paulpressey25 wrote:BigO wrote:There are so many hot takes on this board on coaches (I know, shocking) that are totaly based on recency bias.
For years posters said Bud was on of the best coaches, despite having the most talented team. This year we were told Atkinson was one of the best coaches. Now we are told Carlisle is a top three coach.
Was Atkinson a great coach in this years playoffs?
Was Carlisle a great coach when he left Dallas and Kidd came in and had a better record and went to the Finals?
Was Bud a great coach this year in Phoenix, when the prior year they wre 16 games above .500 with Frank Vogel?
There's a lot of variables that go into analyzing a coach-talent, injuries, competition and more.
I differ with some of you here on Bud, but I think we almost all agree Doc is a bad coach (despite winning a champioship just like Bud) and Spoelstra is at the top. I think most of us can explain why.
How does Bud win 60 games with that Hawks team?
I've gone over this before, so I don't want to open a can of worms. There are a lot of things that go into a team's record, including how good the competition was that year, your team's talent, etc.
To repeat what I said a few years ago: when Bud was in Atlanta he had three all-stars on that team. Not great players, but at the time they were considered very good players (Milsap, Horford, Korver) in their prime.
I know the counter arguments, like he made those three all-stars, so let's not belabor it.
I will sayIi never bought the argument that head coaches deserve credit for developing players. I don't buy that Kidd developed Giannis into a point
forward (he would have ended up there anyway).
