RealGM

If Rivers isn't the right coach for the Celtics, then who would replace him? There are only three active coaches who have shown they can win a championship: Phil Jackson, who has always won with the league's dominant player (Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal and now -- he hopes -- MVP Kobe Bryant); Gregg Popovich, who has always had Tim Duncan with former MVP David Robinson or Parker and Ginobili; and Larry Brown, whom Rivers tried to hire as his lead assistant last summer.

This is a pretty damning quote from this article.....

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/w ... index.html

It just makes you wonder if we absolutely put too much discussion on coaching. Without the games most dominant player no current coach has won a title, save Larry Brown who had the leagues best team at the time.

Of course we do. You need coaching to win a title, but you need good players first. Go on any other board save a few and everyone is complaining about the HC. Hell, even on the LAL board they whine about Jackson. Coaches get entirely too much blame, this league is about the players you put on the floor.

I would almost agree, except......MJ didn't always have a title, O'neal didn't always have a title......etc........it took that right person to take them over the hump.......you think Rile's might have been able to coax at least one ring out of that Jazz squad? I don't know man, I think its like Skill and Talent......you can't be the best without both. You need a great coach and great talent.

Coaching is blamed far too often for losses- its just easier to blame the coach than the players that you are a fan of. Its not about the X's and O's its about hte Jimmy's and Joe's as they say in football.

I'll take an average coach and great talent any day over average talent and a great coach.

Sultanofatl wrote:I would almost agree, except......MJ didn't always have a title, O'neal didn't always have a title......etc........it took that right person to take them over the hump.......you think Rile's might have been able to coax at least one ring out of that Jazz squad? I don't know man, I think its like Skill and Talent......you can't be the best without both. You need a great coach and great talent.

I go a step further and say that great coaching assisted the development of great players. Ultimately it takes great talent, desire, and dedication to become champion. Along the way that talented player had to receive some coaching (whether it be position coach or head coach) that helped them know what they needed to do to get where they wanted. Doug Collins didn't win a title with the Bulls, but Michael Jordan sure seemed to feel he helped him and the team become better.

In my opinion head coach is given too much credit and too much blame unless the coach is trying to force a style on a team that it isn't built for (then they deserve more blame). I don't feel assistant coaches and specialty coaches get enough credit because their ground work might take years to pay off on the court.

Coaching might be overrated, and I definitely think the players you have are much more important, but that doesn't mean Woodson doesn't hurt this team a helluva lot. I would rather ASG picked a high school coach at random than bring Woody back. He doesn't understand basic basketball and doesn't demand any sort of discipline out of his players.

A high school coach?

JoshB914 wrote:A high school coach?

I think most high school coaches at least understand how to substitute players with foul trouble, whereas Woody just sits you down for the rest of the half if you pick up two early fouls.

Plus, any coach other than Woodson would have been able to stop Smith from shooting those awful 3s at this point. I just want anyone other than Woodson, but I'm afraid he will be here again next year.

Smith isn't taking those threes by a mistake. He puts Joe on the Block and puts Smith there to be the outlet. Mind numbingly stupid.

I think if anything people don't understand how important coaching really is with the NBA.

Yes, you need the players to be successful, but a team with great players and a dumb game plan is going to lose to a team with good players and a great gameplan EVERYTIME.

Unless you have a coach that just lets them play, the coaches are dictating who are getting the shots, where they are on the court, what pace they are playing. If you put all those things wrong, then you will not have your team in the position to lose.

Woody put Joe in the position to win some games himself this year. The problem? It wasn't the right play. So yes, the player COULD have won the game on the court, but if the coach utilized the proper calls, the team would have been a better position to win.

Having your worse 3 point shooter as the outlet out of the post is plain simple thinking that no coach making millions of dollars should be making. I could seriously sit here and name dozens of thinks that Woody does that makes our team worse.

At the end of the day, yes, its the players on the court. But a bad coach can make great players look good, good players look average and average players look mediocre.

A high school coach wouldn't be able to figure out NBA defensive schemes and the like. That is going too far.

Mike woodson can't figure out simply defensive schemes.

Mike is definately college coach material and I think he would do a good job at that level. He could recruit the players to fit whatever system he wanted, he can micromanage the PG position, and he could play the nice halfcourt game.

But he is just a horrid NBA coach.