Bulls considering Kenny Atkinson for HC

[dice]

Atkinson may be amazing, I don't know much about him.

His work with the Nets on a results basis is complete trash to me.
Year 1: Competing with tanking teams while not trying to tank.
Year 2: Competing with tanking teams while not trying to tank.
Year 3: Big improvement, gets to 42 wins, in an extremely weak east.
Year 4: Kicked out because star players don't respect him.

Now his roster quality sucked in year 1 and 2, so I don't ding him for that as "wow he's awful", but there shouldn't be any credit given to him either. Year 3 he had a good year, and people say he developed the talent, but talent development is mostly done by the assistants not the head coach. Year 4, he was removed because star players didn't respect him.

That's not a compelling set of outcomes. Effectively, one year in four could be considered a success, and we seem like we'd like to attract star players, so getting a coach that was removed due to stars not liking him seems like not in our best interest.

That said, I refer back to the first statement, I don't really know much about him (or any coaching candidate) and so many of those things may have been circumstances that were not reasonable or fair to gauge, but on the surface, Atkinson seems heavily overrated to me.

He took the Nets from a terrible situation with no reasonable draft picks, developed those players enough to build a playoff program while instilling good basketball on both sides of the ball, so much so that it led to them landing Kyrie and Durant.

Atkinson is good and not overrated at all.

the reason for their improvement team-wise in his 3rd season as coach was that team defense improved from 22nd to 14th. did his defensive principles suddenly kick in in year 3? did they work harder that season for some reason? and why didn't they improve from god-awful in his first year when he took over for an interim coach?

russell got significantly better at age 22 after dealing w/ injury his first year in brooklyn...does atkinson get credit for that? probably some. russell has had mixed things to say about atkinson. and dinwiddie became a known quantity in brooklyn under atkinson, himself giving atkinson much of the credit for giving him burn. but they had no good PGs on the roster (jeremy lin was the starter but he missed most of the season). caris levert also gives atkinson a lot of credit for his development. was jarrett allen effective from the get-go because of atkinson? how about joe harris becoming a quality player in brooklyn? hard to say. but on balance the young players he coached seem to be pretty high on him

[Dominator83]

Atkinson may be amazing, I don't know much about him.

His work with the Nets on a results basis is complete trash to me.
Year 1: Competing with tanking teams while not trying to tank.
Year 2: Competing with tanking teams while not trying to tank.
Year 3: Big improvement, gets to 42 wins, in an extremely weak east.
Year 4: Kicked out because star players don't respect him.

Now his roster quality sucked in year 1 and 2, so I don't ding him for that as "wow he's awful", but there shouldn't be any credit given to him either. Year 3 he had a good year, and people say he developed the talent, but talent development is mostly done by the assistants not the head coach. Year 4, he was removed because star players didn't respect him.

That's not a compelling set of outcomes. Effectively, one year in four could be considered a success, and we seem like we'd like to attract star players, so getting a coach that was removed due to stars not liking him seems like not in our best interest.

That said, I refer back to the first statement, I don't really know much about him (or any coaching candidate) and so many of those things may have been circumstances that were not reasonable or fair to gauge, but on the surface, Atkinson seems heavily overrated to me.

He took the Nets from a terrible situation with no reasonable draft picks, developed those players enough to build a playoff program while instilling good basketball on both sides of the ball, so much so that it led to them landing Kyrie and Durant.

Atkinson is good and not overrated at all.

I really don't understand Doug's stance on Atkinson at all.
He tends to bring up the Nets being a bad team and having every reason to not tank given their draft picks were owned by other franchises.
You have to have actual talent to win in the NBA and he turned some cast offs and so so players into playoff basketball players.

Yea exatly. What I saw in year 1 and year 2 was alot like Brett Brown with the Hinkie Sixers. The team had little talent, but guys played hard and there was a system in place. Also developed Dinwiddie who was a throw away before he found Atkinson.

[Dominator83]

Atkinson may be amazing, I don't know much about him.

His work with the Nets on a results basis is complete trash to me.
Year 1: Competing with tanking teams while not trying to tank.
Year 2: Competing with tanking teams while not trying to tank.
Year 3: Big improvement, gets to 42 wins, in an extremely weak east.
Year 4: Kicked out because star players don't respect him.

Now his roster quality sucked in year 1 and 2, so I don't ding him for that as "wow he's awful", but there shouldn't be any credit given to him either. Year 3 he had a good year, and people say he developed the talent, but talent development is mostly done by the assistants not the head coach. Year 4, he was removed because star players didn't respect him.

That's not a compelling set of outcomes. Effectively, one year in four could be considered a success, and we seem like we'd like to attract star players, so getting a coach that was removed due to stars not liking him seems like not in our best interest.

