Moderators: Domejandro, Worm Guts, Calinks
wolves_89 wrote:How many games do the Wolves have to collapse in a spectacularly bad fashion before Saunders gets the boot?
Jedzz wrote:I hate the idea of midseason coaching dumps. Won't get anyone good midseason. someone internal gets interim and often gets another season. And I've been more furious about Rosas this season/offseason. But maybe all these guys need to gtfo. Sick of wasting my time seeing rare great play early on only to what seems like purposely dump the game late with choices made.
Is it that hard to find someone that knows how to coach a 4th, be smart and protect large leads leate, stop runs, know your players? 6 and 8 minutes stretches blown in games like this with no scoring and allowing everything.
This isn't even checkers and chess. It's go fish and chess. They have to be tanking this or helping complete the script of a loss or something. Don't they?
Spurs coaches, Pop and two assistants have their head together all game trying to get them back into this. Steal Becky from them right now.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:I'm cool with Saunders being fired. Obviously, results matter. And experience matters. Respect from the players matters.
What I'm disappointed about is that once again we're blaming coaches in a league that entitles players more than any other. It's a Players league through and through. Coaches are largely caretakers. If you have good players, you win more games. Simple as that. NBA history has proven this to be true without a doubt for nearly 75 years.
Do coaches matter? Sure. But it's more in the margins. And it's less about ONE guy... as it is his stable of assistants. And even more important... consistency and accountability and culture throughout the entire organization.
So it's fine we're all jumping in to dump Saunders. Good riddance. But be careful with your expectations. Vanderpool might have better rotations. He might figure out better ball movement. But he's not taking a 5 - 16 team to the playoffs with those moves in the margins. After all, it's still the same people giving the same feedback to a different guy taking the heat.
When it comes down to it... if the $27M "star" guard wants to shoot 6 times in 7 possessions without passing the ball... that's what's going to happen. Players win games. Players lose games. Always have... always will.
Baseline81 wrote:AbeVigodaLive wrote:I'm cool with Saunders being fired. Obviously, results matter. And experience matters. Respect from the players matters.
What I'm disappointed about is that once again we're blaming coaches in a league that entitles players more than any other. It's a Players league through and through. Coaches are largely caretakers. If you have good players, you win more games. Simple as that. NBA history has proven this to be true without a doubt for nearly 75 years.
Do coaches matter? Sure. But it's more in the margins. And it's less about ONE guy... as it is his stable of assistants. And even more important... consistency and accountability and culture throughout the entire organization.
So it's fine we're all jumping in to dump Saunders. Good riddance. But be careful with your expectations. Vanderpool might have better rotations. He might figure out better ball movement. But he's not taking a 5 - 16 team to the playoffs with those moves in the margins. After all, it's still the same people giving the same feedback to a different guy taking the heat.
When it comes down to it... if the $27M "star" guard wants to shoot 6 times in 7 possessions without passing the ball... that's what's going to happen. Players win games. Players lose games. Always have... always will.
Given the same situation, do you think another coach would be sitting at 5-16?
IMO, a competent coach would have at least three more victories. Still not good, but it certainly gives them the chance to make a run at the play-in game when Towns returns.
Regarding Russell's usage of 6 of the last 7 possessions, Saunders is empowering him. The final play of the game tells it all.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:I'm cool with Saunders being fired. Obviously, results matter. And experience matters. Respect from the players matters.
What I'm disappointed about is that once again we're blaming coaches in a league that entitles players more than any other. It's a Players league through and through. Coaches are largely caretakers. If you have good players, you win more games. Simple as that. NBA history has proven this to be true without a doubt for nearly 75 years.
Do coaches matter? Sure. But it's more in the margins. And it's less about ONE guy... as it is his stable of assistants. And even more important... consistency and accountability and culture throughout the entire organization.
So it's fine we're all jumping in to dump Saunders. Good riddance. But be careful with your expectations. Vanderpool might have better rotations. He might figure out better ball movement. But he's not taking a 5 - 16 team to the playoffs with those moves in the margins. After all, it's still the same people giving the same feedback to a different guy taking the heat.
When it comes down to it... if the $27M "star" guard wants to shoot 6 times in 7 possessions without passing the ball... that's what's going to happen. Players win games. Players lose games. Always have... always will.
packforfreedom wrote:AbeVigodaLive wrote:I'm cool with Saunders being fired. Obviously, results matter. And experience matters. Respect from the players matters.
What I'm disappointed about is that once again we're blaming coaches in a league that entitles players more than any other. It's a Players league through and through. Coaches are largely caretakers. If you have good players, you win more games. Simple as that. NBA history has proven this to be true without a doubt for nearly 75 years.
Do coaches matter? Sure. But it's more in the margins. And it's less about ONE guy... as it is his stable of assistants. And even more important... consistency and accountability and culture throughout the entire organization.
