emunney wrote:I just flat don't believe we need that good a coach. Obviously we want the best of everything, there's no reason not to have it. But I think Prunty would have been fine. The top end talent is crazy dominant and naturally complementary. Just go with it, that's all. Do the simple, obvious things well and nobody will be able to do a damn thing about it.
A bad coach can sink a very talented team - even putting aside tactics, bad coaches can cause all sorts of problems with managing your players and, in especially bad situations, can create a culture of distrust and disharmony. Griffin was a bad coach, and it was reflected in the general malaise that we saw from the players over this last month (in addition to all of the tactical issues which were evident from Day 1).
A good coach isn't going to win a title for you, but will maximize your talent more effectively. When you have high-end talent, though, a good coach's influence on winning is mitigated to a significant degree. The players win most of those games by just being so much better than their opponents.
But, I do think that a great coach could make the difference in a tight series against a well-coached, competitive opponent. Basically, coaching might be the difference between beating Miami, Boston, Indiana, or Philly in the East. It might make the difference if we go to the Finals and have to take on Denver or Phoenix or Minnesota or OKC or LAC.