Moderators: bwgood77, Domejandro
Following the Golden State Warriors' 115-111 win over the Boston Celtics, Steve Kerr became the fastest coach in the NBA to win 300 games.
Kerr reached the record in just 377 games. The previous record-holder was Pat Riley, who achieved the mark after 415 games.
Kerr is also the fastest coach to reach 300 wins in all four major sports leagues.
Via NBA.com
Jester_ wrote:Hot take: Moses Moody shows the potential to be a star/#2 option ala Lauri Markkanen. Both the eye test and the advanced stats show a player with extremely high slope.
thinkingwarriors wrote:I can speak on behalf of the entire RealGM community in wishing a warm "CONGRATULATIONS!!!" to Steve Kerr and a hope to add many more to his win total.
IAMZOOTED2 wrote:thinkingwarriors wrote:I can speak on behalf of the entire RealGM community in wishing a warm "CONGRATULATIONS!!!" to Steve Kerr and a hope to add many more to his win total.
Well, I hope Kerr defers the applause... to win when you've been gifted that kind of roster is impressive, but I want to see him drag the Wiz, Magic, or Cavs to winning record before I tip my cap. He should at least shout out Mark Jackson from time to time...
hyberx wrote:It is silly to say Kerr is not a great coach because he got talent. That is similar to saying Phil Jackson and Pop are not great coaches because they had Hall of Fame players (Kobe/Shaq; Robinson/Duncan/Parker/Kawhi/Manu)
Every good team has good players, the difference between the Champ/Great team to good ones is how the coach can utilize their players and maximize their potential. Before Kerr, Curry and Klay were good players under Jackon (credit goes to Jackson for developing them, changing the losing culture, and installing a defensive mindset for the team), but they would have never gotten out of the 2nd around.
Kerr did away from Jackson's ISO/P&R heavy plays and installed the motion/passing offense, playing Curry more off-ball to maximize his shooting ability, and utilized Green more on both end of the floor (started with David Lee's injury, but stayed with Green as starter after Lee came back), thus making those 3 all-stars. Mark Jackson had almost the same team, but he wasn't good developing the bench and would never have taken that team to the final and winning 73 games like Kerr did (all that before KD). The 2015 and 2016 Ws team were known for their team play, not merely 3 all-stars (and a lot of folks were still saying all 3 were over-rated, only to scream unfair when KD signed on). Those could not have been accomplished without Kerr.
With KD signed on, you also have to give credit to Kerr for being able to manage the minute, touches, and ego of all 4 all-stars (now 5th with Boogie; not to mention convincing former all-stars in their prime like David Lee and Iggy to play off the bench). Phil Jackson has shown that having 4 all-stars doesn't necessarily guarantee you the ring (Kobe/Shaq/Malone/Payton) if you can't manage them well.
Sam195 wrote:hyberx wrote:It is silly to say Kerr is not a great coach because he got talent. That is similar to saying Phil Jackson and Pop are not great coaches because they had Hall of Fame players (Kobe/Shaq; Robinson/Duncan/Parker/Kawhi/Manu)
Every good team has good players, the difference between the Champ/Great team to good ones is how the coach can utilize their players and maximize their potential. Before Kerr, Curry and Klay were good players under Jackon (credit goes to Jackson for developing them, changing the losing culture, and installing a defensive mindset for the team), but they would have never gotten out of the 2nd around.
Kerr did away from Jackson's ISO/P&R heavy plays and installed the motion/passing offense, playing Curry more off-ball to maximize his shooting ability, and utilized Green more on both end of the floor (started with David Lee's injury, but stayed with Green as starter after Lee came back), thus making those 3 all-stars. Mark Jackson had almost the same team, but he wasn't good developing the bench and would never have taken that team to the final and winning 73 games like Kerr did (all that before KD). The 2015 and 2016 Ws team were known for their team play, not merely 3 all-stars (and a lot of folks were still saying all 3 were over-rated, only to scream unfair when KD signed on). Those could not have been accomplished without Kerr.
