RealGM

I've been thinking about this for a while, so I thought I would pose the idea to the board and see what people think.

The NFL and NBA are very different leagues. NFL teams have 53 man rosters while NBA teams have 15, so obviously the coaching needs are different. BUt there is something in the structure of NFL coaching staffs that I think needs to be explored in the NBA, especially with our own Toronto Raptors.

Why not have a Head Coach, an Offensive Co-Ordinator, and a Defensive Co-Ordinator, NFL style?

First, the argument on a general level:

Coaching in the NBA is difficult. The egos are tremendous, the perceived slights and fights for minutes and shots can overwhelm the greatest of tacticians. Many great college coaches (ex. Pitino) have failed in the NBA for their inability to relate properly to these issues. On the flip side, x's and o's are that much more complicated as you need to account for the immense talent level and varying looks thrown out by opponents. Coaches without an understanding of these things also struggle mightily. On top off all that, each of these things is easily a full time job on its own. How is one guy supposed to cope? By using his assistants, of course...but how often are those assistants well suited for their tasks? It often seems that the team of assistants are more there to support the HC and help run practices than they are for their technical expertise.

So, let's say you go to the NFL model. You have a Head Coach who is excellent at managing the egos of his players and keeping everyone happy and working together. He deals with referees and the media and management. And you go out and get him an Offensive co-ordinator, someone with insight into running an NBA offense. He designs the plays and possibly submits the calls from the bench. He is focused only on offensive matters. Same thing with the defensive co-ordinator, designing zones and switches and making calls for defenses to set up during the game. Each co-ordinator would of course interface with the HC on strategy and scouting the opposing squad, much like the NFL.

The HC has no cause to be jealous or annoyed, as it allows him to focus on important matters and get higher quality play from his players. The co-ordinators get to focus on their strengths while learning about the ego side of things by watching and being involved. These guys may eventually become head coaches, but for now are utilized for their skillset.

As it pertains to the Raps:

They are the perfect example of a team DYING for this sort of setup. Mitchell is terrific at managing his players behind the scenes, but his x's and o's are tragic on both ends of the court. I will use names here as examples, not as suggestions, but imagine if you will installing Kevin O'Neill as the Defensive Co-ordinator and, say, Doug Collins as Offensive CO-Ordinator. Wouldn't this make the team instantly better? I think it would, but what do you think?

Again, don't get caught up on the names...there are probably great minds in offensive and defensive basketball that we are not aware of, but that would benefit greatly from a promotion to Co-ordinator duties.

uhh isnt this why we have assistant coaches? shooting coaches? big man coaches? etc

Yes, but they clearly don't have the authority or the makeup to affect he actual in-game play structure and calls. Either that, or there isn't one x's and o's guy on the raptor staff.

but at the same time...the head coach gets final say
in my opinion, its like just changing their titles, with little change to actual game situations for example, collins would suggest a play...but smitch has to be on board...and why would that be diffrent from today?..an assistant coach has a play idea and he runs it by smitch...
i get your point, but i dont think its really a big change

IMO this is by far one of the freshest and intreaguing ideas that I've read on here in a very long time ... I think it's a great idea but there would need to be some revamping to the sidelines because you're going to have 3 guys running up and down the side lines and as it stands there isn't enough room ... maybe have each co ordinator at either end and only allowed on one side of the net so the other teams can be there too and have them on head sets to the coach ... there are many defensive specialist like Jeff Van Gundy who IMO rode talent to his positions and wasn't the great head coach that he was made out to be and then there's the offensive specialist like Nelson and Addleman who would be great at drawing up plays ... if one aspect falters it's easier to replace a co-ordinator than it is the head coach (money) and if all else fails then the responsibility falls with the head ... I really like it

I'll call Brian and see what he thinks.

I like the overall idea but I think the big difference is in the roster sizes. In the NBA the head coach not only coaches the whole team but in most cases is also coaching individual players. Most of the successful coaches coach there own players while the assistant coaches are there more to help prepare the head coach in terms of scouting and gameplanning.

