Jackson Fired - more competition for a coach

[Pharaoh]

If Schlenk knew he was on his way to Detroit and needed a decent head coach would he try and convince the remaining GSW front office to keep Jackson?

Better to be quiet and thought the fool...

I personally have no issue or drama with Jackson. He took the Warriors to the playoffs back to back....they won 51 games in the West...

The problem I have with him as coach is its debatable he could coach inside out. We've never seen him coach a team with someone like Drummond...

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[theBigLip]

When it comes to sports, team building, and personal responsibility most religions of the world are in agreement. Even humanism has communist doctrine which can be used for team building. Im sure Jackson used some pretty vague parameters that one could use in a church, temple, mosque, synagogue or Stonehenge.

It just seems to me that this is a San Fransisco play. You can justify firing a minority if you call him a religious nut. Remember Jim Jones was from San Francisco and he was called "normal" I would trust these peoples opinion on religion as much as I would trust the people of Mecca on good pork BBQ or the people of Paris on deodorant.

The Bay Area is the most diverse place in the country. Especially compared to behind the times Michigan.


If anything it's a Christian v Jew thing. Jackson comes off as taking no sh*t either and the GSW boys just want their yes man.

Despite their 2 years of success, the Warriors are still one of the most inept organizations in basketball.

The Bay area is tolerant of deviant and the absurd but not of morality and common sense. Like I said they liked Jim Jones and Charles Manson but banned Billy Graham and the USS Iowa memorial.

First of all, you're quite judgmental yourself - you've already defined what is "common sense" and what is "absurd". So Billy Graham is common sense? And I totally disagree with you on the Charles Manson comment. Just because he lived in California doesn't mean California is tolerant of mass murderers. LA was terrified when that was going down.

[theBigLip]

When it comes to sports, team building, and personal responsibility most religions of the world are in agreement. Even humanism has communist doctrine which can be used for team building. Im sure Jackson used some pretty vague parameters that one could use in a church, temple, mosque, synagogue or Stonehenge.

It just seems to me that this is a San Fransisco play. You can justify firing a minority if you call him a religious nut. Remember Jim Jones was from San Francisco and he was called "normal" I would trust these peoples opinion on religion as much as I would trust the people of Mecca on good pork BBQ or the people of Paris on deodorant.

The Bay Area is the most diverse place in the country. Especially compared to behind the times Michigan.


If anything it's a Christian v Jew thing. Jackson comes off as taking no sh*t either and the GSW boys just want their yes man.

Despite their 2 years of success, the Warriors are still one of the most inept organizations in basketball.

The Bay area is tolerant of deviant and the absurd but not of morality and common sense. Like I said they liked Jim Jones and Charles Manson but banned Billy Graham and the USS Iowa memorial.

Also, what's the issue about the USS Iowa? I looked it up in Wiki and not much to complain about. Seems like different locations were looking for funding. How is this an example of intolerance?

In March 2007, the Historic Ships Memorial at Pacific Square (HSMPS) of Vallejo, site of the former Mare Island Naval Shipyard, and a Stockton group submitted proposals.[57] The HSMPS, which had attempted to place the ship in San Francisco, supported the Mare Island—Vallejo site. In October 2007 the Navy informed HSMPS that they were the only viable candidate to acquire Iowa, and their application would be further reviewed after evidence was presented that financing was in place, and when the Stockton and San Francisco groups withdrew or failed to submit a final application respectively.[58][59] On 25 April 2009, Iowa Senate Resolution No. 19 was approved, endorsing HSMPS as USS Iowa's custodian and supporting the battleship's placement at Mare Island.[60]

In February 2010, the Pacific Battleship Center (PBC)[61] was behind efforts to have the ship berthed in San Pedro, Los Angeles, California.[62] In late February the Port of Los Angeles (which includes the San Pedro area) rejected a proposal by the PBC to berth the battleship at its facilities because the battleship was not yet available.[63] On 12 April 2010, the Governor of Iowa signed into law Bill SJR2007, which officially formed a 10-member committee to raise about $5 million for the group awarded the USS Iowa.[64] The statement supporting the Vallejo group in the original Iowa State Senate's version SR19 was struck in favor of supporting any group actually awarded the battleship.[60]

On 13 May 2010, the Navy announced it would reopen the bidding process, citing HSMPS's lack of progress as the reason.[65] On 24 May 2010 the Federal Register officially reopened the bidding process for the USS Iowa to a California-based city or non-profit organization.[66][67]

