antoni/LAL, but are we really gonna go out and invest big in the personnel that'll "feed" Fred's system? Meh. You had good personnel that fitted another system, and you invested big in flipping the culture 180.

The way I see it, you need to get a bunch of Justin Holidays in the bargain bin, young, athletic/half-talented guys without contracts who are fighting for jobs, and see who fights enough to stick around. Investing big in any free agents is a bad idea, because I don't Fred will get anywhere with any of them.

Let's see what Fred can do with "his type" of players, at the bottom end. Because he sure as hell hasn't done much with 2 all-stars.

And this, my friends, will be NBA hell. Entertaining .400 - .500 ball, fighting for the 8-10th seed. Meanwhile, the other emerging teams will reload. We've basically given up our 20 mile lead in the race, and we're chasing the Charlotte Hornets, Boston Celtics, Toronto Raptors, Detroit Pistons, Indiana Pacers, Miami Heat... let alone the Cavs.

[Chi]

I don't think we the fans (or especially the Bulls organization) should be basing this on if our coach is NBA level. It's disgusting if thats the qualification for being the Chicago Bulls coach is...

The only logical quality that ANYONE who cares about Chicago Basketball should be looking for in our head coach is if we think we can win a ring with this individual running things.

Regardless of the roster, a championship coach would show you something that you can hang your hat on and know that they are elite and skilled and worthy of owning such a demanding position. You should feel like If/When we get a quality roster good enough to win it that this man can lead our squad and get the job done.

Does Hoiberg do that for you?

Has he shown you ANYTHING that you can say "here's why we should keep him" ?


I can't stress enough how Absolutely Disgusting it is that we have a thread here discussing if the Chicago Bulls HEAD COACH is NBA Level.

Reinsdorf, Billionaire or not, you should be infuriated!!

[Red Larrivee]

I don't think we the fans (or especially the Bulls organization) should be basing this on if our coach is NBA level. It's disgusting if thats the qualification for being the Chicago Bulls coach is...

The only logical quality that ANYONE who cares about Chicago Basketball should be looking for in our head coach is if we think we can win a ring with this individual running things.

Regardless of the roster, a championship coach would show you something that you can hang your hat on and know that they are elite and skilled and worthy of owning such a demanding position. You should feel like If/When we get a quality roster good enough to win it that this man can lead our squad and get the job done.

Does Hoiberg do that for you?

The head coach is a leader, but not the leader of a basketball team. You'll always go as far as the talent on your roster permits. This is a league where Luke Walton goes 34-1 with the Warriors and David Blatt was two wins away from winning a title in his first season.

[Chi]

I don't think we the fans (or especially the Bulls organization) should be basing this on if our coach is NBA level. It's disgusting if thats the qualification for being the Chicago Bulls coach is...

The only logical quality that ANYONE who cares about Chicago Basketball should be looking for in our head coach is if we think we can win a ring with this individual running things.

Regardless of the roster, a championship coach would show you something that you can hang your hat on and know that they are elite and skilled and worthy of owning such a demanding position. You should feel like If/When we get a quality roster good enough to win it that this man can lead our squad and get the job done.

Does Hoiberg do that for you?

The head coach is a leader, but not the leader of a basketball team. You'll always go as far as the talent on your roster permits. This is a league where Luke Walton goes 34-1 with the Warriors and David Blatt was two wins away from winning a title in his first season.

So you think that an NBA team can win a Championship with Hoiberg running it?


I don't... Not even the Golden State Warriors... Maybe Jordan can win 1 (of the 6) just by his own shear will and leadership. Maybe...


I will say that players are the "Biggest" part of the equation when it comes to winning. But I think statements like yours take away from coaches impacts on winning and losing.

They may not have the Biggest impact but that doesn't mean they don't have a Huge one. I have to give credit to Pop, Carlisle, Tibs, Pat Riley etc. etc. Their teams won in VERY Large part due to them being there.

The same way I have to give credit to all the horrible coaches Cartwright, Boylen, (spelling?), Tim Floyd etc. Their teams were equally horrible. And even average coaches like Del Negro and Skiles their teams were always pretty average and usually showed to be good at a category or 2 just like them.

I'm positive I can't win a ring with Del Negro or Skiles running my team. And it's sad to say but I think those 2 are about as good as even the most optimistic Hoiberg supporter can realistically hope he can some day become.

[Chi]

I don't think we the fans (or especially the Bulls organization) should be basing this on if our coach is NBA level. It's disgusting if thats the qualification for being the Chicago Bulls coach is...

The only logical quality that ANYONE who cares about Chicago Basketball should be looking for in our head coach is if we think we can win a ring with this individual running things.

Regardless of the roster, a championship coach would show you something that you can hang your hat on and know that they are elite and skilled and worthy of owning such a demanding position. You should feel like If/When we get a quality roster good enough to win it that this man can lead our squad and get the job done.

Does Hoiberg do that for you?

The head coach is a leader, but not the leader of a basketball team. You'll always go as far as the talent on your roster permits. This is a league where Luke Walton goes 34-1 with the Warriors and David Blatt was two wins away from winning a title in his first season.