With KD signed on, you also have to give credit to Kerr for being able to manage the minute, touches, and ego of all 4 all-stars (now 5th with Boogie; not to mention convincing former all-stars in their prime like David Lee and Iggy to play off the bench). Phil Jackson has shown that having 4 all-stars doesn't necessarily guarantee you the ring (Kobe/Shaq/Malone/Payton) if you can't manage them well.
Payton and Malone were not in their prime when they played on the lakers. It is not a relevant comparison. Kerr is a good coach but like Doc Rivers with the 2008 Celtics was handed multiple superstar players at or near the end of their prime so winning championships or coming close to it like Phil is not as great an accomplishment as what Popovich did building the Spurs from the ground up - developing high draft picks and low ones into the superstars they became. People forget none of the Spurs elite players were one and done college superstars or even consensus no1 picks in mock drafts. Neither Duncan nor Robinson were locks to go no1 in their drafts especially since they were older players with 4 years in college/naval academy. Kawhi was a sophomore who dropped on draft night from where he was projected to land in 2011 mock drafts and was acquired via trade. Tony Parker was a kid from France who had no major talent that indicated he would become a starting pg or all star for nba title teams when he was drafted. Popovich did a lot of the work more so than any luck the Spurs got in morphing themselves into the gold standard franchise in pro sports especially as a small market team.
ccvle wrote:Sam195 wrote:hyberx wrote:It is silly to say Kerr is not a great coach because he got talent. That is similar to saying Phil Jackson and Pop are not great coaches because they had Hall of Fame players (Kobe/Shaq; Robinson/Duncan/Parker/Kawhi/Manu)
Every good team has good players, the difference between the Champ/Great team to good ones is how the coach can utilize their players and maximize their potential. Before Kerr, Curry and Klay were good players under Jackon (credit goes to Jackson for developing them, changing the losing culture, and installing a defensive mindset for the team), but they would have never gotten out of the 2nd around.
Kerr did away from Jackson's ISO/P&R heavy plays and installed the motion/passing offense, playing Curry more off-ball to maximize his shooting ability, and utilized Green more on both end of the floor (started with David Lee's injury, but stayed with Green as starter after Lee came back), thus making those 3 all-stars. Mark Jackson had almost the same team, but he wasn't good developing the bench and would never have taken that team to the final and winning 73 games like Kerr did (all that before KD). The 2015 and 2016 Ws team were known for their team play, not merely 3 all-stars (and a lot of folks were still saying all 3 were over-rated, only to scream unfair when KD signed on). Those could not have been accomplished without Kerr.
With KD signed on, you also have to give credit to Kerr for being able to manage the minute, touches, and ego of all 4 all-stars (now 5th with Boogie; not to mention convincing former all-stars in their prime like David Lee and Iggy to play off the bench). Phil Jackson has shown that having 4 all-stars doesn't necessarily guarantee you the ring (Kobe/Shaq/Malone/Payton) if you can't manage them well.
Payton and Malone were not in their prime when they played on the lakers. It is not a relevant comparison. Kerr is a good coach but like Doc Rivers with the 2008 Celtics was handed multiple superstar players at or near the end of their prime so winning championships or coming close to it like Phil is not as great an accomplishment as what Popovich did building the Spurs from the ground up - developing high draft picks and low ones into the superstars they became. People forget none of the Spurs elite players were one and done college superstars or even consensus no1 picks in mock drafts. Neither Duncan nor Robinson were locks to go no1 in their drafts especially since they were older players with 4 years in college/naval academy. Kawhi was a sophomore who dropped on draft night from where he was projected to land in 2011 mock drafts and was acquired via trade. Tony Parker was a kid from France who had no major talent that indicated he would become a starting pg or all star for nba title teams when he was drafted. Popovich did a lot of the work more so than any luck the Spurs got in morphing themselves into the gold standard franchise in pro sports especially as a small market team.