So it's fine we're all jumping in to dump Saunders. Good riddance. But be careful with your expectations. Vanderpool might have better rotations. He might figure out better ball movement. But he's not taking a 5 - 16 team to the playoffs with those moves in the margins. After all, it's still the same people giving the same feedback to a different guy taking the heat.
When it comes down to it... if the $27M "star" guard wants to shoot 6 times in 7 possessions without passing the ball... that's what's going to happen. Players win games. Players lose games. Always have... always will.
Where do you get the sentiment from that we think, it's all gonna be good when Saunders is gone? Every thread is full of crititicsm of Dlo, Rosas' roster construction etc. I think most of us are aware that getting a new coach won't change everything, but it probably will change something and it's certainly easier to do than trading Dlo for some value and getting a new front office.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:No. I don't think this team is 8 - 13 with another coach. I think there is zero chance they'd be even better than that. The Wolves are 30th on offense. 26th on defense. The team's expected W/L is 5 - 16.
thinktank wrote:AbeVigodaLive wrote:No. I don't think this team is 8 - 13 with another coach. I think there is zero chance they'd be even better than that. The Wolves are 30th on offense. 26th on defense. The team's expected W/L is 5 - 16.
From purely a logic perspective, the reasoning to cite the offensive and defensive rankings to predict Saunders' impact on wins is deeply flawed because...
...Saunders is a factor in the offensive and defensive rankings.
Circular logic there.
Where I'm going is I think Saunders impact on our wins/losses is bigger than you think it is.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:Baseline81 wrote:AbeVigodaLive wrote:I'm cool with Saunders being fired. Obviously, results matter. And experience matters. Respect from the players matters.
What I'm disappointed about is that once again we're blaming coaches in a league that entitles players more than any other. It's a Players league through and through. Coaches are largely caretakers. If you have good players, you win more games. Simple as that. NBA history has proven this to be true without a doubt for nearly 75 years.
Do coaches matter? Sure. But it's more in the margins. And it's less about ONE guy... as it is his stable of assistants. And even more important... consistency and accountability and culture throughout the entire organization.
So it's fine we're all jumping in to dump Saunders. Good riddance. But be careful with your expectations. Vanderpool might have better rotations. He might figure out better ball movement. But he's not taking a 5 - 16 team to the playoffs with those moves in the margins. After all, it's still the same people giving the same feedback to a different guy taking the heat.
When it comes down to it... if the $27M "star" guard wants to shoot 6 times in 7 possessions without passing the ball... that's what's going to happen. Players win games. Players lose games. Always have... always will.
Given the same situation, do you think another coach would be sitting at 5-16?
IMO, a competent coach would have at least three more victories. Still not good, but it certainly gives them the chance to make a run at the play-in game when Towns returns.
Regarding Russell's usage of 6 of the last 7 possessions, Saunders is empowering him. The final play of the game tells it all.
No. I don't think this team is 8 - 13 with another coach. I think there is zero chance they'd be even better than that. The Wolves are 30th on offense. 26th on defense. The team's expected W/L is 5 - 16.
Maybe a win or even two? Obviously last night and the Orlando game come to mind. It's pretty crazy those games were lost. But really bad teams lose really bad games in really bad ways. No other organization in the history of the NBA has this experience more than we do as Wolves fans. So it amazes me that we still complain about coach-after-coach-after coach for the same things.
As for empowering Russell... yes. This is a league of entitled players, as noted. Unfortunately, the Wolves have entitled guys like Wiggins and Russell in recent years instead of guys like Giannis, Jokic or Embiid... or even Middleton, Murray and Simmons.
What should Saunders do? Bench Russell? While you and I might agree... that's simply not how the NBA works. You live and die by your stars. Saunders knows he's not long for this gig. But alienating star players without any credibility as a head coach at this point probably does more damage in what's sure to be a long career as an assistant NBA coach.
We talk about Popovich as some sage disciplinarian. Does he bench Russell in that situation? Doubtful. But maybe. Does he do it as a 34-year-old cutting his chops on a very bad team in a league run by the star players? No. But there's another angle here... what are the odds Russell is even on the Spurs with his track record? That organization has an established culture of accountability.
Saunders has twice called out Russell's hero ball after the games... without saying his name aloud. Both times, Russell took zero responsibility for his poor performance. He's not changing. He is who he is. And Rosas should have known that when he was acquired.
Like it or not... Russell has a lot more clout than Saunders. And we're seeing what that means.
[Note: It's even funny to see it in challenge situations. Saunders has been justly ripped for not using them at key moments multiple times. Now, we've seen in back-to-back games where Russell wants a challenge... and gets it. Yesterday's was during a rather innocuous moment in the 2nd or 3rd quarter. But Russell wanted the challenge... Russell got the challenge. All this is a long way of saying that Saunders can try to instill a culture of accountability... but it's not going to work coming from a 34-year-old green coach. It has to be demanded at every level of the organization. We haven't seen that in Minnesota in many years... if ever.]