That said, I refer back to the first statement, I don't really know much about him (or any coaching candidate) and so many of those things may have been circumstances that were not reasonable or fair to gauge, but on the surface, Atkinson seems heavily overrated to me.

He took the Nets from a terrible situation with no reasonable draft picks, developed those players enough to build a playoff program while instilling good basketball on both sides of the ball, so much so that it led to them landing Kyrie and Durant.

Atkinson is good and not overrated at all.

the reason for their improvement team-wise in his 3rd season as coach was that team defense improved from 22nd to 14th. did his defensive principles suddenly kick in in year 3? did they work harder that season for some reason? and why didn't they improve from god-awful in his first year when he took over for an interim coach?

russell got significantly better at age 22 after dealing w/ injury his first year in brooklyn...does atkinson get credit for that? probably some. russell has had mixed things to say about atkinson. and dinwiddie became a known quantity in brooklyn under atkinson, himself giving atkinson much of the credit for giving him burn. but they had no good PGs on the roster (jeremy lin was the starter but he missed most of the season). caris levert also gives atkinson a lot of credit for his development. was jarrett allen effective from the get-go because of atkinson? how about joe harris becoming a quality player in brooklyn? hard to say. but on balance the young players he coached seem to be pretty high on him

Its been the polar opposite of here. Guys there were developing, while we fail to develop anybody.

[drosereturn]

Atkinson may be amazing, I don't know much about him.

His work with the Nets on a results basis is complete trash to me.
Year 1: Competing with tanking teams while not trying to tank.
Year 2: Competing with tanking teams while not trying to tank.
Year 3: Big improvement, gets to 42 wins, in an extremely weak east.
Year 4: Kicked out because star players don't respect him.

Now his roster quality sucked in year 1 and 2, so I don't ding him for that as "wow he's awful", but there shouldn't be any credit given to him either. Year 3 he had a good year, and people say he developed the talent, but talent development is mostly done by the assistants not the head coach. Year 4, he was removed because star players didn't respect him.

That's not a compelling set of outcomes. Effectively, one year in four could be considered a success, and we seem like we'd like to attract star players, so getting a coach that was removed due to stars not liking him seems like not in our best interest.

That said, I refer back to the first statement, I don't really know much about him (or any coaching candidate) and so many of those things may have been circumstances that were not reasonable or fair to gauge, but on the surface, Atkinson seems heavily overrated to me.

He took the Nets from a terrible situation with no reasonable draft picks, developed those players enough to build a playoff program while instilling good basketball on both sides of the ball, so much so that it led to them landing Kyrie and Durant.

Atkinson is good and not overrated at all.

I dont understand why a coach that improved a horrible team to a ecf contenders is someone with question marks. You dont have to follow the Nets and watch 82 games to figure it out. Every yr his win totals improved with little to no talent.

[Dez]

Atkinson may be amazing, I don't know much about him.

His work with the Nets on a results basis is complete trash to me.
Year 1: Competing with tanking teams while not trying to tank.
Year 2: Competing with tanking teams while not trying to tank.
Year 3: Big improvement, gets to 42 wins, in an extremely weak east.
Year 4: Kicked out because star players don't respect him.

Now his roster quality sucked in year 1 and 2, so I don't ding him for that as "wow he's awful", but there shouldn't be any credit given to him either. Year 3 he had a good year, and people say he developed the talent, but talent development is mostly done by the assistants not the head coach. Year 4, he was removed because star players didn't respect him.

That's not a compelling set of outcomes. Effectively, one year in four could be considered a success, and we seem like we'd like to attract star players, so getting a coach that was removed due to stars not liking him seems like not in our best interest.

That said, I refer back to the first statement, I don't really know much about him (or any coaching candidate) and so many of those things may have been circumstances that were not reasonable or fair to gauge, but on the surface, Atkinson seems heavily overrated to me.

He took the Nets from a terrible situation with no reasonable draft picks, developed those players enough to build a playoff program while instilling good basketball on both sides of the ball, so much so that it led to them landing Kyrie and Durant.

Atkinson is good and not overrated at all.

I really don't understand Doug's stance on Atkinson at all.
He tends to bring up the Nets being a bad team and having every reason to not tank given their draft picks were owned by other franchises.
You have to have actual talent to win in the NBA and he turned some cast offs and so so players into playoff basketball players.

The tanking was being done by all of the other teams around the Nets, not the Nets themselves.

Tanking teams = Better Nets record

[Dez]

Atkinson may be amazing, I don't know much about him.

His work with the Nets on a results basis is complete trash to me.
Year 1: Competing with tanking teams while not trying to tank.
Year 2: Competing with tanking teams while not trying to tank.
Year 3: Big improvement, gets to 42 wins, in an extremely weak east.
Year 4: Kicked out because star players don't respect him.

