Smith's interviews w/JR/Pringles (more detailed than KC's)

[DuckIII]

Recently in a Casey thread, I asked about schemes. The thread went off track, but that's what I want to read about. My interest in a new coach is actually along the lines of what Paxson and Reinsdorf has indicated regarded set schemes. I want to see set concepts for both sides of the court. The Skiles defense and the triangle would be great for me. The Skiles defense and the princeton offense would also work.

I like the X's and O's of basketball. I loved watching the movement of teams like the old Bulls and Sacramento. That could get my interest back.

I believe the Brian Shaw thread includes excerpts from articles in which he describes what types of things he likes offensively and defensively. Its as good as you are going to get, I'd suspect. These detailed types of Xs and Os articles just aren't going to be out there with regard to assistant coaches and even some head coaches.

As doug pointed out in the other thread, its not what the media typically writes about or what the general fan even understands.

[Ralphb07]

-= original quote snipped =-



I would like to see a coach that will develop the players. I don't expect that to happen, but hey, there's a tiny chance.

I don't feel we got hosed. I wonder if it was Seattle and not the Knicks, it wouldn't be this bad.

Teams don't always get their #1 choice, and that's more true if someone else will pay them more money.

I'm still on the Thibo bandwagon btw. ;p

IMO getting a first time coach, I think he'll be more inclined to develop players. I can't remember what thread, but I said I wouldn't be as excited for a first time coach, and I feel I was wrong. It's been 4 days since D'Antoni and I've moved on and I'm really excited about Corbin, Curry,Shaw and Thibo. I don't know too much about Corbin and Curry, but Corbin played a good amount under Sloan and is learning from him, so that is a major plus in my book. Dumars thinks highly of Curry so that's all I need to hear about him.

The guy that most interest me the most is Shaw, working under Phil is a plus and I love that he knows how to run and use the triangle. What he said about a guy not touching the ball 3-4 times down the court that the PG needs to get him the ball, keep everyone in the game.

[League Circles]

Yeah what I love about Shaw and the triangle are that it works perfect if you have a team of relatively unselfish good passers but no "true PG." I think that fits our team to a T. He gets along with players, mentors Kobe and some scrubs liek Coby Karl at the same time, values pressure trapping D, and has exposure to Phil for years as a player and coach. IMO, you can;t ask for much more.

[Kneepad]

The guy that most interest me the most is Shaw, working under Phil is a plus and I love that he knows how to run and use the triangle. What he said about a guy not touching the ball 3-4 times down the court that the PG needs to get him the ball, keep everyone in the game.

Is Jim Cleamons one-and-done? Yeah, his first head job was a train wreck. But you gotta figure he learned from that and won't repeat the same mistakes. And if you like guys who have worked under Phil, is there anyone who has longer than him (other than Tex)?

[Magilla_Gorilla]

IMO getting a first time coach, I think he'll be more inclined to develop players. I can't remember what thread, but I said I wouldn't be as excited for a first time coach, and I feel I was wrong. It's been 4 days since D'Antoni and I've moved on and I'm really excited about Corbin, Curry,Shaw and Thibo. I don't know too much about Corbin and Curry, but Corbin played a good amount under Sloan and is learning from him, so that is a major plus in my book. Dumars thinks highly of Curry so that's all I need to hear about him.

The guy that most interest me the most is Shaw, working under Phil is a plus and I love that he knows how to run and use the triangle. What he said about a guy not touching the ball 3-4 times down the court that the PG needs to get him the ball, keep everyone in the game.

Co-sign on Corbin learning under Sloan. Shaw is starting to interest me the more I read about him. I haven't read anything about Curry but one short excerpt about player development.

At this point I'm over the Thib of Dough. Just a feeling - a gut feeling if you will.

[Dieselbound&Down]

A couple of points in response to the last couple posts:

No way does Phoenix go after Thibo. Kerr said he would not hire a coach with a totally different outlook and Kerr knows they need to win now. Hiring a defensive guru assistant with no head coaching experience will not happen.

John Thompson III would be a great hire as an assistant for a lot of reasons. Seeing him with a guy like Thibo would be most excellent (assuming Thibo is a decent HC mentality).

Quote by Ralph - "I still think Avery will be a damn good coach if we got him, and not to be rude, but 50% of the people that rag on him, are the same people that ragged on LB,JVG,Carlisle, etc, so they won't be happy no matter what. The only way I see them happy is if we hire a unknown."

I fall into the category that would not be overly happy with Avery, LB no way, JVG not so much and Carlisle no way. My position is that I don't want a micromanaging coach, especially one that slows down the offense and likes to call plays from the sidelines. I think all of those coaches tend to fit into that category to some degree or another.

I want to see this team play under a different philosophy and mindset. I also don't think you need an absolute taskmaster to get good defense and sharp execution. I like the fact that Casey and Shaw seem to be the current leaders.

I am looking forward to both a new coach and hopefully a strong staff of assistants. This team is a few years away from peaking, maybe more if it is blown up, and I think there is a lot more room for growth than we have given this current unit credit for IF the organization brings in the right type of leader.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

I want to see this team play under a different philosophy and mindset. I also don't think you need an absolute taskmaster to get good defense and sharp execution. I like the fact that Casey and Shaw seem to be the current leaders.

