Sixers/Cheeks close to an extension

SendEm · Post #21 » by **SendEm** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:01 pm

The Sixers aren't good enough yet to be able to benefit from a better coach. So this move makes all of the sense in the world...

bigdavid · Post #22 » by **bigdavid** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 5:04 pm

I believe Mo is being forced by Ed to play the young guys. However when he plays his small lineup against the other teams bigs and starters it makes no sense. In addition the game seems to loose any continuity and perhaps thats why we have one of the worst attendance in the league. It's just not exciting to watch.

There are plenty of situations to play the young guys but must they all play at the same time unless we are being blown out? I miss Korver. Our bench sucks.

ryst · Post #23 » by **ryst** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:30 pm

sad day in the history of the sixers
Mo is a bad coach , if he didnt figure it out yet 4-5 years into his coaching career then he will never get it.
i dont know why they hired Ed , they could just as well keep paying BK

Post #24 » by **The Guilty Party** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:58 pm

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3254453

It's official! I didn't see a release for the number of years of this extension... I'm guessing that it's another 3 year deal.

iaaa99 · Post #25 » by **iaaa99** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:08 pm

I donot like it at all. We need fresh face. MO didnot prove to me he is good coach. Maybe the young guys play hard for him but as a coach i donot think he is good coach. Ed first mistake as a GM this is my view

P2K · Post #26 » by **P2K** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:25 pm

iaaa99 wrote:I donot like it at all. We need fresh face. MO didnot prove to me he is good coach. Maybe the young guys play hard for him but as a coach i donot think he is good coach. Ed first mistake as a GM this is my view

A fresh face for what? Losing?

Who should the Sixers replaced Mo with?

I'll wait....

Post #27 » by **The Guilty Party** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:26 pm

I'm not a Mo Supporter like dond or a Mo Basher like some others and am neutal on this but I do find it amazing how bad a coach is when he's given inferior talent like the Celtics in '06-'07 or how great a coach is when he's given superior talent like the Celtics in '07-'08.

To me, the young players have gotten better under Mo and the team has won a lot more games than most people thought they would or wanted them to. Unless there was a coach that Stefanski thought would do a better job out there, I see no reason to make a move for the sake of saying that they made a move.

IggyTheBEaST · Post #28 » by **IggyTheBEaST** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:30 pm

I like Cheeks as a person, and as a motivator, but he needs alot of help on the coaching end. Which is why he was a perfect assistant coach. If he gets this extension, they better get a h*ll of a good assistant by his side.

IggyTheBEaST · Post #29 » by **IggyTheBEaST** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:35 pm

Its official

iaaa99 · Post #30 » by **iaaa99** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:42 pm

P2K wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

A fresh face for what? Losing?

Who should the Sixers replaced Mo with?

I'll wait....

3 seasons of losing records is this enough for fresh face!!!

Post #31 » by **tk76** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:47 pm

Is it a three year ********- I haven't seen that mentioned.

Yet more proof that Ed is buying into BK's three year plan. I thought for sure he was going to shajke things up and bring in his own man- and all of the "time to evaluate" stuff was just GM speak. I guess I shoould have just taken Ed at his word.

Ambivalent about the move. I agree with Sendem that at this stage just having a coach who keeps them playing hard is fine. Also its good for young players to have a consistant voice as they develop.

Once we have more high profile players, we probably will beed a more high profile coach who has the stature to manage big egos.

Seperate from the teams perspective, I am glad to see a good guy and former sixer like Mo succeed.

dond · Post #32 » by **dond** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:48 pm

IggyTheBEaST wrote:I like Cheeks as a person, and as a motivator, but he needs alot of help on the coaching end.

This is the type of statement that I just do not understand. "HE NEEDS A LOT OF HELP ON THE COACHING END". In my mind, that statement can only come from someone with a strong background in the field (NBA Coach) of the person he is commenting on. Someone with years of experience behind him. You should be able to point to specific instances where he made mistakes that others in his field would generally agree upon as basic knowledge. Please tell me you have that experience and have those types of examples. Please, don't tell me it is because you saw the Sixers come out of a timeout and not get an open shot, or because this player or that should not be getting the minutes he deserves, or because his rotation seems odd to you , or because they lost to a team they should beat, etc ...

When does it end ...

The new GM has endorsed Maurice Cheeks as someone who is doing a very good job and he looks forward to the future with Cheeks as coach of the Sixers. Isn't there ever a time when you just admit that maybe he is doing a good job and maybe he is a good coach and maybe ... just maybe ... you have been and still are .... just wrong. Not possible ?

phiphan · Post #33 » by **phiphan** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:04 pm

tk76 wrote:Is it a three year sextension.

whoa. sounds like there's a little more to this thing than coaching. :eyebrows:

Johnny Broad-Street · Post #34 » by **Johnny Broad-Street** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:06 pm

Wow! Must be a helluva incentives "package"

Post #35 » by **tk76** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:11 pm

The team has not been entertaining enough...

Johnny Broad-Street · Post #36 » by **Johnny Broad-Street** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:12 pm

Sextensions are thrown around far too liberally in the NBA

Post #37 » by **dbodner** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:16 pm

This is the type of statement that I just do not understand. "HE NEEDS A LOT OF HELP ON THE COACHING END". In my mind, that statement can only come from someone with a strong background in the field (NBA Coach)

bull hicky. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. and there are things you can substantiate your opinion with (i.e. the team's performance out of timeouts).

I think Mo's doing a fine job, but I'm not sure Mo's a top flight coach, either. I have very mixed feelings about the extension.

Johnny Broad-Street · Post #38 » by **Johnny Broad-Street** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:19 pm

Bull hicky? Is that a saying DB?
Hahaha

True, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but it's helpful to any conversation to support those opinions. Otherwise it's difficult to have a dialogue.

Post #39 » by **dbodner** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:36 pm

True, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but it's helpful to any conversation to support those opinions. Otherwise it's difficult to have a dialogue.

sure. But that's a very different statement than dond's "nobody here can have an opinion on cheeks coaching ability" statement.

barkley34 · Post #40 » by **barkley34** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:37 pm

blazehound wrote:It is strange. Stephanski has maintained the exact same course of action BK has, but nobody has a problem with it?

I do.

You have Rick Carlisle, Larry Brown and Jeff Van Gundy all available and all much better than Cheeks but you lock up Mo? I am starting to think the problem might be at the top of the organization.

They saved money by dumping Marc Jackson for nothing.
They saved money by buying out Webber instead of keeping him around and using his expiring contract as a trade chip.
They save a ton of money by bringing an average coach like Cheeks back instead of one of the 3 listed above.

Notice a trend?