Mark Jackson to Steve Kerr offense

[Lunartic]

Hi Dubs guys, we're having a discussion on the Bulls board concerning the GSW's offense changes made from Jackson to Kerr. A poster is suggesting that there were little/no changes made by Kerr

We're talking about Xs and Os, and of fans and the media, there's probably like 1-2% of people who can legitimately explain to you why a coach is good at Xs and Os. Everything else is just noise.

LIke, there's no way we're attributing the Warriors dynasty to Steve Kerr coming out the commentary booth and unleashing some masterful Xs and Os that the league was unable to adapt to ever again.

Suggesting his relationship with the FO/players is what led to the changes rather than functional, objective shifts in offensive ideology.

You guys are the biggest stat nerds on Realgm so I figured I'd just ask your opinion - perhaps I'm far off but It's clear to me that he allowed Draymond to operate as a point forward and took Curry off-ball more making them ridiculously difficult to defend.

Thoughts? Opinions? Did the shift in coaches matter at all? Are Kerr and Jackson tactically/coachingly the same level?

[Onus]

Yes the offensive philosophy changed completely. We went from one of the most stagnant offenses with few passes (Jackson) to the highest passes per game (Kerr) in 1 season. If we played the way Jackson was having us play we never win a title. We never had the offensive talent to play the way Lebron does.

[DonaldSanders]

Kerr changed the offense, unlocking Steph.

Jackson wanted Steph to be more of a traditional PG. Steve had the vision for all the movement shooting -- went from 12th in ORTG to 2nd.
People saw it at the time -- a lot more screens being set for Curry while he ran around, much less Steph standing around dribbling. Motion!

Here is an old video describing some differences early in the '14-15 season, plenty of Xs and Os:

Watch on YouTube

[jozef]

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/enterpriseWarriors/how-steve-kerr-revolutionized-golden-state-warriors-offense-charcuterie-board

[vvoland]

https://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/page/enterpriseWarriors/how-steve-kerr-revolutionized-golden-state-warriors-offense-charcuterie-board

Thanks for digging that up.

I think the biggest change, beyond the offensive philosophy was the 3pt volume and the "quality" of shots that Steve let Klay and Steph attempt. The immediate success really helped but the clips of Steve going 'no.. no.. no.... YES!" were going viral for years. Jackson would yank Steph from the game. 3pt FGAs are a simple stat but tell a big story - in Steve's first year, Steph's minutes went down to 32 while his 3pt FGA per 36 increased from 7.8 to 8.9 and 11.8 in Steve's 2nd year. 50% increase in 3pt attempts in 12 months is a massive change. Similar increase happened for Klay.

Defensively, however, is where the biggest impact came and it was, mostly, by accident. Sure, Steph and the offense gets the headlines but D. Lee getting hurt, Dray becoming the starting 4, Iggy going to the bench, and Bogut getting healthy gave us the best defense in the league until KD left. THAT is what everyone forgets about this dynasty. I know your question was about offense but I wanted to mention this as our defense was, consistently, the better unit over our offense even though the narrative was the opposite.

[floppymoose]

Mark Jackson offense: night
Steve Kerr offense: day

[NeoWarriors]

We ran horns. Double horns. Elevator. And post-ups. Klay got all his points posting up at the elbow. This is the only thing I remember from Mark Jackson's offense.

Sent from my Golden State Warriors ProToast Elite toaster using RealGM mobile app

[Chris Porter's Hair]

Hi Dubs guys, we're having a discussion on the Bulls board concerning the GSW's offense changes made from Jackson to Kerr. A poster is suggesting that there were little/no changes made by Kerr

We're talking about Xs and Os, and of fans and the media, there's probably like 1-2% of people who can legitimately explain to you why a coach is good at Xs and Os. Everything else is just noise.

LIke, there's no way we're attributing the Warriors dynasty to Steve Kerr coming out the commentary booth and unleashing some masterful Xs and Os that the league was unable to adapt to ever again.

Suggesting his relationship with the FO/players is what led to the changes rather than functional, objective shifts in offensive ideology.

You guys are the biggest stat nerds on Realgm so I figured I'd just ask your opinion - perhaps I'm far off but It's clear to me that he allowed Draymond to operate as a point forward and took Curry off-ball more making them ridiculously difficult to defend.

Thoughts? Opinions? Did the shift in coaches matter at all? Are Kerr and Jackson tactically/coachingly the same level?

I don't know if what Kerr installed was revolutionary or brilliant, but what Jackson was doing on offense was dumb. He had the greatest shooter in history, and wanted him playing like... well, like Mark Jackson. Add in there that Mark Jackson was absolutely poison to the people around him, and it was a huge improvement.

If the discussion that brought you here was around whether Kerr deserves credit or whether he was just in the right place, I'd say he deserves more credit than most people give him. Not necessarily because he's a wizard with a chalkboard. But because he's done (for the most part) an exceptional job getting talented players to be selfless and buy into what we're doing here and do what is needed to win. Over his tenure, plenty of players joined us here and quickly said, "Oh. Wow. I've never been in a culture/locker room like this." It is an interesting question whether he's able to work that magic with young players, because we haven't had as much luck there. The current Kuminga situation is a prime example.

[Onus]

Hi Dubs guys, we're having a discussion on the Bulls board concerning the GSW's offense changes made from Jackson to Kerr. A poster is suggesting that there were little/no changes made by Kerr

We're talking about Xs and Os, and of fans and the media, there's probably like 1-2% of people who can legitimately explain to you why a coach is good at Xs and Os. Everything else is just noise.

LIke, there's no way we're attributing the Warriors dynasty to Steve Kerr coming out the commentary booth and unleashing some masterful Xs and Os that the league was unable to adapt to ever again.

Suggesting his relationship with the FO/players is what led to the changes rather than functional, objective shifts in offensive ideology.

You guys are the biggest stat nerds on Realgm so I figured I'd just ask your opinion - perhaps I'm far off but It's clear to me that he allowed Draymond to operate as a point forward and took Curry off-ball more making them ridiculously difficult to defend.

Thoughts? Opinions? Did the shift in coaches matter at all? Are Kerr and Jackson tactically/coachingly the same level?

I don't know if what Kerr installed was revolutionary or brilliant, but what Jackson was doing on offense was dumb. He had the greatest shooter in history, and wanted him playing like... well, like Mark Jackson. Add in there that Mark Jackson was absolutely poison to the people around him, and it was a huge improvement.

If the discussion that brought you here was around whether Kerr deserves credit or whether he was just in the right place, I'd say he deserves more credit than most people give him. Not necessarily because he's a wizard with a chalkboard. But because he's done (for the most part) an exceptional job getting talented players to be selfless and buy into what we're doing here and do what is needed to win. Over his tenure, plenty of players joined us here and quickly said, "Oh. Wow. I've never been in a culture/locker room like this." It is an interesting question whether he's able to work that magic with young players, because we haven't had as much luck there. The current Kuminga situation is a prime example.

Not even young players and the JK situation. But what about the Klay situation. The Poole situation. Kerr definitely lucked out that he was coaching professionals in Steph, Klay, Iguodala who while young were professionals and willing to buy in. We saw once KD didn't buy in and checked out there was nothing Kerr could do. Once Poole checked out there was nothing Kerr could do. Once Klay checked out there was nothing Kerr could do. So while Kerr was able to help cultivate the culture in the locker room with good vibes, the players themselves were also a huge part of that.

The only player he was really able to get to buy into a lesser role on the team was Iguodala.

[vvoland]

Hi Dubs guys, we're having a discussion on the Bulls board concerning the GSW's offense changes made from Jackson to Kerr. A poster is suggesting that there were little/no changes made by Kerr



Suggesting his relationship with the FO/players is what led to the changes rather than functional, objective shifts in offensive ideology.

You guys are the biggest stat nerds on Realgm so I figured I'd just ask your opinion - perhaps I'm far off but It's clear to me that he allowed Draymond to operate as a point forward and took Curry off-ball more making them ridiculously difficult to defend.

Thoughts? Opinions? Did the shift in coaches matter at all? Are Kerr and Jackson tactically/coachingly the same level?

I don't know if what Kerr installed was revolutionary or brilliant, but what Jackson was doing on offense was dumb. He had the greatest shooter in history, and wanted him playing like... well, like Mark Jackson. Add in there that Mark Jackson was absolutely poison to the people around him, and it was a huge improvement.

If the discussion that brought you here was around whether Kerr deserves credit or whether he was just in the right place, I'd say he deserves more credit than most people give him. Not necessarily because he's a wizard with a chalkboard. But because he's done (for the most part) an exceptional job getting talented players to be selfless and buy into what we're doing here and do what is needed to win. Over his tenure, plenty of players joined us here and quickly said, "Oh. Wow. I've never been in a culture/locker room like this." It is an interesting question whether he's able to work that magic with young players, because we haven't had as much luck there. The current Kuminga situation is a prime example.

Not even young players and the JK situation. But what about the Klay situation. The Poole situation. Kerr definitely lucked out that he was coaching professionals in Steph, Klay, Iguodala who while young were professionals and willing to buy in. We saw once KD didn't buy in and checked out there was nothing Kerr could do. Once Poole checked out there was nothing Kerr could do. Once Klay checked out there was nothing Kerr could do. So while Kerr was able to help cultivate the culture in the locker room with good vibes, the players themselves were also a huge part of that.

The only player he was really able to get to buy into a lesser role on the team was Iguodala.

I think that's underselling it. I think he kept that 3rd KD year on the rails and we were on our way to the 3peat if it wasn't for 2 catastrophic injuries. I wouldn't downplay that year.

I also think he did an amazing job juggling Iggy, Dray, Bogut, Barnes, and some of those earlier teams' more complex personalities. Kerr def got lucky with Steph and Iggy but not so sure about the rest of that list. Steph deserves the most credit, Dray also gets a ton. After that? I can't think of anyone, iggy & klay included, that did more to get those 4 rings than Kerr.

[Onus]

I don't know if what Kerr installed was revolutionary or brilliant, but what Jackson was doing on offense was dumb. He had the greatest shooter in history, and wanted him playing like... well, like Mark Jackson. Add in there that Mark Jackson was absolutely poison to the people around him, and it was a huge improvement.

If the discussion that brought you here was around whether Kerr deserves credit or whether he was just in the right place, I'd say he deserves more credit than most people give him. Not necessarily because he's a wizard with a chalkboard. But because he's done (for the most part) an exceptional job getting talented players to be selfless and buy into what we're doing here and do what is needed to win. Over his tenure, plenty of players joined us here and quickly said, "Oh. Wow. I've never been in a culture/locker room like this." It is an interesting question whether he's able to work that magic with young players, because we haven't had as much luck there. The current Kuminga situation is a prime example.

Not even young players and the JK situation. But what about the Klay situation. The Poole situation. Kerr definitely lucked out that he was coaching professionals in Steph, Klay, Iguodala who while young were professionals and willing to buy in. We saw once KD didn't buy in and checked out there was nothing Kerr could do. Once Poole checked out there was nothing Kerr could do. Once Klay checked out there was nothing Kerr could do. So while Kerr was able to help cultivate the culture in the locker room with good vibes, the players themselves were also a huge part of that.

The only player he was really able to get to buy into a lesser role on the team was Iguodala.

I think that's underselling it. I think he kept that 3rd KD year on the rails and we were on our way to the 3peat if it wasn't for 2 catastrophic injuries. I wouldn't downplay that year.

I also think he did an amazing job juggling Iggy, Dray, Bogut, Barnes, and some of those earlier teams' more complex personalities. Kerr def got lucky with Steph and Iggy but not so sure about the rest of that list. Steph deserves the most credit, Dray also gets a ton. After that? I can't think of anyone, iggy & klay included, that did more to get those 4 rings than Kerr.

Kerr kept that 19 team together? When KD took 6 shots? We were just more talented than other teams that it didn't really matter.

I'm not saying how much credit Kerr deserves. I'm only talking about the culture of buy in and getting players to be selfless. The only player that was actually selfless was Iguodala under Kerr. Everyone else was either really professional or wasn't able to be reigned in once things actually broke.

[vvoland]

Not even young players and the JK situation. But what about the Klay situation. The Poole situation. Kerr definitely lucked out that he was coaching professionals in Steph, Klay, Iguodala who while young were professionals and willing to buy in. We saw once KD didn't buy in and checked out there was nothing Kerr could do. Once Poole checked out there was nothing Kerr could do. Once Klay checked out there was nothing Kerr could do. So while Kerr was able to help cultivate the culture in the locker room with good vibes, the players themselves were also a huge part of that.

The only player he was really able to get to buy into a lesser role on the team was Iguodala.

I think that's underselling it. I think he kept that 3rd KD year on the rails and we were on our way to the 3peat if it wasn't for 2 catastrophic injuries. I wouldn't downplay that year.

I also think he did an amazing job juggling Iggy, Dray, Bogut, Barnes, and some of those earlier teams' more complex personalities. Kerr def got lucky with Steph and Iggy but not so sure about the rest of that list. Steph deserves the most credit, Dray also gets a ton. After that? I can't think of anyone, iggy & klay included, that did more to get those 4 rings than Kerr.

Kerr kept that 19 team together? When KD took 6 shots? We were just more talented than other teams that it didn't really matter.

I'm not saying how much credit Kerr deserves. I'm only talking about the culture of buy in and getting players to be selfless. The only player that was actually selfless was Iguodala under Kerr. Everyone else was either really professional or wasn't able to be reigned in once things actually broke.

KD and Dray were at each other's throats, KD was being real moody with his shooting/passing, and we still rolled through the playoffs until the injuries hit. I'm not saying Kerr was holding that team together like duct tape but, with a different coach, that team is much more likely to implode after that KD/Dray kerfuffle, no pun intended.

[Lunartic]

Hi Dubs guys, we're having a discussion on the Bulls board concerning the GSW's offense changes made from Jackson to Kerr. A poster is suggesting that there were little/no changes made by Kerr

We're talking about Xs and Os, and of fans and the media, there's probably like 1-2% of people who can legitimately explain to you why a coach is good at Xs and Os. Everything else is just noise.

LIke, there's no way we're attributing the Warriors dynasty to Steve Kerr coming out the commentary booth and unleashing some masterful Xs and Os that the league was unable to adapt to ever again.

Suggesting his relationship with the FO/players is what led to the changes rather than functional, objective shifts in offensive ideology.

You guys are the biggest stat nerds on Realgm so I figured I'd just ask your opinion - perhaps I'm far off but It's clear to me that he allowed Draymond to operate as a point forward and took Curry off-ball more making them ridiculously difficult to defend.

Thoughts? Opinions? Did the shift in coaches matter at all? Are Kerr and Jackson tactically/coachingly the same level?

I don't know if what Kerr installed was revolutionary or brilliant, but what Jackson was doing on offense was dumb. He had the greatest shooter in history, and wanted him playing like... well, like Mark Jackson. Add in there that Mark Jackson was absolutely poison to the people around him, and it was a huge improvement.

If the discussion that brought you here was around whether Kerr deserves credit or whether he was just in the right place, I'd say he deserves more credit than most people give him. Not necessarily because he's a wizard with a chalkboard. But because he's done (for the most part) an exceptional job getting talented players to be selfless and buy into what we're doing here and do what is needed to win. Over his tenure, plenty of players joined us here and quickly said, "Oh. Wow. I've never been in a culture/locker room like this." It is an interesting question whether he's able to work that magic with young players, because we haven't had as much luck there. The current Kuminga situation is a prime example.

The discussion is centered around whether coaching matters after you have an average level coach. As in, is a Kerr/Spo/Carlisle significantly better than a Vogel/Brown?

I think it's a worthwhile difference and thus teams with an average coach and losing record shouldn't just rest on their laurels and assume they only need to make player changes to improve.

I used Jackson as an example of an average type coach with a good roster, the team improved year on year under him despite his shortcomings but once Kerr took the reins it was night and day. I came begging to you guys because it's not obvious to some posters on the Bulls forum that Kerr had a large impact on the GSW's massive improvement in 2014-15.

I'm aware of Jackson's strange interpersonal skills and antics around church-going and ostracization - my estimation is that on the court he was an average coach and did play a positive role in developing Curry/Klay.

How would you rate Jackson as a tactician/on the court adjustments guy?

[vvoland]

Hi Dubs guys, we're having a discussion on the Bulls board concerning the GSW's offense changes made from Jackson to Kerr. A poster is suggesting that there were little/no changes made by Kerr



Suggesting his relationship with the FO/players is what led to the changes rather than functional, objective shifts in offensive ideology.

You guys are the biggest stat nerds on Realgm so I figured I'd just ask your opinion - perhaps I'm far off but It's clear to me that he allowed Draymond to operate as a point forward and took Curry off-ball more making them ridiculously difficult to defend.

Thoughts? Opinions? Did the shift in coaches matter at all? Are Kerr and Jackson tactically/coachingly the same level?

I don't know if what Kerr installed was revolutionary or brilliant, but what Jackson was doing on offense was dumb. He had the greatest shooter in history, and wanted him playing like... well, like Mark Jackson. Add in there that Mark Jackson was absolutely poison to the people around him, and it was a huge improvement.

If the discussion that brought you here was around whether Kerr deserves credit or whether he was just in the right place, I'd say he deserves more credit than most people give him. Not necessarily because he's a wizard with a chalkboard. But because he's done (for the most part) an exceptional job getting talented players to be selfless and buy into what we're doing here and do what is needed to win. Over his tenure, plenty of players joined us here and quickly said, "Oh. Wow. I've never been in a culture/locker room like this." It is an interesting question whether he's able to work that magic with young players, because we haven't had as much luck there. The current Kuminga situation is a prime example.

The discussion is centered around whether coaching matters after you have an average level coach. As in, is a Kerr/Spo/Carlisle significantly better than a Vogel/Brown?

I think it's a worthwhile difference and thus teams with an average coach and losing record shouldn't just rest on their laurels and assume they only need to make player changes to improve.

I used Jackson as an example of an average type coach with a good roster, the team improved year on year under him despite his shortcomings but once Kerr took the reins it was night and day. I came begging to you guys because it's not obvious to some posters on the Bulls forum that Kerr had a large impact on the GSW's massive improvement in 2014-15.

I'm aware of Jackson's strange interpersonal skills and antics around church-going and ostracization - my estimation is that on the court he was an average coach and did play a positive role in developing Curry/Klay.

How would you rate Jackson as a tactician/on the court adjustments guy?

Very poorly. He was rigid in his philosophy and wouldn't budge even though he recognized we had the greatest shooting backcourt in history before anyone else did.

[Onus]

Hi Dubs guys, we're having a discussion on the Bulls board concerning the GSW's offense changes made from Jackson to Kerr. A poster is suggesting that there were little/no changes made by Kerr



Suggesting his relationship with the FO/players is what led to the changes rather than functional, objective shifts in offensive ideology.

You guys are the biggest stat nerds on Realgm so I figured I'd just ask your opinion - perhaps I'm far off but It's clear to me that he allowed Draymond to operate as a point forward and took Curry off-ball more making them ridiculously difficult to defend.

Thoughts? Opinions? Did the shift in coaches matter at all? Are Kerr and Jackson tactically/coachingly the same level?

I don't know if what Kerr installed was revolutionary or brilliant, but what Jackson was doing on offense was dumb. He had the greatest shooter in history, and wanted him playing like... well, like Mark Jackson. Add in there that Mark Jackson was absolutely poison to the people around him, and it was a huge improvement.

If the discussion that brought you here was around whether Kerr deserves credit or whether he was just in the right place, I'd say he deserves more credit than most people give him. Not necessarily because he's a wizard with a chalkboard. But because he's done (for the most part) an exceptional job getting talented players to be selfless and buy into what we're doing here and do what is needed to win. Over his tenure, plenty of players joined us here and quickly said, "Oh. Wow. I've never been in a culture/locker room like this." It is an interesting question whether he's able to work that magic with young players, because we haven't had as much luck there. The current Kuminga situation is a prime example.

The discussion is centered around whether coaching matters after you have an average level coach. As in, is a Kerr/Spo/Carlisle significantly better than a Vogel/Brown?

I think it's a worthwhile difference and thus teams with an average coach and losing record shouldn't just rest on their laurels and assume they only need to make player changes to improve.

I used Jackson as an example of an average type coach with a good roster, the team improved year on year under him despite his shortcomings but once Kerr took the reins it was night and day. I came begging to you guys because it's not obvious to some posters on the Bulls forum that Kerr had a large impact on the GSW's massive improvement in 2014-15.

I'm aware of Jackson's strange interpersonal skills and antics around church-going and ostracization - my estimation is that on the court he was an average coach and did play a positive role in developing Curry/Klay.

How would you rate Jackson as a tactician/on the court adjustments guy?

I think coaching matters. How much does it matter over an average coach? Hard to tell as it depends on what your goals are. You can be a game breaking regular season coach but unable to adapt in the playoffs. You can be a developmental coach who is there to build a culture and identity. Or you can be a x's and o's tactician who is able to adjust in real time for specific series/matchups. Obviously it would be great to have 1 person be the best at all of those things but probably too hard to find someone like that.

I think Jackson was really good to build a culture and defensive identity. As a tactician and adjustment though hard to really say since both times he was ousted in the playoffs was due to injuries. I think there were serious limitations to his coaching philosophy as Kerr's offense was able to use everyone. The biggest difference is that Steph doesn't have to create every single action with the ball, so we're able to use Bogut/Dray's passing/screening and their inability to score wasn't as big of an issue.

[vvoland]

I don't know if what Kerr installed was revolutionary or brilliant, but what Jackson was doing on offense was dumb. He had the greatest shooter in history, and wanted him playing like... well, like Mark Jackson. Add in there that Mark Jackson was absolutely poison to the people around him, and it was a huge improvement.

If the discussion that brought you here was around whether Kerr deserves credit or whether he was just in the right place, I'd say he deserves more credit than most people give him. Not necessarily because he's a wizard with a chalkboard. But because he's done (for the most part) an exceptional job getting talented players to be selfless and buy into what we're doing here and do what is needed to win. Over his tenure, plenty of players joined us here and quickly said, "Oh. Wow. I've never been in a culture/locker room like this." It is an interesting question whether he's able to work that magic with young players, because we haven't had as much luck there. The current Kuminga situation is a prime example.

The discussion is centered around whether coaching matters after you have an average level coach. As in, is a Kerr/Spo/Carlisle significantly better than a Vogel/Brown?

I think it's a worthwhile difference and thus teams with an average coach and losing record shouldn't just rest on their laurels and assume they only need to make player changes to improve.

I used Jackson as an example of an average type coach with a good roster, the team improved year on year under him despite his shortcomings but once Kerr took the reins it was night and day. I came begging to you guys because it's not obvious to some posters on the Bulls forum that Kerr had a large impact on the GSW's massive improvement in 2014-15.

I'm aware of Jackson's strange interpersonal skills and antics around church-going and ostracization - my estimation is that on the court he was an average coach and did play a positive role in developing Curry/Klay.

How would you rate Jackson as a tactician/on the court adjustments guy?

I think coaching matters. How much does it matter over an average coach? Hard to tell as it depends on what your goals are. You can be a game breaking regular season coach but unable to adapt in the playoffs. You can be a developmental coach who is there to build a culture and identity. Or you can be a x's and o's tactician who is able to adjust in real time for specific series/matchups. Obviously it would be great to have 1 person be the best at all of those things but probably too hard to find someone like that.

I think Jackson was really good to build a culture and defensive identity. As a tactician and adjustment though hard to really say since both times he was ousted in the playoffs was due to injuries. I think there were serious limitations to his coaching philosophy as Kerr's offense was able to use everyone. The biggest difference is that Steph doesn't have to create every single action with the ball, so we're able to use Bogut/Dray's passing/screening and their inability to score wasn't as big of an issue.

Benching bogut, playing dray at 5, and going 'small' was not a commonly accepted practice and not one Jackson ever subscribed to. He was a typical, heavy PnR, offensive coach that lacked imagination. Kerr took the team to a new level with his personality but, in addition, he brought great plays (his ATOs were legendary for years), incredible 2nd half adjustments, and a completely novel offensive philosophy, centered around an off-ball point guard.

[Chris Porter's Hair]

Some of these responses reminded me of another interesting difference.

Kerr has surrounded himself with talented assistants, and let them play a major part in what we've done. So much so that it is another reason some posters don't credit Kerr with our successes; they will just ascribe offensive success to our offensive assistants, and defensive success to our defensive assistants. I don't buy that entirely, but I do think he's usually surrounded himself with excellent staff and let them help.

This was another area where Mark Jackson was a mess. He chose poor assistants, and couldn't stand to have assistants that might take the attention away from him or disagree with him. I was concerned my terrible memory might be making this up, but this article seems to agree with my recollection:
https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/12/6/7344165/mark-jackson-warriors-reasons-joe-lacob

From that article, Jackson's assistants were: Lindsay Hunter, Brian Scalabrine, Pete Myers, Jerry DeGregorio and Darren Erman. I'm trying to remember if any of them have had a job on the bench since.
Now think of Kerr. He's part of the Popovich coaching tree, and has continued to add limbs. There are ex-Warriors assistants scattered around the league, and whenever there's an opening around the league, I worry another of our assistants will get snatched up. He has also not been afraid to bring in high profile assistants who were former head coaches, and who became head coaches again after leaving here.

This is a decent summary:
https://www.reddit.com/r/warriors/comments/1d1eit5/does_anyone_have_a_list_of_all_the_former_warrior/

[Old_Blue]

Some of these responses reminded me of another interesting difference.

Kerr has surrounded himself with talented assistants, and let them play a major part in what we've done. So much so that it is another reason some posters don't credit Kerr with our successes; they will just ascribe offensive success to our offensive assistants, and defensive success to our defensive assistants. I don't buy that entirely, but I do think he's usually surrounded himself with excellent staff and let them help.

This was another area where Mark Jackson was a mess. He chose poor assistants, and couldn't stand to have assistants that might take the attention away from him or disagree with him. I was concerned my terrible memory might be making this up, but this article seems to agree with my recollection:
https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/12/6/7344165/mark-jackson-warriors-reasons-joe-lacob

From that article, Jackson's assistants were: Lindsay Hunter, Brian Scalabrine, Pete Myers, Jerry DeGregorio and Darren Erman. I'm trying to remember if any of them have had a job on the bench since.
Now think of Kerr. He's part of the Popovich coaching tree, and has continued to add limbs. There are ex-Warriors assistants scattered around the league, and whenever there's an opening around the league, I worry another of our assistants will get snatched up. He has also not been afraid to bring in high profile assistants who were former head coaches, and who became head coaches again after leaving here.

This is a decent summary:
https://www.reddit.com/r/warriors/comments/1d1eit5/does_anyone_have_a_list_of_all_the_former_warrior/

Well said. Steve Kerr hate is, to be blunt, sus.

[Onus]

Some of these responses reminded me of another interesting difference.

Kerr has surrounded himself with talented assistants, and let them play a major part in what we've done. So much so that it is another reason some posters don't credit Kerr with our successes; they will just ascribe offensive success to our offensive assistants, and defensive success to our defensive assistants. I don't buy that entirely, but I do think he's usually surrounded himself with excellent staff and let them help.

This was another area where Mark Jackson was a mess. He chose poor assistants, and couldn't stand to have assistants that might take the attention away from him or disagree with him. I was concerned my terrible memory might be making this up, but this article seems to agree with my recollection:
https://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/12/6/7344165/mark-jackson-warriors-reasons-joe-lacob

From that article, Jackson's assistants were: Lindsay Hunter, Brian Scalabrine, Pete Myers, Jerry DeGregorio and Darren Erman. I'm trying to remember if any of them have had a job on the bench since.
Now think of Kerr. He's part of the Popovich coaching tree, and has continued to add limbs. There are ex-Warriors assistants scattered around the league, and whenever there's an opening around the league, I worry another of our assistants will get snatched up. He has also not been afraid to bring in high profile assistants who were former head coaches, and who became head coaches again after leaving here.

This is a decent summary:
https://www.reddit.com/r/warriors/comments/1d1eit5/does_anyone_have_a_list_of_all_the_former_warrior/

Well said. Steve Kerr hate is, to be blunt, sus.

Is there Steve Kerr hate in this thread?

[statsman]

Can't believe Mark Jackson's name has been revived again. He's had 11 years so far to find another coaching job.