On 18 November 2010, the Port of Los Angeles Harbor Commissioners voted unanimously on a resolution to support Berth 87 as the future home of the USS Iowa, clearing the way for The Pacific Battleship Center to send its completed application to the Navy.[68] On 6 September 2011, the USS Iowa was awarded to Pacific Battleship Center for placement at the Port of Los Angeles. After rehabilitation at the Port of Richmond, California, (beginning in October 2011), the ship was designated to be towed to and berthed in the Port of Los Angeles.[69][70]

Starting 10 December 2011, the USS Iowa was open for weekend tours. The Battleship Expo at the Port of Richmond included shipboard access and other exhibits such as 16-inch shells, a short film about the battleship, and other exhibits.[71] On 30 April 2012, the USS Iowa was officially donated to the Pacific Battleship Center in Los Angeles by the United States Navy.[72]

The USS Iowa began her journey to the Port of Los Angeles on 26 May 2012 under tow by tugboats. After being anchored off the Southern California coast to have her hull scrubbed to remove any invasive species or contaminants, she was permanently anchored on 9 June 2012 in San Pedro at Berth 87, along the Main Channel, directly south of the World Cruise Center. The museum opened to the public on 7 July, under the direction and control of Pacific Battleship Center.[73] [74]

[Warspite]

Yes it there was a funding issue. Anyone that gave funds was boycotted and had threats against them. As you can see the Iowa had to wait almost a generation to be finally moved to LA. She was opened up for tours over a decade after her 3 sisters who are birthed in Hawaii, Virginia and New Jersey. No I dont expect Wiki or even reporters to cover the issue honestly. What does it tell you when you read that the people of Iowa were able to raise the funds but not the people of CA who were to benefit from the tourism that she would bring?


Are we to believe that the state which can afford to spend 8 mil on turtle bridges over highways cant afford the 5 for the USS Iowa? That businesses that would get a boom from the visitors just couldnt invest in bringing her to their area?

In the end Im glad she is in LA and Ill be visiting her in in August.

[Phobo_Phile]

I take my faith extremely seriously and I think I'm perfectly sane lol, not nuts. Again, not that it offends me but I was pointing out the double standard that insulting Christians is perfectly fine whereas insulting homosexuals or another race is off limits. That's all I was saying.

Except people are born gay, religious beliefs are a choice. And there is always a certain level of zealotry that could draw the line of whether one is a normal believer and a "nut."

If you are openly proselytizing your beliefs to people, chances are that you might be a nut.

[AngryPistonsGuy]

I respect anyone who takes their faith seriously, as well as those who have no faith. But as a man who practices a faith other than Christianity, I would be very uncomfortable with a coach who pushes HIS faith on his players so heavily, which is well documented, and is known for alienating staff. I don't push my faith on others, and feel awkward when others try to push their faith on me. The league has Christians, Muslims, Jews, Athiests...Coaching style aside, I think in a multi-cultural league, pushing ones own beliefs has no place. This is the National Basketball Association, not a church rec league.

On that note, people discuss how far he pushed this team. They don't realize how insanely talented the Warriors are. They are stacked. Realistically, they should have been far better. He is a motivational speaker. He doesn't typically call plays, and when he does, they are uninspired and predictable. His team loved him, because he built up their confidence. And that's fantastic. Every team should have a "pick me up" guy as their assistant. But youtube the huddles he has with his team during time outs, and then check out the huddles Thibs has with his Bulls, and you will notice a very obvious difference. I think Thibs could get caught with a car full of hookers and crack, and I'd still prefer a him 11 times out of 10 over Mark Jackson. And that's based SOLELY on Thibs ability to coach, not Mark's arrogance, insecurity, and hive mind mentality he preaches.

He's not a religious nut. He's just an insecure man that is far more focused on his cult of personality than X's and O's on the court. This isn't opinion, it's documented.

My point wasn't supporting him forcing his faith on his players. If he wants to share his faith with them here and there I'm fine with it obviously, just like I would be fine with any other person sharing their faith with me here and there. I agree he shouldn't be cramming it down there throats 24/7 though unless that is what they want. My point was against calling him a "nut" just for taking his faith seriously. I don't think that is a fair thing to call him. I take my faith extremely seriously and I think I'm perfectly sane lol, not nuts. Again, not that it offends me but I was pointing out the double standard that insulting Christians is perfectly fine whereas insulting homosexuals or another race is off limits. That's all I was saying.

As I said, I don't think he is a nut for being religious. I don't think anyone called him a nut simply because he took faith seriously, if you reread the whole comment line, you were the only one who insinuated that. I think he is more concerned with winning hearts and minds than calling plays.