Now his roster quality sucked in year 1 and 2, so I don't ding him for that as "wow he's awful", but there shouldn't be any credit given to him either. Year 3 he had a good year, and people say he developed the talent, but talent development is mostly done by the assistants not the head coach. Year 4, he was removed because star players didn't respect him.

That's not a compelling set of outcomes. Effectively, one year in four could be considered a success, and we seem like we'd like to attract star players, so getting a coach that was removed due to stars not liking him seems like not in our best interest.

That said, I refer back to the first statement, I don't really know much about him (or any coaching candidate) and so many of those things may have been circumstances that were not reasonable or fair to gauge, but on the surface, Atkinson seems heavily overrated to me.

He took the Nets from a terrible situation with no reasonable draft picks, developed those players enough to build a playoff program while instilling good basketball on both sides of the ball, so much so that it led to them landing Kyrie and Durant.

Atkinson is good and not overrated at all.

I dont understand why a coach that improved a horrible team to a ecf contenders is someone with question marks. You dont have to follow the Nets and watch 82 games to figure it out. Every yr his win totals improved with little to no talent.

Of course you don't understand because you've made up a completely fictional situation again.

[MrFortune3]

He took the Nets from a terrible situation with no reasonable draft picks, developed those players enough to build a playoff program while instilling good basketball on both sides of the ball, so much so that it led to them landing Kyrie and Durant.

Atkinson is good and not overrated at all.

I really don't understand Doug's stance on Atkinson at all.
He tends to bring up the Nets being a bad team and having every reason to not tank given their draft picks were owned by other franchises.
You have to have actual talent to win in the NBA and he turned some cast offs and so so players into playoff basketball players.

The tanking was being done by all of the other teams around the Nets, not the Nets themselves.

Tanking teams = Better Nets record

Most of the tanking teams were in the West those years. 5 of the lotto teams the year the Nets made the playoffs were in the West and 2 of the picks East teams had over Brooklyn were traded from West teams the year prior or even before that.

[dice]

He took the Nets from a terrible situation with no reasonable draft picks, developed those players enough to build a playoff program while instilling good basketball on both sides of the ball, so much so that it led to them landing Kyrie and Durant.

Atkinson is good and not overrated at all.

I dont understand why a coach that improved a horrible team to a ecf contenders is someone with question marks. You dont have to follow the Nets and watch 82 games to figure it out. Every yr his win totals improved with little to no talent.

Of course you don't understand because you've made up a completely fictional situation again.

his last sentence is fictional as well

[PrimzyBulls81]

Damn, soo many weird comments here about Kenny. I hope he gets Knicks job and he proves you antiAtkinson camp wrong or even Bulls job, but NYK will probably best us to it.
He is good coach, good developement coach and he would be good fit for the Bulls.
Joe, Spencer, Caris, Jarrett, Kurucs all loved him and for a reason. What drama queens Kyrie and Durant think, I really dont care much as they want coach who will pet them like babies and not to give them hard time about bad training. Also KD is big friend od D. Jordan and DeAndre wouldnt play that much under KA. Soo, do your math experts.

I prefer Griff or Ime as Bulls coach, but KA would be good fit too.

[dougthonus]

He took the Nets from a terrible situation with no reasonable draft picks, developed those players enough to build a playoff program while instilling good basketball on both sides of the ball, so much so that it led to them landing Kyrie and Durant.

Atkinson is good and not overrated at all.

That is certainly the absolutely most positive, optimistic take on the situation, which is the one the majority of people seem to be taking. Maybe it's a realistic take, but as I noted, if you look at the overall results, there's a lot of room for a very reasonable negative take that says he's really pretty awful.

[dougthonus]

I really don't understand Doug's stance on Atkinson at all.
He tends to bring up the Nets being a bad team and having every reason to not tank given their draft picks were owned by other franchises.
You have to have actual talent to win in the NBA and he turned some cast offs and so so players into playoff basketball players.

Literally, the most optimistic take on Atkinson is that in the three out of four years where his team was bad, even relative to low expectations, he gets 0% of the blame, but in the one year they overachieved to get to average in a really weak Eastern conference for 42 wins that he gets the lions share of the credit.

That very well may be the correct take. As I've said, I don't know much about Atkinson really (or any of these guys), but I don't think anyone else does here either. I think we're all working on relative information parity, and I am surprised with how many people seem bought into the absolutely most optimistic, ignore all red flags take on this guy.

[dougthonus]

I dont understand why a coach that improved a horrible team to a ecf contenders is someone with question marks. You dont have to follow the Nets and watch 82 games to figure it out. Every yr his win totals improved with little to no talent.

ECF contenders?