And as far as the "You'll always go as far as the talent on your roster permits" comment.


Tibs and Hoiberg have already proved this statement incorrect...

[Red Larrivee]

So you think that an NBA team can win a Championship with Hoiberg running it?

I think most coaches can win in the NBA if they're handed supremely-talented rosters. David Blatt was not as a rookie head coach in the league, yet he was two games away from being an NBA champion.

Golden State can repeat regardless if Luke Walton or Ron Adams is the head coach.

I will say that players are the "Biggest" part of the equation when it comes to winning. But I think statements like yours take away from coaches impacts on winning and losing.

Coaches have an impact, but it's not game-changing unless you have a HOF type coach like Phil or Pop.

They may not have the Biggest impact but that doesn't mean they don't have a Huge one. I have to give credit to Pop, Carlisle, Tibs, Pat Riley etc. etc. Their teams won in VERY Large part due to them being there.

I won't dismiss that those are good coaches, but they are as great as the talent put around them. Of the coaches you listed, we're talking Tim Duncan, Magic Johnson, Dirk Nowitzki just to name a few.

So I don't really believe in the "Can you win a championship with this coach" qualification. Raise your hand if you had Doc Rivers and Erik Spolestra winning championships when they were hired.

[Chi]

So you think that an NBA team can win a Championship with Hoiberg running it?

I think most coaches can win in the NBA if they're handed supremely-talented rosters. David Blatt was not as a rookie head coach in the league, yet he was two games away from being an NBA champion.

Golden State can repeat regardless if Luke Walton or Ron Adams is the head coach.

I will say that players are the "Biggest" part of the equation when it comes to winning. But I think statements like yours take away from coaches impacts on winning and losing.

Coaches have an impact, but it's not game-changing unless you have a HOF type coach like Phil or Pop.

They may not have the Biggest impact but that doesn't mean they don't have a Huge one. I have to give credit to Pop, Carlisle, Tibs, Pat Riley etc. etc. Their teams won in VERY Large part due to them being there.

I won't dismiss that those are good coaches, but they are as great as the talent put around them. Of the coaches you listed, we're talking Tim Duncan, Magic Johnson, Dirk Nowitzki just to name a few.

So I don't really believe in the "Can you win a championship with this coach" qualification. Raise your hand if you had Doc Rivers and Erik Spolestra winning championships when they were hired.

We're also talking about worn out versions of Antoine Walker and Gary Payton, and Danny Granger & some guy named John Lucas being KEY pieces of your offense yet because of those coaches the teams still did what most people call "Overachieving".

Good/Great coaches make that Overachieving happen. Good/Great coaches in bad situations show reasons for optimism. Good/Great coaches in Great situations win Championships.

Bad coaches do none of the above. It is not hard, and it doesn't take years to spot the difference...


P.S. No one will ever convince me Spolestra's rings aren't fraudulent and Doc Rivers won because he had one of those geniuses I mentioned leading one of the greatest Defenses of all time for him. (Tibs for those who don't know)

[Red Larrivee]

We're also talking about worn out versions of Antoine Walker and Gary Payton, and Danny Granger & some guy named John Lucas being KEY pieces of your offense yet because of those coaches the teams still did what most people call "Overachieving".

Good/Great coaches make that Overachieving happen. Good/Great coaches in bad situations show reasons for optimism. Good/Great coaches in Great situations win Championships.

Bad coaches do none of the above. It is not hard, and it doesn't take years to spot the difference...

We're also talking about a 24-year-old Dwyane Wade. Coaches do not win championships; talent does. David Blatt was two games away from winning a championship. Scott Brooks got to an NBA Final. Byron Scott has been to two NBA Finals. This **** isn't rocket science.

[Chi]

We're also talking about worn out versions of Antoine Walker and Gary Payton, and Danny Granger & some guy named John Lucas being KEY pieces of your offense yet because of those coaches the teams still did what most people call "Overachieving".

Good/Great coaches make that Overachieving happen. Good/Great coaches in bad situations show reasons for optimism. Good/Great coaches in Great situations win Championships.

Bad coaches do none of the above. It is not hard, and it doesn't take years to spot the difference...

We're also talking about a 24-year-old Dwyane Wade. Coaches do not win championships; talent does. David Blatt was two games away from winning a championship. Scott Brooks got to an NBA Final. Byron Scott has been to two NBA Finals. This **** isn't rocket science.

So you agree that you can be a great coach and make an impact on winning, but you still disagree because if you're a bad coach somehow it doesn't matter?

Sorry, but I don't see the logic in that.

On the other hand I've used my logic as best I can to explain my perspective based on facts from the past we both have witnessed first hand.


Dwayne Wade? Really? ... PRIME Shaq and Kobe didn't make a damn difference at all when they were linked up with (a younger) Gary Payton and an extremely hungry yet old Karl Malone... So an older/slower Gary Payton goes and links up in a backcourt with an even worse jumpshooting Star named Wade, along with an older slightly past prime Shaq and replaced Hall of Fame Malone with a joke named Antoine Walker. And they win... And that is YOUR argument that coaches don't have much if anything at all to do with winning?