And I would not be fine with him wanting to share his faith with players, unless there was some spoken agreement ahead of time that it would be happening and the players were cool with it. I feel instantly uncomfortable when people begin sharing their faith with me, because you must admit, it's hard to share ones faith with someone of another faith without some awkwardness. I never forget, in High School I had a teacher, in my public school, who had a poster over her desk that said "Not having Jesus in the classroom, is like taking a test without a pencil," and I dreaded going to her class, because of her dropping her beliefs into class related things. It was an extremely alienating experience, and she just dropped it "here and there", not constantly.

I don't think there is a double standard for insulting Christians as opposed to other groups. I find people who insult any religions just as disgusting as I find those who insult people of other sexual orientations. It's fascinating to me that some people are insecure enough to spend SO MUCH TIME insulting people who are different than them, and yet have no effect on their lives whatsoever. It's a double edged sword though.

Of course you are free to disagree with other people's lifestyles, but when you do so vocally, it is fair for people to disagree back with you vocally. Everyone is free to have their own beliefs, as long as you realize that when you state your popular opinion, people are just as free to respond with their opinion. It's the beauty of this country.

[Q00]

If Schlenk knew he was on his way to Detroit and needed a decent head coach would he try and convince the remaining GSW front office to keep Jackson?

Better to be quiet and thought the fool...

I personally have no issue or drama with Jackson. He took the Warriors to the playoffs back to back....they won 51 games in the West...

The problem I have with him as coach is its debatable he could coach inside out. We've never seen him coach a team with someone like Drummond...

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

I agree on Schlenk/Jackson. Out of all the reported issues with Jackson and management, Schlenks name was never brought up in any of that too.

As far him coaching inside-out, for one, Drummond isn't really a low post scorer yet so that shouldn't be much of an issue yet, but Jackson did build a great defense around a defensive Center in Bogut. Being that most of Drummond's potential is as a defensive anchor too, that's encouraging to me.

You could also look at the Golden State offense and say the reason it was so perimeter oriented was just personnel influenced, because his best scorers were his guards, and assume if he had the opposite he would likewise build the offense around the frontcourt instead. I'm really less concerned about this next coaches offense though and more interested in their ability to coach defense. We put up 101 ppg this year and only won 29 games. We need a better defensive approach than offensive. What Jackson did with a historically soft defensive franchise in the Warriors tells me he can get any team to D up, and that's the type of coach we need.

[Pharaoh]

I agree he doesn't get enough credit for their D.

Bogut and Iggy the only "known" defensive players in the starting 5...and they play with Lee (notoriously soft) & Curry (gives 100% on the other end to be fair)

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[AngryPistonsGuy]

I agree he doesn't get enough credit for their D.

Bogut and Iggy the only "known" defensive players in the starting 5...and they play with Lee (notoriously soft) & Curry (gives 100% on the other end to be fair)

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Why would he get credit for their D, when David Lee is still just as soft, and Curry is giving 100% of his effort on offense, and he has 2 defensive specialists in the starting lineup? Shouldn't he get credit for their D if David Lee and Curry were playing solid defense now, instead of just the guys who have historically always been good on defense?

Don't forget, he has other guys on that team with defensive gifts, specifically our Spartan Draymond Green.

You can't give him credit for D, when his defensive players are just doing the same thing they've always done, and his non defensive players are still not playing defense. That's giving him credit for something he didn't change.

If he got David Lee AND Curry both playing real solid defense, I'd give that dude all the credit in the world though, for real.

[Pharaoh]

Ummm...please tell us where the Warriors D ranked this past season.

THAT'S what you credit him for!

Team D matters...and is far more important than random fans calling NBA players soft!

We call David Lee soft because he's not a bruising PF. In reality dude is obviously not soft since he's got the mental and physical toughness to succeed in the NBA.

And IMO Green's contribution is another thing you can praise Jackson for.

It's not easy plugging in role players...not as easy as some on here would have you believe.

It seems a lot of people haven't experienced being part of a team or managed a team...

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[LoboGuerrero]

I'm warming up to the possibility of Mark Jackson. My biggest worry is his predictable offense. That said, I've heard criticism that the Warriors played too much inside-out, which for them team might be a legit criticism, but for us actually makes sense to do. And the Warriors did have some creative plays to get Curry and Klay open, so I think it's possible for Jackson (or an assistant) to install some more of that too.

And he improved their defense bottom 5 in his first season there to top 5 this year. Of course, during that time they added Bogut and Iguodala, but this at least shows that Jackson can utilize defensive talent, and cover for the average to below-average defense from his other starters. Not to mention that both of those guys missed decent chunks of time this year (19 games for Iguodala and 15 games for Bogut) and they still had a top 5 (4th overall) defense.