I am looking forward to both a new coach and hopefully a strong staff of assistants. This team is a few years away from peaking, maybe more if it is blown up, and I think there is a lot more room for growth than we have given this current unit credit for IF the organization brings in the right type of leader.

Co-Sign. Why are you reading my brain?

I like the idea of a Shaw / Cleamons pairing - but I don't think Cleamons would make a lateral move.

Shaw really intrigues me. He's worked and played under a plethora of coaches both good and bad. He has an aggressive attacking mentality on offense and defense.

This team is young enough and needs development, that playing for a first-time coach might be in our best interest.

[kyrv]

-= original quote snipped =-




IMO getting a first time coach, I think he'll be more inclined to develop players. I can't remember what thread, but I said I wouldn't be as excited for a first time coach, and I feel I was wrong. It's been 4 days since D'Antoni and I've moved on and I'm really excited about Corbin, Curry,Shaw and Thibo. I don't know too much about Corbin and Curry, but Corbin played a good amount under Sloan and is learning from him, so that is a major plus in my book. Dumars thinks highly of Curry so that's all I need to hear about him.

The guy that most interest me the most is Shaw, working under Phil is a plus and I love that he knows how to run and use the triangle. What he said about a guy not touching the ball 3-4 times down the court that the PG needs to get him the ball, keep everyone in the game.

That's also why I wouldn't mind, for this situation, thinking about a college coach. Although, being young, someone who has been around the NBA (in a good way, sorry Jimbo the Clown) would have advantages.

The more I hear about the group you listed, the more I might actually get pretty excited about the new coach.

[coldfish]

-= original quote snipped =-



Why are you even concern on what they think?

I read what people write on this board and sometimes it actually changes my mind.

I still think Avery will be a damn good coach if we got him, and not to be rude, but 50% of the people that rag on him, are the same people that ragged on LB,JVG,Carlisle, etc, so they won't be happy no matter what. The only way I see them happy is if we hire a unknown

With Thibo, I would be happy with him as well, though I feel if we don't hire Avery, Thibo,Corbin,Curry and Shaw should all be treated equally when it comes to being interviewed.

The only thing that concerns me is Phx will jump on Thibo and land him, but we can still land a good coach, the problem is can he bring good Asst in. The big name Asst are gone, but can they find the next Thibo or guys like that is the key.

I don't mind a not so big name Asst, I just want Asst that can teach and be there for the players

You wrote several things about Thibo that got me thinking about the effect of going from an assistant to head coach. I thought about it and agree that I understated the concern. Others have written good points about the negatives regarding Avery.

[GB]

-= original quote snipped =-
The Bulls spend a smaller percentage of revenue on player personnel and other expenses than just about any other team in the league.

Thats a really empty statistic since theres little correlation between spending and winning.

[GB]

-= original quote snipped =-

We also are never under threat that they will move or hold the city hostage for a new stadium. I like the stability.

Good point.

[GB]

-= original quote snipped =-



I would like to see a coach that will develop the players.

With the exception of a bit of time for Tyrus and Noah, it's time for the organization to move on from that.

[GB]

-= original quote snipped =-


Is Jim Cleamons one-and-done? Yeah, his first head job was a train wreck. But you gotta figure he learned from that and won't repeat the same mistakes. And if you like guys who have worked under Phil, is there anyone who has longer than him (other than Tex)?

You really want to see the Chicago media blow their top, don't you?

How about Bernie Bickerstaff?

Paul Silas?

[Scott May]

-= original quote snipped =-



Thats a really empty statistic since theres little correlation between spending and winning.

Great. So you'll show us the correlation between saving and winning . . . when?

(the metric is expenditures/revenues, remember)

[GB]

-= original quote snipped =-



Great. So you'll show us the correlation between saving and winning . . . when?

Boy is that a backwards argument you're making there.

Simply put, $$$$$ does not = more WWW than $$$ or $$$$.


Thats a general principle in all of sports...

[pdenninggolden]

-= original quote snipped =-



With the exception of a bit of time for Tyrus and Noah, it's time for the organization to move on from that.

Is there ever not a time for contined player development and progress from mastery of practiced skills?

[GB]

-= original quote snipped =-



Is there ever not a time for contined player development and progress from mastery of practiced skills?

I'm saying that the team needs to be in win mode, not develop, reload, or rebuild modes.

We've got a roster full of guys that can play the NBA game. We just need a coach who can get the most out of them.

[pdenninggolden]

-= original quote snipped =-



I'm saying that the team needs to be in win mode, not develop, reload, or rebuild modes.

We've got a roster full of guys that can play the NBA game. We just need a coach who can get the most out of them.

I think we are in agreement here.

[Scott May]

-= original quote snipped =-



Boy is that a backwards argument you're making there.

Simply put, $$$$$ does not = more WWW than $$$ or $$$$.


Thats a general principle in all of sports...

You are confusing throwing money around with spending at a level that is in line with revenues.

I'm not going to crunch the numbers again, and the search function blows, but I doubt that there is a single final eight NBA team from the last nine seasons that spent a smaller percentage of its revenue than the Bulls did.

[GB]

-= original quote snipped =-



You are confusing throwing money around with spending at a level that is in line with revenues.

I'm not going to crunch the numbers again, and the search function blows, but I doubt that there is a single final eight NBA team from the last nine seasons that spent a smaller percentage of its revenue than the Bulls did.

And again, it's a meaningless statistic because it has little to do with the product on the floor.

It's a made up stat used to bash the owner...