Kings vs Mavs

[RIPskaterdude]

Personally, I think our next #1 option for our coach (if Theus is fired and an assistant takes over until the end of the season) should be Tom Thibodeau. Then, for our assistants (keep one if possible so the coaching staff has someone who is familiar with the players), pick a good offensive mind to mix with Tom's defensive personality. Everywhere Tom has gone, he has turned a below average defensive team to one of the best in the league.

[pillwenney]

The sad thing is that I could totally see that happening. I pray it doesn't.

I don't see the big issue. It's a coach that actually might see eye to eye with Petries vision and can run his system. It's time our coach and GM are on the same page because I don't think it's been that way the last couple of years.

Well, go ahead and name me the last head coach who had a clear focus on offense over defense (not a balanced approach, or a motivational guy, a preference for offense) that won a championship, and I'll concede the argument.

And when do you realistically see us being that type of team?

Does it matter? What matters is that the value is fair. I'm just saying that that's about how good he is, so he was worth the deal.

[RIPskaterdude]

^^ Yes, but you could also say that the value for Moore was good...but that doesn't mean he is good for the team. I feel that Moore/Garcia would be much better on a contending team, like the Rockets, than on a rebuilding team (could you imagine Moore/Garcia coming off the bench in Houston? Seems perfect, IMO). But we'll see how Garcia does after he gets back in shape, because it would be unfair to judge him based on his performance in two games...I just don't feel like Garcia will ever be the starting SF for our team, even if Salmons is traded.

[pillwenney]

^^ Yes, but you could also say that the value for Moore was good...but that doesn't mean he is good for the team. I feel that Moore/Garcia would be much better on a contending team, like the Rockets, than on a rebuilding team (could you imagine Moore/Garcia coming off the bench in Houston? Seems perfect, IMO). But we'll see how Garcia does after he gets back in shape, because it would be unfair to judge him based on his performance in two games...I just don't feel like Garcia will ever be the starting SF for our team, even if Salmons is traded.

Lots of players make more sense for a contending team. But Cisco in particular also makes sense here. He's still a very valuable player for us, and you're right--it's extremely unfair to judge him based on his play so far, and will still be unfair for a couple of weeks. The guy hasn't gotten a training camp or really any practice with his team, and he's out of shape. It'll take a while for everybody to get used to him.

And I wouldn't predict that he'll eventually be the team's permanent starting SF either. But I would predict that he'll be an awesome 6th man for years to come.

[SacKingZZZ]

The sad thing is that I could totally see that happening. I pray it doesn't.

I don't see the big issue. It's a coach that actually might see eye to eye with Petries vision and can run his system. It's time our coach and GM are on the same page because I don't think it's been that way the last couple of years.

Well, go ahead and name me the last head coach who had a clear focus on offense over defense (not a balanced approach, or a motivational guy, a preference for offense) that won a championship, and I'll concede the argument.

And when do you realistically see us being that type of team?

Does it matter? What matters is that the value is fair. I'm just saying that that's about how good he is, so he was worth the deal.

That issue is way too black and white for one, it's like asking if the egg came before the chicken but how about Doc Rivers for one! He isn't some kind of mastermind on D, and his previous teams were caca on D or more offensively oriented all the way back to the Orlando days. Still, it really isn't that simple, but before you go anywhere you need to be on the same page for craps sake. If not you might as well take your place in line for the lottery drawings. Petrie is building this team so a coach that fits his vision seems appropriate IMO.

[pillwenney]

That issue is way too black and white for one, it's like asking if the egg came before the chicken but how about Doc Rivers for one! He isn't some kind of mastermind on D, and his previous teams were caca on D or more offensively oriented all the way back to the Orlando days. Still, it really isn't that simple, but before you go anywhere you need to be on the same page for craps sake. If not you might as well take your place in line for the lottery drawings. Petrie is building this team so a coach that fits his vision seems appropriate IMO.

Doc Rivers isn't a particularly defensive or offensive coach. He's a motivator, but the team's strength was clearly defensive because of Thibodeau--their assistant coach. It was his defensive tactics combined with Doc's motivational abilities (lord knows Doc doesn't have any other strengths as a coach). I mean really, if Doc had any real abilities as an offensive coach, you'd think a team with Garnett/Pierce/Allen would have been consistently better offensively last year.

It may not be that simple, but the fact remains that no coaches like him have won in any remotely recent era, so why go into that direction? It does no good to be on the same page, if that page won't lead to a championship. And putting as little focus on defense as Jordan does never leads to a championship. I think Eddie's a solid coach, but his style just doesn't lead to championships. Getting him as the coach moving forward would be like trying to run across the city on a treadmill. You can do all the right movements, and you can go through the right amount of effort, but you didn't get where you needed to go because you were using the wrong equipment.

