RealGM

Hey guys, Mavs fan here. As you probably know by now, we fired Avery and one of the leading candidates is Rick Carlisle. Much has been said about the 13-win turn around you guys got even after the departure of Miller, etc. but from our experience -- win totals doesn't tell the whole story. I have no idea how Avery managed to rack up so many wins while being oblivious to the concept of in-game adjustments and without a single set play.

That said: how is Rick Carlisle as a coach? I've heard he was a bit anal (which was one of the many problems with Avery although to say "a bit" is an understatement) and tends to get complacent when the other team makes a run. I want to hear it straight out of the horse's mouth, ya'll.

Boring and dull. He's all defense. He didn't even know how to run an offense.

Grang33r wrote:Boring and dull. He's all defense. He didn't even know how to run an offense.

I loved him as coach. He may have been boring on the offensive end, but he knew how to coach, unlike Obie. If you want to run a fast paced offense, he won't be a good fit. If you are looking to become the next Spurs, you have a great coach.

Like any coach, after three seasons, his act gets old, but during his first couple of seasons here...I thought he did an excellent job. He's really good at defense, and while his style is often boring, if you have the right players, it will win a lot of basketball games.

PacersRule07 wrote:Like any coach, after three seasons, his act gets old, but during his first couple of seasons here...I thought he did an excellent job. He's really good at defense, and while his style is often boring, if you have the right players, it will win a lot of basketball games.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. He's a good coach, but he'll lose his players after a couple of years. At least that seems to be the MO in Detroit and Indy.

The boring aspect is oversold. They played grind it out ball in 2004, won 61 games, and nobody thought it was boring. However, as the injuries and suspensions mounted, and the talent and wins dwindled, the boring aspect became more draining to watch.

He was (and is) a better coach than Avery Johnson was (and is) in my opinion.

I liked him for the most part, but those defensive minded, hard nosed coaches lose their players after 2 or 3 years in the same place. Heres something I want to see teams do: have "coordinators" (for lack of a better term) for offense and defense and such. The Celtics are that much better this year not just because of KG and Ray Allen, but in part because Doc handed over the reigns of the defense to Thibodeau. Why dont defensive minded coaches hire an offensive minded assistant to run that? I realize a lot of offense goes off your defensive strategy and such, but its an interesting thought nonetheless.

lol not only did arkuo post the very same topic but our wording were almost exactly the same

I always thought highly of Rick.

His teams played defense and no he didn't have them run and gun they played to their strengths on offense.

Truth be told Rick did not deserve to get fired. I thought maybe Jim can turn Jamaal around. But Rick wasn't the problem and Jim isn't the problem, Jamaal is. This was not a better team under Jim then we would have been under Rick but that is just my opinion.

If the Mavs want run and gun then go after Mike D'Antoni. But regardless of style Rick is a top 5 coach in this league. Whoever gets him will be lucky.

He needs a great right-hand man, like when Mike Brown was helping out in Indy. The man just need good assistants. By himself, he's an excellent disciplinary guy.

Again, I think Rick is a good coach. However, I think he had become part of the problem around here in his own way. It's a problem that wasn't going to be solved by just getting rid of the coach, nor was it a problem that was going to be solved by just getting rid of the players.

The Brawl and its after-effects tainted everyone involved in it. I think that Rick, JO, and JT will see success again after finding a new environment. I'm hopeful that the Pacers (and the ones left behind, specifically Danny) are moving out from under that cloud.

Grang33r wrote:Boring and dull. He's all defense. He didn't even know how to run an offense.

I don't think that's entirely accurate, Rick Carlisle was running the flex offense to perfection, we just didn't have great outside shooters to knock down the wide-open shots on a consistent basis.

Rick was a very good job, but I think the most common complaint we heard as fans was from many of the players who complained about the rigid offensive system. Players were allowed very little room to be creative and Carlisle called in almost every single play from the sideline. Players like Harrington, Jackson, and Tinsley all made those complaints known publicly once they were no longer coached by Carlisle. He typically forced players into his offensive system which many times operated as "Dribble the ball for 10 seconds, dump it into JO and let him iso on the mid post and see what he can do". Play was slowed down, focused and always ended up in halfcourt sets. We had very few fastbreaks.


Defensively, his teams always had very good team defense philosophies and schemes that helped to mask weaker defensive players. If you could put a Carlisle defensively coached team with a D'Antoni offensive team, you'd be a top team immediately. However, it's one or the other. He's about a complete opposite of D'Antoni. Defensive over offensive. Control over speed. Lack of player freedom offensively as opposed to a 7 second rule offensively where Nash had free rein and there essentially was no offensive philosophy other than chuck up any shot you think you can make.

That's what Dallas should do. Hire the first coaching DUO.

I just don't know if Dallas has the players that Carlisle needs defensively to reach the same success as he did in Indiana and Detroit. I look at that roster, and the only key players that I'd consider solid defenders are Josh Howard, Kidd, and Dampier; and certainly, none of those guys are at the level of a Ben Wallace (prime) or Ron Artest that can anchor a defense. I think he'd make them better defensively, but they may be better off just playing off their strengths and going with a more open offensive-minded coach.

No one gets more out of his players than Rick Carlisle. Both us and Detroit overachieved thanks to Rick. He coaches a slower tempo, not that exciting, but he brings in W's.

The Mavs will advance past round 1 next year.

Well, we did overachieve, but I don't think you can say that he brought the most out of that Detroit roster considering his successor won a championship there in his first year that Carlisle couldn't bring there.

Rick didn't have Rasheed Wallace. That's what put Detroit over the top. Otherwise, we'd be sitting with a 2003-2004 championship. Sheed made the difference that year.

Miller4ever wrote:Rick didn't have Rasheed Wallace. That's what put Detroit over the top. Otherwise, we'd be sitting with a 2003-2004 championship. Sheed made the difference that year.

And Rick also buried Tayshaun Prince behind a completely useless (as we all know as well) Michael Curry.