Again I agree players talent is the very BIGGEST thing that matters when it comes to winning. The only difference is me and you somehow see completely differently in how big or small of an impact coaches make. And I'm a little baffled by your opinion.

Blatt was carried by refs and a pretty good player... Brooks had 2 of the top what 5? Lets say 10 players in the NBA period... And honestly I don't like either but neither of them were absolutely horrible coaches, they were just average and in over their heads... Byron Scott was actually good once upon a time.

So I guess going by those examples I'll say that an average coach can be carried farther. But that still doesn't say anything about the horrible ones.

Hoiberg so far, is on the wrong end of that stick...


P.S. Taking a team farther than it's talent should allow it actually IS Rocket Science. There are not many men who can accomplish it...

[consultant]

This team will never go anywhere until Reinsdorf stops playing favorites. I've heard for years and even have some first hand experience with just how loyal Reinsdorf is to his friends, but there is a difference between being loyal and letting loyalty take advantage of you. This Gar guy is way out of his league and needs to be canned in the offseason. The Bulls had a top 3 coach in the NBA and instead of working with him to upgrade talent, he fires him for another Tim Floyd over personal issues (which sounds familiar, doesn't it?). It's hard to blame Hoiberg for taking a job he never should have been offered in the first place!

[nitetrain8603]

I don't think we the fans (or especially the Bulls organization) should be basing this on if our coach is NBA level. It's disgusting if thats the qualification for being the Chicago Bulls coach is...

The only logical quality that ANYONE who cares about Chicago Basketball should be looking for in our head coach is if we think we can win a ring with this individual running things.

Regardless of the roster, a championship coach would show you something that you can hang your hat on and know that they are elite and skilled and worthy of owning such a demanding position. You should feel like If/When we get a quality roster good enough to win it that this man can lead our squad and get the job done.

Does Hoiberg do that for you?

The head coach is a leader, but not the leader of a basketball team. You'll always go as far as the talent on your roster permits. This is a league where Luke Walton goes 34-1 with the Warriors and David Blatt was two wins away from winning a title in his first season.

So you think that an NBA team can win a Championship with Hoiberg running it?


I don't... Not even the Golden State Warriors... Maybe Jordan can win 1 (of the 6) just by his own shear will and leadership. Maybe...


I will say that players are the "Biggest" part of the equation when it comes to winning. But I think statements like yours take away from coaches impacts on winning and losing.

They may not have the Biggest impact but that doesn't mean they don't have a Huge one. I have to give credit to Pop, Carlisle, Tibs, Pat Riley etc. etc. Their teams won in VERY Large part due to them being there.

The same way I have to give credit to all the horrible coaches Cartwright, Boylen, (spelling?), Tim Floyd etc. Their teams were equally horrible. And even average coaches like Del Negro and Skiles their teams were always pretty average and usually showed to be good at a category or 2 just like them.

I'm positive I can't win a ring with Del Negro or Skiles running my team. And it's sad to say but I think those 2 are about as good as even the most optimistic Hoiberg supporter can realistically hope he can some day become.

I agree with you. There's not a moment this season where you say, "OK, this guy has it."

Has he shown at any level or point that he's better than Lon Kruger?

[Chi]

This team will never go anywhere until Reinsdorf stops playing favorites. I've heard for years and even have some first hand experience with just how loyal Reinsdorf is to his friends, but there is a difference between being loyal and letting loyalty take advantage of you. This Gar guy is way out of his league and needs to be canned in the offseason. The Bulls had a top 3 coach in the NBA and instead of working with him to upgrade talent, he fires him for another Tim Floyd over personal issues (which sounds familiar, doesn't it?). It's hard to blame Hoiberg for taking a job he never should have been offered in the first place!

No one is blaming him for "taking the job". I'd take the job too, and I'm not qualified either.

[Leslie Forman]

Let's be honest here.

If Hoiberg had only one year left instead of four, who here wouldn't fire him?

[MalagaBulls]

I was actually proposing to write a long thread about the roadmap we need to realise to get back to competitive, inspired, and championship basketball but that is filled with too many unknowns. I do think 2 key things that have to happen as do many here are that:
1. We have to have closure on the Gar Forman era sooner rather than later.
2. We need to move on from Drose after next summer.

Whether they happen is anyone's guess but if one were to be realistically objective then one would venture that Gar will be back next season and no major changes will happen until after Rose's contract expires.
I see Fred as being safe for at least 2 more seasons. Health and stress are the only things I could see affect him to the point of needing to step down.

[DJhitek]

I never bought into Fred as an NBA coach and I'm not a fan at all, but obviously we can't shake this injury bug and Rose/Butler do not mesh together well.

I think its too early to evaluate Fred as it stands unless the team is retooled during the summer. The defense falling of is concerning but Noah's injury probably has something to do with it. Just too many "what ifs" to conclude whether Fred is or not IMO.