No, Duncan was the clear number one pick.... it was known at the time that Boston was tanking hard for Duncan but ended up with the third pick.
ccvle wrote:Sam195 wrote:hyberx wrote:It is silly to say Kerr is not a great coach because he got talent. That is similar to saying Phil Jackson and Pop are not great coaches because they had Hall of Fame players (Kobe/Shaq; Robinson/Duncan/Parker/Kawhi/Manu)
Every good team has good players, the difference between the Champ/Great team to good ones is how the coach can utilize their players and maximize their potential. Before Kerr, Curry and Klay were good players under Jackon (credit goes to Jackson for developing them, changing the losing culture, and installing a defensive mindset for the team), but they would have never gotten out of the 2nd around.
Kerr did away from Jackson's ISO/P&R heavy plays and installed the motion/passing offense, playing Curry more off-ball to maximize his shooting ability, and utilized Green more on both end of the floor (started with David Lee's injury, but stayed with Green as starter after Lee came back), thus making those 3 all-stars. Mark Jackson had almost the same team, but he wasn't good developing the bench and would never have taken that team to the final and winning 73 games like Kerr did (all that before KD). The 2015 and 2016 Ws team were known for their team play, not merely 3 all-stars (and a lot of folks were still saying all 3 were over-rated, only to scream unfair when KD signed on). Those could not have been accomplished without Kerr.
With KD signed on, you also have to give credit to Kerr for being able to manage the minute, touches, and ego of all 4 all-stars (now 5th with Boogie; not to mention convincing former all-stars in their prime like David Lee and Iggy to play off the bench). Phil Jackson has shown that having 4 all-stars doesn't necessarily guarantee you the ring (Kobe/Shaq/Malone/Payton) if you can't manage them well.
Payton and Malone were not in their prime when they played on the lakers. It is not a relevant comparison. Kerr is a good coach but like Doc Rivers with the 2008 Celtics was handed multiple superstar players at or near the end of their prime so winning championships or coming close to it like Phil is not as great an accomplishment as what Popovich did building the Spurs from the ground up - developing high draft picks and low ones into the superstars they became. People forget none of the Spurs elite players were one and done college superstars or even consensus no1 picks in mock drafts. Neither Duncan nor Robinson were locks to go no1 in their drafts especially since they were older players with 4 years in college/naval academy. Kawhi was a sophomore who dropped on draft night from where he was projected to land in 2011 mock drafts and was acquired via trade. Tony Parker was a kid from France who had no major talent that indicated he would become a starting pg or all star for nba title teams when he was drafted. Popovich did a lot of the work more so than any luck the Spurs got in morphing themselves into the gold standard franchise in pro sports especially as a small market team.
No, Duncan was the clear number one pick.... it was known at the time that Boston was tanking hard for Duncan but ended up with the third pick.
Sam195 wrote:ccvle wrote:Sam195 wrote:
Payton and Malone were not in their prime when they played on the lakers. It is not a relevant comparison. Kerr is a good coach but like Doc Rivers with the 2008 Celtics was handed multiple superstar players at or near the end of their prime so winning championships or coming close to it like Phil is not as great an accomplishment as what Popovich did building the Spurs from the ground up - developing high draft picks and low ones into the superstars they became. People forget none of the Spurs elite players were one and done college superstars or even consensus no1 picks in mock drafts. Neither Duncan nor Robinson were locks to go no1 in their drafts especially since they were older players with 4 years in college/naval academy. Kawhi was a sophomore who dropped on draft night from where he was projected to land in 2011 mock drafts and was acquired via trade. Tony Parker was a kid from France who had no major talent that indicated he would become a starting pg or all star for nba title teams when he was drafted. Popovich did a lot of the work more so than any luck the Spurs got in morphing themselves into the gold standard franchise in pro sports especially as a small market team.
No, Duncan was the clear number one pick.... it was known at the time that Boston was tanking hard for Duncan but ended up with the third pick.
It was like Greg Oden vs KD - people thought Keith Van Horn was going to be a superstar as well obviously he was a role player at best. The point is the Spurs had legitimate injuries for being bad that season they did not intentionally tank like multiple teams.
