are gm's more important then coaches?

[thaAteam]

everyone talks about how much having a great coach matters and how they turn around a franchise, but imo wouldnt teams rather have a great gm. the season riley had in miami last year and larry brown had in new york is no better then dwayne casey or terry stotts could have done with that talent. its simple in my opinion talent wins, so the gms should be making the 10 mill a year not coaches, any thoughts?

[Cigamodnalro]

owners are more important than both

[Jack wore plaid]

I say yes.

Any average coach could have had about as much success as Nate McMIllan, but Nate McMillan could not have had the success he did without the great moves by Kevn Pritchard

[Jack wore plaid]

I say yes.

Any average coach could have had about as much success as Nate McMIllan, but Nate McMillan could not have had the success he did without the great moves by Kevn Pritchard

[Malinhion]

Obviously, yes. The GM picks the coach and the players.

With a bad GM, you won't have a good coach (not for long if you do), you won't get good players, you'll lose the good players you do have, and you'll screw up your cap/talent situation bad enough that the next guy won't be able to fix it for a few years.

A bad coach won't get much out of good players, and will get less out of bad players.

All a good coach can do is win with good players. The GM has to get them in place first.

[thaAteam]

then why do so called good coaches get paid more then good gms

[Teen Girl Squad]

Disagree somewhat. Just compare the east and west. Id say the teams in both have comparable talent but the West is much better in game. I think thats down to coaching, though GMs also help build more balanced rosters.

[Muzzleshot]

Disagree somewhat. Just compare the east and west. Id say the teams in both have comparable talent but the West is much better in game. I think thats down to coaching, though GMs also help build more balanced rosters.

11 of the 15 players on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd team all-NBA are from the west. Of the next 10 players to receive votes, 7 are from the west.
That's 18 out of the top 25 from the west.

[Wizards2Lottery]

The Wizards without Ernie Grunfeld and with Eddie Jordan would probably be a lottery team. So yes, this is true somewhat.

[Ming Kong!]

Difficult to say. A GM has great negotiation skills, and needs a good eye for talent, but a coach needs to have a system, a set of plays, know how to train the players, motivate them, make changes through the course the game. I mean I was very general, and I didn't even cover the surface for what the GM does, but I'd say the coach has his reputation on the line each day, while most people don't know half the GMs in this league. Just look at how many coaching changes have been done in the last 10 years vs the GM changes. With that said I can't say coach for SURE, but I'm inclined that way.

[Malinhion]

Disagree somewhat. Just compare the east and west. Id say the teams in both have comparable talent but the West is much better in game. I think thats down to coaching, though GMs also help build more balanced rosters.

The GM still picks the coach.

[sirgant1]

That's a very difficult question to answer. I think it's a combination of both. A really good GM should pick a good coach. Name some examples of a great GM with a bad coach, or a great coach with a bad GM. They reflect on each other. People were dumping on Mitch Kupchak before the Gasol trade, Elgin Baylor won executive of the year a few years back, but now the Clippers are back to losing with the same coach.

Bottom line is you need a "good" organization, where the owner spends the money (and hopefully stays out of the way), the GM picks the coach and they together develop a philosophy of what type of team they are building, what style of play, and then proceed to get the best players to fulfill that end. THis is why you see teams like the Spurs (you never hear their owners name) and Pistons continue to have success.

And by the way Nate McMillian is a good coach.

[a-rod]

The GM of a basketball team determines the direction and style of the team. A great Head coach adjusts based on the talent, but while they make take input from every member of the team, they are the person who makes the final decisions and takes the blame/accolades for that decision.

In my opinion, GMs are definitely more important.

[Kosar86]

In the NBA, this is the heirarchy of importance (outside of players) for success:

1) Ping Pong Balls








2) GM

3) Coach

[Kosar86]

A GM has to go out and get good wood, a coach then carves it.

Unfortunately, you cant carve rotten wood.

[Red Robot]

I think coaches are more important. Being a GM is hit-or-miss. There's an element of chance. Most of the guys who have had long careers as executives have some good moves and some bad moves. They've presided both over good teams and over bad ones. Coaches are usually more consistent, and it's more obvious that their skill correlates with team success.

I could imagine a team that's successful with a below-average GM. Someone who drafts someone every year, uses the MLE every year, maybe makes a few simple trades, but mostly sits on his hands. A coach couldn't get away with that approach.

Also, GMs don't necessarily pick coaches. Coaches could be hired by Owners, team presidents, or anyone else at the head of a club.

I guess what I'm saying is, an intelligent and even-tempered chimpanzee, given the channels to communicate his will, could be a better general manager than some we've seen. This same chimpanzee would make a terrible coach, and not just because the players wouldn't respect him.

[Dtown84]

A good GM can build a team that can win with a bad coach, hell just look at the ECF.

[NO-KG-AI]

Disagree somewhat. Just compare the east and west. Id say the teams in both have comparable talent but the West is much better in game. I think thats down to coaching, though GMs also help build more balanced rosters.

Well I look at it like this, Doc Rivers(bad coach) and Flip Saunders(bad coach) are both in the conference finals because of good rosters built by GM's. Do you think Larry Brown(great coach, not so terrific roster) will be competing with them next year?

[maxwellcu]

Coaching becomes more important imo when you look compare a greg popovich to a george karl. I don't think, for example, you could win an nba championship with a george karl coaching, regardless of ANY roster you could possibly assemble.

[thaAteam]

well, the question is not who has the harder job(coaches) its whos more important(gm) if phil jackson, red aurbach, greg popovich, and pat riley worked under michael jordan or isiah thomas as their gm would have a combined 0 rings