Edit: my biggest concern is whether he and our new F.O. would feud. I honestly don't know what to make out of the Golden State situation, or where blame should lie, but it still concerns me.

[Sheeeeed]

There seems to be a pattern of behavior here.

http://jazzbasketball.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/jazz-mythbusters-mark-jackson-vs-john-stocktons/

[Stockton] may be getting a push out the door by his new backup this season and the No. 2 man on the career assist list, 38-year-old Mark Jackson. Three members of the Jazz organization now understand why Jackson has been traded seven times in his 16-year career: They say that over a period of weeks, he succeeded in turning several teammates against Stockton by repeatedly remarking that those players would be better off if Jackson were the Jazz’s floor leader. Other players* rallied around Stockton, who, because of his quiet nature, was vulnerable to the locker room politicking. The rift on the Jazz was mended, though not before Stockton’s pride had been wounded. “There was no question it hurt John, because you could see him withdraw,” says a high-ranking team official. “But he’ll never talk about it, just as he won’t talk about injuries, because then he feels like he’s making excuses for himself.”

http://www.warriorsworld.net/2014/05/07/gods-devils-and-dysfunction-the-truth-about-mark-jackson/

At first, the “us against them” was the entire organization against those outside of it. In the beginning, Jackson inspired his players to believe they were better than they were. He was a huge positive in their lives both on and off the court. Many players performed better because of Jackson. Last season, it was Jarrett Jack and Carl Landry. No doubt, Jackson played a major role in Steph Curry’s growth into stardom. Draymond Green and Klay Thompson improved dramatically under Jackson.

But it became obvious over time that it was all about Jackson and his belief in the players. The “us” became Jackson and his players and the “them” was everyone else – including Warriors management and some of his coaches. Some players began to realize that it was unrealistic that those outside of Jackson’s inner circle would not want them to succeed. Would the organization really want players to fail just so they could fire Jackson? That was the message players were receiving. It didn’t make sense.

[Q00]

I agree he doesn't get enough credit for their D.

Bogut and Iggy the only "known" defensive players in the starting 5...and they play with Lee (notoriously soft) & Curry (gives 100% on the other end to be fair)

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

This is a great point. Any time a coach can take a team full of mostly soft defenders and turn them into a top 5 defense, that's the type of coach you want.

[Ghost]

If Schlenk knew he was on his way to Detroit and needed a decent head coach would he try and convince the remaining GSW front office to keep Jackson?

Better to be quiet and thought the fool...

I personally have no issue or drama with Jackson. He took the Warriors to the playoffs back to back....they won 51 games in the West...

The problem I have with him as coach is its debatable he could coach inside out. We've never seen him coach a team with someone like Drummond...

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

This idea interested me as well but it'd be better if Jackson could put together the assistant coaches necessary to maybe develop a better offensive scheme and provide help with rotations. Maybe it was just because the personnel in Golden State but at times his lineups looked extremely awkward.

The suspense is killing me waiting for this news of the HC and GM .. I just wish it would happen already! Hopefully we'll look back and say "damn that really was a good idea"

[rmfc]

Mark Jacks. ...err...Mike Brown is now available.

[Pharaoh]

Pattern of behavior or not cultivating the "us" (Players & Coaches) vs "the world" (management + everyone else) mentality IS successful!

Jackson is charged with leading a group of people who, while they want to do well collectively many amongst them have goals that can easily detract from those if the group.

You're dealing with millionaires in a lot of cases, dudes that may not be driven to "succeed" (Stuckey) because they've already "succeeded"!

In order to pull the team closer together a person in Jackson's position would fall back on the us vs them dynamic...and it would likely succeed since people want to be part if something greater than themselves.

The deama is where you draw the line - who is "us"?

Phil Jackson did it in Chicago - the players hated Jerry Krause!

I don't believe the us should exclude team personnel though. As an organization we're all fighting for the same goal and I'd be reluctant to hire anyone that needed to create that kind of atmosphere when it's easy to say us is our entire organization and the world is the rest of the league

Sent from my GT-I9300 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[mercury]

Man I hope they don't talk to Mike Brown... he makes Kuester sound smart.

[paQo the BAWSER]

Mark Jackson is stupid but he's a very good coach.

[AngryPistonsGuy]

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/23 ... atchet-Job

I'll just leave this here. People don't dislike Mark Jackson for no reason.

[kf96]

SVG is close to deal with Pistons.

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk