Moderators: HomoSapien, Ice Man, dougthonus, Tommy Udo 6 , DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, Payt10, RedBulls23, coldfish, fleet, AshyLarrysDiaper, kulaz3000, Michael Jackson
Red8911 wrote: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.
dougthonus wrote:Red8911 wrote: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.
His team was on pace for 37 wins while he was head coach and his team fired him, but if you want to call it a great season for him then feel free I guess.
dice wrote:dougthonus wrote:Red8911 wrote: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.
His team was on pace for 37 wins while he was head coach and his team fired him, but if you want to call it a great season for him then feel free I guess.
and, like last season, any success they had was largely due to significant defensive improvement. team defense last 5 seasons:
29th (year before atkinson's arrival)
23rd
22nd
13th
8th
so is he known for coaching defense?
Jcool0 wrote: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).
dice wrote:Dez wrote:Showtime23 wrote:
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
dougthonus wrote:dice wrote:dougthonus wrote:
His team was on pace for 37 wins while he was head coach and his team fired him, but if you want to call it a great season for him then feel free I guess.
and, like last season, any success they had was largely due to significant defensive improvement. team defense last 5 seasons:
29th (year before atkinson's arrival)
23rd
22nd
13th
8th
so is he known for coaching defense?
Not sure if he's known for it, but the stats would suggest he's good at it. Though this year, they lost Russell whom is awful defensively and added Jordan, so some improvement may be based on personnel.
dougthonus wrote:Red8911 wrote: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.
His team was on pace for 37 wins while he was head coach and his team fired him, but if you want to call it a great season for him then feel free I guess.
Ralphb07 wrote:Red8911 wrote:Ralphb07 wrote: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.
Red8911 wrote:Ralphb07 wrote:Red8911 wrote: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.
What makes Griffin and Ime qualified to be ahead of the other 3? Reinsdorf might have his financial reasons to choose Griffin or Ime but I really don’t get why Thibs, Joerger, and Atkinson who are proven experienced NBA coaches are not first on your list. Doesn’t make sense to me.
Red8911 wrote:No one said it was a great season but he was making the playoffs regardless of their record and his roster was terrible, worse than the bulls that’s for sure.
His team overachieved for the second straight season with rosters that had no business being there, that has to count for something.
dougthonus wrote:MrFortune3 wrote: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.
MrFortune3 wrote:He helped shape a culture so fascinating that 2 superstar players ended up signing there. The Nets started with nothing and ended up in the playoffs and then 2 superstars after that. Most coaches would have had 3-4 losing seasons with no player development and the Nets still having no future.
dougthonus wrote:Red8911 wrote:No one said it was a great season but he was making the playoffs regardless of their record and his roster was terrible, worse than the bulls that’s for sure.
His team overachieved for the second straight season with rosters that had no business being there, that has to count for something.
I wouldn't say the Nets overachieved this year. I think that's a huge stretch.
Red8911 wrote:dougthonus wrote:Red8911 wrote:No one said it was a great season but he was making the playoffs regardless of their record and his roster was terrible, worse than the bulls that’s for sure.
His team overachieved for the second straight season with rosters that had no business being there, that has to count for something.
I wouldn't say the Nets overachieved this year. I think that's a huge stretch.
Based on the roster they had playing I think they definitely did over achieve. They could have easily been in the bottom of the standings. Again nothing special obviously but they at least made it to the top 8 in the east.
Isn’t this what the bulls want next season to make the playoffs?? If it is Atkinson is the right man for the job, he can develop young players, make them play hard and most importantly does it while competing/winning games.
ThreeYearPlan wrote:Bulls fans defend HomoSapien more than Rose.
dougthonus wrote:Mark K wrote: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 wrote:MrFortune3 wrote:He helped shape a culture so fascinating that 2 superstar players ended up signing there. The Nets started with nothing and ended up in the playoffs and then 2 superstars after that. Most coaches would have had 3-4 losing seasons with no player development and the Nets still having no future.
Giving him credit for superstars going there that immediately got him fired seems like a weird take. It seems instead like those guys went to Brooklyn in spite of Atkinson and immediately conspired to remove him.
As I noted, you're attributing everything positive that happened to Atkinson and nothing negative that happened to him. That could be the correct thing to do, but it's very infrequent in life that it is and there is quite a bit of very direct evidence against that in this specific case.
Mark K wrote:dougthonus wrote:MrFortune3 wrote:He helped shape a culture so fascinating that 2 superstar players ended up signing there. The Nets started with nothing and ended up in the playoffs and then 2 superstars after that. Most coaches would have had 3-4 losing seasons with no player development and the Nets still having no future.
Giving him credit for superstars going there that immediately got him fired seems like a weird take. It seems instead like those guys went to Brooklyn in spite of Atkinson and immediately conspired to remove him.
As I noted, you're attributing everything positive that happened to Atkinson and nothing negative that happened to him. That could be the correct thing to do, but it's very infrequent in life that it is and there is quite a bit of very direct evidence against that in this specific case.
There are quotes from Durant which suggested the way Brooklyn played and Atkinson coached factored into the decision.
nitetrain8603 wrote:Wow, people seem extremely one-sided or other-sided. I think KA is a good coach, but he hasn't proven enough to say it definitively. If he were hired, I have no problem and I'd support him. I'd also be somewhat skeptical.
