RealGM

Obvious there are extenuating circumstances surround some recent one-year firings.

Krystkowiak probably got wiped because of new management. This happens all the time, but should a new GM give an incumbent coach a chance if he had an alright season? I mean, he probably didn't even have the players to perform considering there was a recent GM change. On the other hand, if a bad GM couldn't pick good players, who's to say he can pick a good coach?

And the Bulls fired Boylan. It's not really fair to give a guy a partial shot to coach without an offseason to instill his scheme. On the other hand, isn't it a foregone conclusion that an interim coach is normally going to get canned at the end of the season? Unless a guy makes the playoffs an organization is not going to give him a serious look. Clearly this is what Paxson expects from any coach.

What do you think of a coach being fired in either of these types of situations?

Under what other circumstances could a coach be fired after one year?

I would fire Sam Vincent after 1 year. IMO if a team takes steps back and the coach you hired has no history of success why keep him. Hope he gets it next year?

if the team is sucking as bad as the knicks or even the nets then I would consider making changes

No vision, no paycheck.

The Kings fired Mussleman after one season, I don't think there was anyone against that decision, there are things you are able to see in one season, his communication with the players, establishing authority and hints of coaching philosophy, if these things aren't there or aren't satisfying then coach should get the axe.

I've never really liked Krystkowiak. He reminds me of this coach from a rival school that spends a lot of time venting.

If a coach can't cut it, cut him. Period. I don't mind firings after one year... I have a problem with coaches who can't coach, keeping their job year after year after year *cough*FlipSaunders*cough*.

If a player isn't pulling his weight, you move him... coaches should be no different. Hold them accountable.

Boylan wasn't a real coach, as you said, he was just an interim coach. Unless he turned the team around it was obvious he was going to get canned.

I think the whole Interim coach thing with Boylan was BS. I think it was an excuse for Paxson to have more time, if you follow my posts the you will know my stance on Paxson and how I think he should be fired for lack of performance, he has been given so many high lottery picks and good players to build around and he just hasnt cut the mustard, I cant believe the guy still has a job to tell you the truth.

I think the problem is that Larry K and Boylan... Both suck. You basically had to fire them...*

*Actually then again I heard something about Larry K wanting to instill some sort of a triangle-type offense for the Bucks but he was TOLD to scrap that idea and run a different offense by the Bucks' owner... You'd have to ask Bucks fans for the details / truth behind this...

Liqourish wrote:If a coach can't cut it, cut him. Period. I don't mind firings after one year... I have a problem with coaches who can't coach, keeping their job year after year after year *cough*FlipSaunders*cough*.

If a player isn't pulling his weight, you move him... coaches should be no different. Hold them accountable.

Flip Saunders kept the Pistons dominant in east and the whole league after Wallace bolting, he had a debacle last year against the Cavs, that shouldn't get him fired.
Colossal failures combined with disgruntled rosters is what gets coaches fired, not a questionable loss at the ECF after very successful season.
That's just my opinion though.

If your name is Larry Krystkowiak then yes you do. Netforce, yes that is a true statement about the offense. But Larry K's rotations and other offensive schemes plus his inability to motivate or look like he knew what he was doing on the bench is why he was fired. He was just in way over his head.

_SRV_ wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Flip Saunders kept the Pistons dominant in east and the whole league after Wallace bolting, he had a debacle last year against the Cavs, that shouldn't get him fired.
Colossal failures combined with disgruntled rosters is what gets coaches fired, not a questionable loss at the ECF after very successful season.
That's just my opinion though.

Ben Wallace was with Saunders in '06 and he could get a team that went to back-to-back finals, back to finals and had them lose to the Heat.

Ben Wallace was on the decline since '05 but most of his errors were covered by Sheed, Tay and Dice and exposed once he went to a team that didn't have the players to cover him. To credit Flip for the teams top defense is laughable.

Very successful is winning it all, not losing to team you should have beaten two years in a row. Maybe our fanbases have different ideas of success.

Name me one time Flip Saunders coached his team to a championship. Name me one time Saunders coached his team to the finals. Name me one time Flip Saunders coached his team out of a timeout.

Joe Dumars put together a team that can win 50+ games and go deep in the playoff no matter who coaches (Carlisle, Brown, Saunders) but if a coach can't make adjustments and coach his team to victory it's time to part ways.

Short Answer: Yes

Long Answer: It depends on the circumstances.

The Bucks actually told Krystowiak what offense to run?

That's unbelievable. No wonder that team is underperforming.

Anticon wrote:The Bucks actually told Krystowiak what offense to run?

That's unbelievable. No wonder that team is underperforming.

Not really the whole organization. Just the guy who owns it.

richboy wrote:I would fire Sam Vincent after 1 year. IMO if a team takes steps back and the coach you hired has no history of success why keep him. Hope he gets it next year?

Hopefully Jordan feels the same way - because the fans do!!

Yes you can... you can fire him during the first season as well.

firing a coach after one season smacks of poor management/ownership. hiring a coach is a collective decision, one in which all parties should, in theory, be on the same page regarding the players on the roster, the style of play, the future, etc., etc.

if for some reason said coach does something obviously outside of the agreed upon principles, then i'd imagine there'd be some cause for concern. but unless he took the job with a "win or else" caveat (and why would he do that), it's extremely short-sighted to recruit, interview, align oneself with philosophically then after underacheiving, utter a statement regarding said coach's inablity to "get the job done".

and jim boylan doesn't count in the least; he was a retread without even earning the right to become a head coach. as a skiles disciple, the only thing he brought to the table was a skiles strategical approach, which had already shown serious signs of wear, and an inabilty to adjust to the players he'd already been around for 3+ years; boylan wasn't ready for the HC job and it showed.

I see all these fans complaining about their coaches after just one year, and it's just not fair. A lot of those coaches were brought into extremely difficult situations (Iavaroni, Mitchell, Krystowiak) and it is ridiculous for them be fired immediately. If you hire a coach with that tight of a leash you might as well not hire one in the first place.

Boylan I can understand, as he as the interim and was hired as an HC by default. But hearing everyone cry for guys like Mitchell and Iavaroni to be fired is nonsense. You gotta give coaches more time to implement their type of basketball, or they won't succeed no matter who they are.