RealGM

Iavaroni was an assistant for years under D'Antoni. He was seriously considered for multiple head coaching positions from as early as 2003 and finally landed with Memphis in 2007. He had a poor record with Memphis, but...
1) Who wouldn't have had a poor record with that Memphis team? His roster was a joke.
2) He wanted to play fast like the Suns. Memphis had probably the worst personnel possible for that.
3) Remember the Gasol trade? That was in the middle of Iavaroni's first season in Memphis.

He is widely known as a defensive guru and mentor for big men. He is probably the main person responsible for the development of Stoudemire; the Clippers likely hired Iavaroni to do the same thing with Blake Griffin.

"[Iavaroni] is highly-regarded in NBA circles for his attention to detail, tireless work ethic, competitive drive and hands-on approach to teaching."

Read more: http://www.insidehoops.com/blog/?p=6410#ixzz1AdtYaxHk

I would love to have him working alongside Gentry (but I'm not sure that's possible). In Jack McCallum's book about the 2005-2006 season, you could see his intensity and strategic mindset, especially on defense. He's the complete opposite of Gentry...the perfect counterbalance? I would love to see him mentoring guys like Lopez, Gortat, and Warrick. He knows and loves our style, and the defense has been significantly worse since he left.

I think if we want SSOL and defense, as well as the intensity we've been missing, Iavaroni is the perfect fit.

You have a point--IMO there is no reason the Suns should be this weak defensively. The Suns feature a mix of intelligent individual defenders (Hill, Dudley, Pietrus), productive team defenders (Nash, Frye, and the previous list) AND feature length with Gortat/Lopez....I sort of "get" that the rebounding is weak simply because our players don't seem to feature a nose for the ball...But IMO the Suns have enough defensive talent to rank above last in the NBA in that regard.

Assistant and Management maybe. I really like Gentry especially for our current roster who needs a little ass kicking when they are lacking energy.

Suns need an european coach, Balkanian i'd say... They have a brillant talent on the bench, Igor Kokoskov. It's time to give him the team.

Iavaroni is definitely a good candidate but IMO we shouldn't even start to think about replacing coaching staff while we have a roster that would bring any coach a losing record. If we get to the point where we have a roster/rotation that actually should be contending and Gentry is clearly holding them back, then we can single him out. Now, he's doing the best he can with 10 small forwards and no first option.

Miklo wrote:Iavaroni is definitely a good candidate but IMO we shouldn't even start to think about replacing coaching staff while we have a roster that would bring any coach a losing record. If we get to the point where we have a roster/rotation that actually should be contending and Gentry is clearly holding them back, then we can single him out. Now, he's doing the best he can with 10 small forwards and no first option.

...Steve Nash is arguably the most efficient 1st option in the NBA IMO. There is significantly more to NBA basketball than scoring. The issue here is that Jared Dudley is our 2nd most productive player.

YFZblu wrote:

Miklo wrote:Iavaroni is definitely a good candidate but IMO we shouldn't even start to think about replacing coaching staff while we have a roster that would bring any coach a losing record. If we get to the point where we have a roster/rotation that actually should be contending and Gentry is clearly holding them back, then we can single him out. Now, he's doing the best he can with 10 small forwards and no first option.

...Steve Nash is arguably the most efficient 1st option in the NBA IMO. There is significantly more to NBA basketball than scoring. The issue here is that Jared Dudley is our 2nd best player.

Many statisticians disagree and define 1st, second etc options as scoring options. That's how I was using it.

The way you're using first option, of course Nash is one of the best in the NBA. He's a good first "option" to have on a contending roster. But you can have that, which is largely based on his passing, and with no first scoring option we just can't break free in games. Everyone knows Nash can put up 20+ points every night, but that's not when he's the most effective. So looking at my previous point using my definition of first option, I maintain that we DO lack a first option and therefore cannot capitalize on the strengths of Nash as one of the best "pieces" in the league.

Miklo wrote:Iavaroni is definitely a good candidate but IMO we shouldn't even start to think about replacing coaching staff while we have a roster that would bring any coach a losing record. If we get to the point where we have a roster/rotation that actually should be contending and Gentry is clearly holding them back, then we can single him out. Now, he's doing the best he can with 10 small forwards and no first option.

Why is it that you and everyone else refuse to hold gentry accountable for the teams terrible performance this year? He's made so many mistakes this year it's unbelievable. For Christ's sake he started Earl Barron for six games. And if that's not bad enough, he actually tried to work him into the offense. At least if your going to start him understand he's just a fill in. He should have told him, "Earl if you shoot from further than 1 foot from the basket, I'm going to break your leg". And how about the defense? NBA defense is all about team defense. Jeff Van Gundy said it best the other night on an ESPN game. "NBA defense is all about 1) protecting the rim and 2) coaching."

I'm not saying Gentry should be fired. Not yet at least. He did an excellent job last year but he's been absolutely horrible this year. People need to wake up and start putting some of the blame where it belongs.

Miklo wrote:Iavaroni is definitely a good candidate but IMO we shouldn't even start to think about replacing coaching staff while we have a roster that would bring any coach a losing record. If we get to the point where we have a roster/rotation that actually should be contending and Gentry is clearly holding them back, then we can single him out. Now, he's doing the best he can with 10 small forwards and no first option.

1) I like the idea of Iavaroni as head coach, but I'm also talking about the idea of bringing him back as an assistant (although I assume that's impossible?). This thread is partially a, "Wouldn't it be nice..."

2) We didn't really have a scoring first option in 2005-2006, did we? I mean, Marion scored the most points, but not by much, and I don't think he has ever been the leading scorer on any team any other year. We had nine guys averaging almost double-digit points per game.

Los Soles wrote:

Miklo wrote:Iavaroni is definitely a good candidate but IMO we shouldn't even start to think about replacing coaching staff while we have a roster that would bring any coach a losing record. If we get to the point where we have a roster/rotation that actually should be contending and Gentry is clearly holding them back, then we can single him out. Now, he's doing the best he can with 10 small forwards and no first option.

1) I like the idea of Iavaroni as head coach, but I'm also talking about the idea of bringing him back as an assistant (although I assume that's impossible?). This thread is partially a, "Wouldn't it be nice..."

2) We didn't really have a scoring first option in 2005-2006, did we? I mean, Marion scored the most points, but not by much, and I don't think he has ever been the leading scorer on any team any other year. We had nine guys averaging almost double-digit points per game.

Yeah I'd love for him to come as an assistant, and from a wouldn't it be nice basis I totally agree.

On 2, that's a fair point, yeah that's definitely the most successful we've been with the fewest lead scoring options. While the first option thing was an issue then, we did have a much better composed roster (more defined roles, etc). This, plus the tremendous team chemistry we had at that point, allowed us to in my opinion overachieve without Amar'e that year.

I just don't think it's sustainable, and definitely not sustainably contending. If we're gonna shift our gaze now to how to build for a title, I think we need to have a first offensive option, a go-to. At least one in fact. If not, year after year you're pushing to get a system to work, that is proven to not be a contending model.

Miklo wrote:On 2, that's a fair point, yeah that's definitely the most successful we've been with the fewest lead scoring options. While the first option thing was an issue then, we did have a much better composed roster (more defined roles, etc). This, plus the tremendous team chemistry we had at that point, allowed us to in my opinion overachieve without Amar'e that year.

I just don't think it's sustainable, and definitely not sustainably contending. If we're gonna shift our gaze now to how to build for a title, I think we need to have a first offensive option, a go-to. At least one in fact. If not, year after year you're pushing to get a system to work, that is proven to not be a contending model.

I'm not sure "1st option" is the way to think about it.

You need some consistent way to generate quality scoring chances. The default answer is: iso a superstar. But that's not necessarily the best answer, and it's certainly not the only answer. Obviously every team has one player who ends up leading the scoring, but often that's from within the flow of the offense, even just from PnR. Who was the 1st option on the Suns second team last year? Who was the 1st option on the Pistons championship team? Have the Utah Jazz really had a 1st option for the last few years?

Boston's championship team had three guys average just under 20 pts per game. Sometimes they would iso Pierce or KG, but most of the scoring flowed naturally out of PnR, dribble-drive motion offense, or off-ball screens for Allen. And Rondo created easy buckets for everybody.

Sure gentry gets some undeserved criticism, but I'm telling you right now, theres no one else to blame but the coach for our defense. Theres no excuse in the world to be this bad. Its him.

RocPHX wrote:Sure gentry gets some undeserved criticism, but I'm telling you right now, theres no one else to blame but the coach for our defense. Theres no excuse in the world to be this bad. Its him.

Exactly. See my very first posts at this board... Players can make bad moves, mistakes, can do bad thigs. It happens. But lack of team defense is 100% coach's fault

Iavaroni was a big man coach who developed none of the Suns bigs, was horrible in Memphis with teams that had no identity. He also got that (Please Use More Appropriate Word) T against the Spurs in the playoffs.

I don't understand the Gentry hate. He's a good coach, he doesn't have any talent outside of Nash. What can you expect when Minny and LAC have more talent on their rosters. The thing Phx has is vets and Nash, outside of that, they are worth less than anyone outside of Cleveland.

I don't blame him for the offense, even though his rotations are trash. The defensive issues fall on his shoulders though. I can see him getting the boot after Nash is traded...whenever that is.

Los Soles wrote:

Miklo wrote:On 2, that's a fair point, yeah that's definitely the most successful we've been with the fewest lead scoring options. While the first option thing was an issue then, we did have a much better composed roster (more defined roles, etc). This, plus the tremendous team chemistry we had at that point, allowed us to in my opinion overachieve without Amar'e that year.

I just don't think it's sustainable, and definitely not sustainably contending. If we're gonna shift our gaze now to how to build for a title, I think we need to have a first offensive option, a go-to. At least one in fact. If not, year after year you're pushing to get a system to work, that is proven to not be a contending model.

I'm not sure "1st option" is the way to think about it.

You need some consistent way to generate quality scoring chances. The default answer is: iso a superstar. But that's not necessarily the best answer, and it's certainly not the only answer. Obviously every team has one player who ends up leading the scoring, but often that's from within the flow of the offense, even just from PnR. Who was the 1st option on the Suns second team last year? Who was the 1st option on the Pistons championship team? Have the Utah Jazz really had a 1st option for the last few years?

Boston's championship team had three guys average just under 20 pts per game. Sometimes they would iso Pierce or KG, but most of the scoring flowed naturally out of PnR, dribble-drive motion offense, or off-ball screens for Allen. And Rondo created easy buckets for everybody.

So yeah, this starts at like you said a consistent way to generate quality scoring chances. Now I should clarify what I mean by first option as has been used in some readings I've done in the past, as well as a study by a guy on the Knicks board more recently. This would be a primary scorer, a scorer who can put up ~20ppg - BUT - there can be multiple first, second, third etc options for this classification. Miami basically has 2-3 first options for example.

So when I say a first option is essential I mean very simply there needs to be at least one guy who we can go to for 20 plus points when the game's on the line. Can you have a bunch of guys who could get 15 instead, yeah. But when you talk about true winning basketball you look at teams with 1 and 2 first options. You brought up the championship Pistons which was a good example of a team that for years, just clicked like hell. Chauncey was the closest to being the first option but I agree that's an example to the contrary. But broaden the picture. Let's look at every NBA champion, ever. Only a handful in all of NBA history truly didn't have at least one "first option" as I'm defining it. And to your other example, Boston sure as hell has at least 2 first options.

did i miss something or why are we talking about a new coach??

pidi wrote:did i miss something or why are we talking about a new coach??

Yeh you must have missed the last 15 games. The Suns are 4-11. Oh, and there last or next to last in too many defensive statistics to count.

The only thing I blame Gentry for is not playing Warrick.

If you really believe we need a new coach, you're just making an excuse on why we've been losing.