Come on man, they were 42-40 in their best year, lost 4-1 in the first round and were blown out in 3 of the 4 losses. They weren't ECF contenders. They weren't even 2nd round contenders.

[Ralphb07]

Atkinson should be on the list but If I am looking for a veteran HC I am going Thibs who has actually had better results. I want the new fresh face, which is why I prefer Ime and Griffin. Atkinson would be better than Boylen but I would be a little bummed if he was the coach over Ime, Griffin and Thibs. I’d take Joeger over him too.

[ImSlower]

I've become pretty enamored over Ime. He's so dreamy. Oops! I meant, I respect the heaps of praise thrown about when reading commentary by others in the basketball world. Although Griffin sounds like he checks all the boxes as well.

I'd probably talk myself into liking an Atkinson hire, but I agree with Ralph, I'd peg him fourth. Perhaps third - I would be exceedingly surprised if they brought back Thibs, though I have faith he would make us a winner again.

I think Atkinson has the highest chance of failure if brought in. I liked the overachieving look of the Nets teams, but as Doug points out, they were beating atrocious teams, and when stars came into the picture, Atkinson lost the team instead of moving them to true playoff threats.

[Jcool0]

Seems like he is either the next Mike Malone (fired by Sacramento after less then 2 years then turned Denver into a contender) or the next David Joerger (good coach with interpersonal issues).

[Red8911]

Atkinson may be amazing, I don't know much about him.

His work with the Nets on a results basis is complete trash to me.
Year 1: Competing with tanking teams while not trying to tank.
Year 2: Competing with tanking teams while not trying to tank.
Year 3: Big improvement, gets to 42 wins, in an extremely weak east.
Year 4: Kicked out because star players don't respect him.

Now his roster quality sucked in year 1 and 2, so I don't ding him for that as "wow he's awful", but there shouldn't be any credit given to him either. Year 3 he had a good year, and people say he developed the talent, but talent development is mostly done by the assistants not the head coach. Year 4, he was removed because star players didn't respect him.

That's not a compelling set of outcomes. Effectively, one year in four could be considered a success, and we seem like we'd like to attract star players, so getting a coach that was removed due to stars not liking him seems like not in our best interest.

That said, I refer back to the first statement, I don't really know much about him (or any coaching candidate) and so many of those things may have been circumstances that were not reasonable or fair to gauge, but on the surface, Atkinson seems heavily overrated to me.

. Let’s also mention Year 4 he again made the playoffs (or was about to before he got fired) with a not very good roster. Durant was obviously out and even Irving missed most of the season as well. They did it with guys like Dinwiddie and Levert, Atkinson gets credit for this too.

[Red8911]

Atkinson should be on the list but If I am looking for a veteran HC I am going Thibs who has actually had better results. I want the new fresh face, which is why I prefer Ime and Griffin. Atkinson would be better than Boylen but I would be a little bummed if he was the coach over Ime, Griffin and Thibs. I’d take Joeger over him too.

This should be the list, first Thibs then Joerger, Atkinson. If you can’t get any of these 3 who are the best current available coaches then you go for the Griffins and the Imes.

[Jcool0]

Atkinson should be on the list but If I am looking for a veteran HC I am going Thibs who has actually had better results. I want the new fresh face, which is why I prefer Ime and Griffin. Atkinson would be better than Boylen but I would be a little bummed if he was the coach over Ime, Griffin and Thibs. I’d take Joeger over him too.

This should be the list, first Thibs then Joerger, Atkinson. If you can’t get any of these 3 who are the best current available coaches then you go for the Griffins and the Imes.

Why would you want Joerger? It will just lead to a coaching search in 3 years.

[Ralphb07]

Atkinson should be on the list but If I am looking for a veteran HC I am going Thibs who has actually had better results. I want the new fresh face, which is why I prefer Ime and Griffin. Atkinson would be better than Boylen but I would be a little bummed if he was the coach over Ime, Griffin and Thibs. I’d take Joeger over him too.

This should be the list, first Thibs then Joerger, Atkinson. If you can’t get any of these 3 who are the best current available coaches then you go for the Griffins and the Imes.

My list is Ime, Griffin, Thibs, Joerger and Atkinson.

[Ralphb07]

Atkinson should be on the list but If I am looking for a veteran HC I am going Thibs who has actually had better results. I want the new fresh face, which is why I prefer Ime and Griffin. Atkinson would be better than Boylen but I would be a little bummed if he was the coach over Ime, Griffin and Thibs. I’d take Joeger over him too.

This should be the list, first Thibs then Joerger, Atkinson. If you can’t get any of these 3 who are the best current available coaches then you go for the Griffins and the Imes.

Why would you want Joerger? It will just lead to a coaching search in 3 years.

Joerger wouldn’t be my first choice either but I do think he is a better coach than Atkinson.