RealGM

Hey guys,

I know it's early, but I've been thinking about this for the last few days and I want to know what people think about this:

1) Based on what you've seen in the pre-season so far, what are your thoughts on Terry Porter?

If you don't like what you've seen so far, who do you wish was chosen as Head-Coach instead or wish had been chosen as Head-Coach regardless of the team's poor performance in the pre-season so far?

Personally, I wish D'Antoni stayed because he just got very unlucky in recent years.

- The Joe Johnson injury in 2005

- No Amare in 2006

- The suspensions last year

- The Tim Duncan 3 pointer and the injury to Grant Hill late last season.

But I think Mike Budenholzer or Elston Turner would have been better choices as Budenholzer has coached under Popovich for many years and Turner has been Adelman's assistant for many years.

I just feel like he was only hired because him and Kerr were friends when they were team-mates in San Antonio.

He was never even mentioned as a candidate for any of the other jobs and everyone knew Michael Curry would replace Flip Saunders.

Kerr mentioned that his previous Head Coaching experience was important, but he got fired after just two years in Milwaukee, so what's so impressive about that?

And the Bucks were a bad defensive team under him...wasn't he brought in to improve the Phoenix defense?

And am I the only one who is angry that Tom Tibodeau of the Boston Celtics was never even interviewed considering the amazing job he did with the Celtics last year?

I have no faith in Kerr; the Shaq trade didn't work out and I didn't and still don't - based on what I've seen so far - like the decision to hire Porter.

Your thoughts on the Head-Coaching situation so far?

The offense looks absolutely horrible...

I don't think you can say much without one of the top 5 players in the game not there, or a top three 6th Man..it's unfair on him, as there's no-one who can replace or even try to replicate what those two players do

Do you agree with the hiring of Porter, though? Or would you have preferred somebody else?

personally, had i been able to get any coach who was reasonably available, i would have wanted doug collins, but that was never gonna happen i guess

i like porter, but to say i have some concerns would be an understatement

ultimately, porter knows more about basketball than me, so im sure he knows what hes doing

im not gonna voice my concerns till after amare plays some games and i can see how he intends to use our strongest weapon

I agree with you that Collins would have been a great choice.

What are your concerns about Porter, though?

a couple of my thoughts on your opening post

The Diesel wrote:
Personally, I wish D'Antoni stayed because he just got very unlucky in recent years.

- The Joe Johnson injury in 2005

- No Amare in 2006

- The suspensions last year

- The Tim Duncan 3 pointer and the injury to Grant Hill late last season.

thanks for reminding me

you forgot one thing tho

- even tho we lost amare in 06, then lost kurt, we made the conference finals before raja bell tore his calf and eventually put us out - that sucked

but ultimately every team has stories of bad luck like this

But I think Mike Budenholzer or Elston Turner would have been better choices as Budenholzer has coached under Popovich for many years and Turner has been Adelman's assistant for many years.

personally i didnt want either of those candidates - we needed someone with head coaching experience. But you mention that coaching under pop or adleman as a positive then how about porters experience -

2 trips to the finals
2 all star games
one of the best assist men to ever play the game
coached under flip saunders and rick adleman
coached by pat riley and greg poppovich

which has to at least put him on par with budenholzer and turner as far as having experience learning from the best

I just feel like he was only hired because him and Kerr were friends when they were team-mates in San Antonio.

Im sure to some degree it was necessary to hire someone who could have a good working relationship with the GM, but to say it was a decision to hire a mate whether he was the best or not, is a ludicrous suggestion

He was never even mentioned as a candidate for any of the other jobs and everyone knew Michael Curry would replace Flip Saunders.

porter is worthy of a head coaching job in this league so whether he was considered by anyone or not doesnt bother me at all

Kerr mentioned that his previous Head Coaching experience was important, but he got fired after just two years in Milwaukee, so what's so impressive about that?

firstly, his team led the east in scoring in his first year, and they made the playoffs when everyone picked them to finish bottom 3. the second year they lost ford and he missed the playoffs, but many coaches stay on after that, but the bucks wanted to land a big name and when flip saunders and nate mcmillan hit the market they wanted to position themselves for one of those coaches.

Ultimately they missed out and porter was replaced by Senator Kohl's longtime friend Terry Stotts, so its clear to me that porter wasnt sacked for performance reasons.

And the Bucks were a bad defensive team under him...wasn't he brought in to improve the Phoenix defense?

he was brought in to place an incresed emphasis on defense, and he has done that.

And am I the only one who is angry that Tom Tibodeau of the Boston Celtics was never even interviewed considering the amazing job he did with the Celtics last year?

Tibodeau would have been a really good option, but he has zero head coaching experience, and also doesnt have an offensive game plan he could implement with our offensive system here. he is defense defense defense, and thats fine, but we must maintain a fast offense why working on defense, rather than D 100% of the time

porter proved in milwaukee he can keep the points rattling up on the board

I have no faith in Kerr; the Shaq trade didn't work out

thats like saying that the lakers have won the 08-09 title - you cant say something has or hasnt worked until its run its course

and I didn't and still don't - based on what I've seen so far - like the decision to hire Porter.

thats cool, ever

The offense looks absolutely horrible...

were missing 2 of our top 4 offensive options, we cant really make an educated opinion on it

It's too early to judge. As Tastic stated, we are missing two very big pieces of our offense and we've only played three games so far. Also preseason games are for tweaking offense and defense, it's not suppose to display the style we're going to play all year. Our vets are playing limited minutes and players who are expected to play very little minutes are getting 6th-7th man minutes, so while our offense and defense may look horrible, this is just a period to test out what works and what doesn't. I don't think I can accurately judge Porter till we get at least 10 games in.

The only real concern I have at the moment, is with Diaw and Barbosa. Diaw usually plays his best with STAT off the floor and giving him space to operate. Now that STAT is out, he's still isn't playing like he should. Barbosa missed most of training camp and the preseason games so far, and without a set date for his return, it would be hard for him to come back and play for a new coach and under a new style.

However, with that being said, I do have faith in Porter and Nash. D'Antoni and Nash had a great working relationship and I see the same with Porter and Nash. Nash should be able to combine Porter's game and parts of our old game together and make it work for our players and coach.

^, Good post. Enjoyed reading it. Thanks for the responses...keep them coming!

heres more about the reason he got sacked in milwaukee

His reputation as a coach on the rise, furthermore, was not necessarily dented by his short stay in Milwaukee, because it's well-known in league circles that Porter was fired after the 2004-05 season after the Bucks won the draft lottery, which had Bucks owner Herb Kohl believing he could land a more established coaching name. Porter was dismissed after the team had publicly announced he'd be retained, only for the Bucks to get turned down by Flip Saunders and Doug Collins before they drafted Andrew Bogut with the No. 1 overall pick. Milwaukee wound up replacing Porter with Kohl favorite Terry Stotts.

The Diesel wrote:^, Good post. Enjoyed reading it. Thanks for the responses...keep them coming!

ijust edited one part to add more detail under the part where i quoted you about turner or budenholzer at the top of the post

check it out and let me know what you think

Thanks for the additional info about Porter.

But I still feel that this team needed a more established Head-Coach like Larry Brown or Rick Carlisle.

But given the names that were interviewed, I still would have preferred Turner or Budenholzer.

But it would have been even better to have Brown or Carlisle.

Our players play best when Nash is in control of our offense. Brown and Carlisle are both very coachy coaches, in that, they like to have control of everything, like Riley. Carlisle has had a history of communication problems with his player and Brown definitely got a bad wrap from his history with A.I, and Knicks. Only thing I like about Brown is that he took the Pistons all the way, but that by no means guarantees we'll even get out of the first round.

So you could argue Porter wasn't out first choice, and many fans agree. But I think under the circumstances, we made a pretty alright Head-Coach selection.

Personally, I wanted Silas to be the head coach, with Weber, Thibodeau and Gentry as his assistants. Porter was really lowkey and hadn't even been mentioned until he suddenly became the front runner...I don't hate the hiring, and will give him a lot of time before judging him. Two preseason games with a roster where Singletary and Hite are playing and Amare and Barbs aren't, is not a fair enough indication for any direction we may be heading in.
I haven't seen enough non-pixolated play of the team under Porter, all I know is it's going to take time to get everyone on the same page, at least we're all reading the same book from that start though unlike when Shaq came in 12 chapters behind

Enough book analogies, I'm off to bed

Its hard to judge, and I will do my finial judgment by all star break. As tastic said, we are missing 2 of our best players and are playing about everyone on the bench. Howver, we have sometihng so far. As of now, I am not impressed with Dragic. I want to make that point. Second is, our O does not look that pollished, which is expected with new names, new coach etc. Last is, with the dragic comment, this team is going to need nash more than expected. This team does not really go anywhere without him. They look lost. Tuck looks good, and so does barnes. The thing is, he is hot or cold when he shoots.

Oh, for this system to work, and allow Nash to rest, we needed a guy like JJ on this team. Sucks, but that is how it is.

The Diesel wrote:Hey guys,


1) Based on what you've seen in the pre-season so far, what are your thoughts on Terry Porter?

-SDU- handle the part about Porter's departure from Milwaukee, so I'll touch on some other things.

And the Bucks were a bad defensive team under him...wasn't he brought in to improve the Phoenix defense?

I DEFY you to tell me that anyone could turn those Bucks into good defenders; he had basically ONE defensive player on that squad in either year, Desmond Mason. He didn't have the parts to make them good on defense.

Porter himself is a guy who was a good defender and who played on good defensive teams, he knows about how to play that end of the floor. You need to get players who are motivated to play defense (or can be motivated to do so) and who have the tools to do it... he didn't have those in Milwaukee.

And it takes time to teach that, especially to an older team.

As far as the offense is concerned, I am kind of miffed that you're railing at it not looking good right now. They've had a training camp and a few preseason games, what did you expect? Instant resuscitation of the offense? That's foolish and unreasonable (no offense). Porter's altering the fundamental style of ball they're playing in order to restructure the team around its current roster. It takes time to learn your places, it takes time to get comfortable to the point where it's instinctive and it takes time for people to find a rhythm after the off-season.

More to the point, you also need to play your starters for starters' minutes for the offense to look good. Let's ignore the outside game because that was stupid.

In case you haven't been paying attention, Nash was the leader with 25 minutes-played in the first game. Marvin Williams for the Hawks? 37. You leave him on the floor against subs that long, he's going to put 19 on you. He does that often enough against starters, he's a good scorer.

Against Utah? Nash and Shaq played 21 minutes. Diaw played a lot and he was OK but the other guys didn't play a lot (14 minutes out of Hill, for example) and Amare hasn't played at all.

Honestly man, WTF? What did you expect? The MAIN scorer on the team isn't playing and the main distributor is playing 23 mpg or so, did you expect the team to look fluid and to be in mid-season form?

C'mon, your doom-and-gloom is getting tiresome, so cut it out until there's a legit reason for it.

Porter hasn't done anything so far to make me change my mind that this was a bad hire.

The defense hasn't improved and Nash is frustrated.

We're a half-dozen games in... let them settle. Resting Shaq is working, the team's playing REALLY well offensively (especially with Shaq in the game) and they may look to run more when Shaq's out.

Calm down.

What I like most (and prolly Kerr too) is how Shaq's game is being utilized in our system. The way I see it so far, Suns is using Shaq as primary scoring option in the post in the first half to get key post players of the opposing teams in foul trouble then let Amare do his own in the second half.

Still Id like to see we run some isolation plays on Drajic with cutters going towards the basket. I dont buy in this "He is the next Steve Nash thing" since their game is totally different.

We are getting Shaq involved.

Amare is playing better defensively.

Boris seems to be playing better.

Only guy that is struggling is LB and he will probably be traded anyway.

We are playing our bench and trying to get the rookies some reps.

We're 5-2, what's not to like? It's going to take some time to look smooth especially in the half court - both offensively and defensively - but as long as we are getting wins Porter is doing his job and doing it well and we're going to be a better playoff team as a result.

Still very concerning we don't have a backup point guard because it's pretty apparent Dragic is not ready at all, but that's not Porter's fault.

Porter has given Robin, amundson, and Dragic minutes. Dragic mostly. The last two games was hard on the bench mainly because Dragic, LB, and Boris has been relied upon to be the on court leader. Grant Hill was suppose to be the man for that.

Porter has been pretty good at adjusting during the game. He has played 10 players. He has the team playing defense although it still needs work. I like what I see from Porter thus far.

I think right now its really on the players. I saw Nash actually focusing on defending his man one on one. I think the perimeter D still needs lots of work. I still believe in POrter.

Nash is frustrated because he is not use to a structured half court offense. I think He of all people should connect with porter. Both had to work for everything they got.