At the same time all the players are playing both sides of the ball so its hard to really coach the players as they have to concentrate on learning new systems for both offense and defense. The shot clock and the constant change of possessions make it really difficult to coach in a game that way.

The idea is intriguing but will probably only be good practice tool if used properly.

DarkKnight wrote:
Why not have a Head Coach, an Offensive Co-Ordinator, and a Defensive Co-Ordinator, NFL style?

That's what Larry Bird did when he coached the Pacers for those three years. I believe Rick Carlisle was the offensive guy and I don't recall who had responsibility for defense. Bird was there to provide leadership and presence.

I thought it worked well for them. I don't think it would work well for Sam Mitchell - he doesn't bring enough gravitas.

Some good thoughts here. To address a few of them, I think I perhaps did not address the difference between in-game and out-of-game quite as much as I should have.

In game, only the head coach would be up off the bench, screaming etc. The OC could call plays where needed ut simply standing up from his seat, or without standing at all, simply by signaling his PG. Keep in mind plays do not come from the bench every posession and a lot of this is on the palyers to absorb the OC system and run the sets that the PG selects. The PG is kind of like your no-huddle QB...he makes the call most of the time but the OC can always shout is his ear if needed. Similarly, on D, the DC would likely do most of his in-game planning during time-outs and other breaks...you rarely switch to zone in the flow of the game, but rather out of a timeout.

Both the OC and DC would be responsible for design as much as anything. If you have rick adelman as your OC, he is going to diagram the whole back-cut style offense that served him well and drill that into the guys. The playbook would be thicker than "run the pick and roll and see what happens", and should allow for adjustments based on the defense being faced (again, likely during timeouts). Same on D...design the different looks, drill the guys in it, etc.

I don't buy that the players will have trouble learning the systems...they learn plays on both ends as it is...it would jsut be more streamlined as to who is generating these plays and who understands all the nuances of them.

Teabag makes a great point about replacing non-functioning parts as well...a high-scoring team with a deficient defense can go spend some money on a top defensive mind to improve that aspect. Of course, it is up to the head coach to help meld the Offensive and defensive views together to ensure cohesion.

The reason why it works in football is because you have a set of players who are only on the offense, and a set of players who only play defense. They only have to work with one coach (either OC or the DC).

With a basketball team it would be too much work for the players to specifically focus on a different coach on offense and on defense, and just lead to confusion. I mean i think they have trouble listening to smitch and he's just one person.

splayed wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



That's what Larry Bird did when he coached the Pacers for those three years. I believe Rick Carlisle was the offensive guy and I don't recall who had responsibility for defense. Bird was there to provide leadership and presence.

Dick Harter was the defensive coach. I read bird's book, Bird Watching, which focused on his time coaching the Pacers. He said he was in trouble with the coaches association because he only had the 2 assistants. They would have liked him to have more. Also, he let Carlisle diagram the plays in timeouts because he was better at it. Bird said it didn't bother his ego, but no other head coach does that.

This year's Celtics also pretty much have a defensive co-ordinator, right?

WaltFrazier wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Dick Harter was the defensive coach. I read bird's book, Bird Watching, which focused on his time coaching the Pacers. He said he was in trouble with the coaches association because he only had the 2 assistants. They would have liked him to have more. Also, he let Carlisle diagram the plays in timeouts because he was better at it. Bird said it didn't bother his ego, but no other head coach does that.

This year's Celtics also pretty much have a defensive co-ordinator, right?

Yes, Dick Harter. Now I remember.

For the Celtics, Tom Thibodeau is their defensive guru. He coached under Jeff Van Gundy for many years.

wasn't keady our defensive guy a few years ago?

rkid wrote:The reason why it works in football is because you have a set of players who are only on the offense, and a set of players who only play defense. They only have to work with one coach (either OC or the DC).

With a basketball team it would be too much work for the players to specifically focus on a different coach on offense and on defense, and just lead to confusion. I mean i think they have trouble listening to smitch and he's just one person.

I agree with this point... good stuff.