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
Klomp wrote:AbeVigodaLive wrote:Baseline81 wrote:Given the same situation, do you think another coach would be sitting at 5-16?
IMO, a competent coach would have at least three more victories. Still not good, but it certainly gives them the chance to make a run at the play-in game when Towns returns.
Regarding Russell's usage of 6 of the last 7 possessions, Saunders is empowering him. The final play of the game tells it all.
No. I don't think this team is 8 - 13 with another coach. I think there is zero chance they'd be even better than that. The Wolves are 30th on offense. 26th on defense. The team's expected W/L is 5 - 16.
I think the only thing questionable about Saunders right now is involving game management. It's a big piece, no doubt, involving things like rotations and timeouts and systems.
But how much of that will change with an interim or even a full change in the offseason? The truth is, while some tweaks may happen, I think this is largely what you'd see after a change too. Head coaches rarely have complete autonomy in these decisions (unless their name is Thibs). They may ultimately be the figureheads, but there are so many layers to these teams. Assistants are often helping with all of these areas, and usually are the ones doing the scouts that determine the coach's game plan for the day.
I think the Saunders/Russell dynamic is interesting. Might Russell be dogging things in order to make Saunders look worse/force a change? Could he still be upset for the benching in the opener? Could he prefer Vanterpool be named the coach? I don't really know. What I do know is that Russell hasn't really been the same this year. The numbers are similar, but something just seems off with him.
thinktank wrote:Ultimately, Abe’s point is that Wolves coaches should not be held accountable.
And I disagree.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
Klomp wrote:Feels a lot like dejavu....
A classy and soft-spoken personality, Coach was given just 1½ seasons in his first head coaching job. He went 33-49 in his first year, a season made more difficult by an eight-player trade in midseason that upset team chemistry.
Ultimately it's the players who have to perform better, the GM said. The ups and downs have been too drastic this season.
"I've seen us play and beat some of the best teams in the league and I've seen us play and lose to some of the worst teams in the league," GM said. "I just don't know."
A perfect example came last week, when they started the week with an impressive victory at Detroit, then followed it up with an ugly 105-88 loss at home to lowly Atlanta.
Those kinds of swings were commonplace in fired coach's tenure, and now it's up to assistant to try and smooth out that erratic play.
"The coach can only do so much," second-best player said. "A lot of it had to do with our not being together."
That's not enough for Owner, who knows the team has to show much more improvement to placate star player, who is growing increasingly impatient with the mediocrity.
tsherkin wrote:The important thing to take away here is that Klomp is wrong.
Esohny wrote:Why are you asking Klomp? "He's" actually a bot that posts random blurbs from a database.
Klomp wrote:I'm putting the tired in retired mod at the moment
AbeVigodaLive wrote:No. I don't think this team is 8 - 13 with another coach. I think there is zero chance they'd be even better than that. The Wolves are 30th on offense. 26th on defense. The team's expected W/L is 5 - 16.
Maybe a win or even two? Obviously last night and the Orlando game come to mind. It's pretty crazy those games were lost. But really bad teams lose really bad games in really bad ways. No other organization in the history of the NBA has this experience more than we do as Wolves fans. So it amazes me that we still complain about coach-after-coach-after coach for the same things.
As for empowering Russell... yes. This is a league of entitled players, as noted. Unfortunately, the Wolves have entitled guys like Wiggins and Russell in recent years instead of guys like Giannis, Jokic or Embiid... or even Middleton, Murray and Simmons.
What should Saunders do? Bench Russell? While you and I might agree... that's simply not how the NBA works. You live and die by your stars. Saunders knows he's not long for this gig. But alienating star players without any credibility as a head coach at this point probably does more damage in what's sure to be a long career as an assistant NBA coach.
We talk about Popovich as some sage disciplinarian. Does he bench Russell in that situation? Doubtful. But maybe. Does he do it as a 34-year-old cutting his chops on a very bad team in a league run by the star players? No. But there's another angle here... what are the odds Russell is even on the Spurs with his track record? That organization has an established culture of accountability.
Saunders has twice called out Russell's hero ball after the games... without saying his name aloud. Both times, Russell took zero responsibility for his poor performance. He's not changing. He is who he is. And Rosas should have known that when he was acquired.
Like it or not... Russell has a lot more clout than Saunders. And we're seeing what that means.
[Note: It's even funny to see it in challenge situations. Saunders has been justly ripped for not using them at key moments multiple times. Now, we've seen in back-to-back games where Russell wants a challenge... and gets it. Yesterday's was during a rather innocuous moment in the 2nd or 3rd quarter. But Russell wanted the challenge... Russell got the challenge. All this is a long way of saying that Saunders can try to instill a culture of accountability... but it's not going to work coming from a 34-year-old green coach. It has to be demanded at every level of the organization. We haven't seen that in Minnesota in many years... if ever.]
Return to Minnesota Timberwolves