[SacKingZZZ]

That issue is way too black and white for one, it's like asking if the egg came before the chicken but how about Doc Rivers for one! He isn't some kind of mastermind on D, and his previous teams were caca on D or more offensively oriented all the way back to the Orlando days. Still, it really isn't that simple, but before you go anywhere you need to be on the same page for craps sake. If not you might as well take your place in line for the lottery drawings. Petrie is building this team so a coach that fits his vision seems appropriate IMO.

Doc Rivers isn't a particularly defensive or offensive coach. He's a motivator, but the team's strength was clearly defensive because of Thibodeau--their assistant coach. It was his defensive tactics combined with Doc's motivational abilities (lord knows Doc doesn't have any other strengths as a coach). I mean really, if Doc had any real abilities as an offensive coach, you'd think a team with Garnett/Pierce/Allen would have been consistently better offensively last year.

It may not be that simple, but the fact remains that no coaches like him have won in any remotely recent era, so why go into that direction? It does no good to be on the same page, if that page won't lead to a championship. And putting as little focus on defense as Jordan does never leads to a championship. I think Eddie's a solid coach, but his style just doesn't lead to championships. Getting him as the coach moving forward would be like trying to run across the city on a treadmill. You can do all the right movements, and you can go through the right amount of effort, but you didn't get where you needed to go because you were using the wrong equipment.

Well if that's the idea then we might as well trade all the players we have, because Petrie doesn't typically pick the types of players that win championships. You know what! Why stop there, can Petrie and get it over with. C'mon, seriously it's not that simple. You could have said the same thing about Rick Adelmen, lord knows this guy is one of the most anti-defense in terms of philosophy yet he is able to helm good defensive teams for some odd reason.

And if a great defensive assistant is good enough then why not go that route then. How about that neat little assistant from the Celts!? Haha. Ever wonder what his ability to run a teams offense is like? Maybe that's why he sticks to the defense? I hate to tell everyone but putting the ball in the hole is priority number 1, even above defense believe it or not. Defense gets you over the top but you have to have some type of cohesive offense. We don't even have that right now.

[pillwenney]

Well if that's the idea then we might as well trade all the players we have, because Petrie doesn't typically pick the types of players that win championships. You know what! Why stop there, can Petrie and get it over with. C'mon, seriously it's not that simple. You could have said the same thing about Rick Adelmen, lord knows this guy is one of the most anti-defense in terms of philosophy yet he is able to helm good defensive teams for some odd reason.

And if a great defensive assistant is good enough then why not go that route then. How about that neat little assistant from the Celts!? Haha. Ever wonder what his ability to run a teams offense is like? Maybe that's why he sticks to the defense? I hate to tell everyone but putting the ball in the hole is priority number 1, even above defense believe it or not. Defense gets you over the top but you have to have some type of cohesive offense. We don't even have that right now.

I'm not saying to go gung ho about the defense, necessarily at all. I think a balanced approach is the most proven one. But Jordan doesn't have that.

And Rick is a great coach on both sides of the ball with regards to x's and o's. His problem is that his teams don't play with enough tenacity and mental toughness. He's not a great motivator. I think that's one reason we weren't a championship team under him, but also a reason why I think he and Ron are such a good fit.

I don't know if Thibodeau would be a great over all coach. I think he might be similar to Mike Brown. And sure everybody has to have at least a decent offense to get them over the top, but if you have great offensive talent, that will certainly help a lot. The Celtics didn't really figure out their offense until they faced Cleveland in the playoffs.

And not defense is just as important as offense, and that's being generous. All you have to do is look at history to see that that's true. But that's beside the point.

Our offense actually isn't that bad right now. Sure the Dallas game was hideous, but other than that, we haven't had too much trouble scoring the ball over all, and that's without our best scorer. With Kevin back we'll be a solid offensive team. Anybody that tries to suggest that our offense is nearly as bad as our defense right now is simply ignoring what's right in front of them.

[SacKingZZZ]

Well if that's the idea then we might as well trade all the players we have, because Petrie doesn't typically pick the types of players that win championships. You know what! Why stop there, can Petrie and get it over with. C'mon, seriously it's not that simple. You could have said the same thing about Rick Adelmen, lord knows this guy is one of the most anti-defense in terms of philosophy yet he is able to helm good defensive teams for some odd reason.

And if a great defensive assistant is good enough then why not go that route then. How about that neat little assistant from the Celts!? Haha. Ever wonder what his ability to run a teams offense is like? Maybe that's why he sticks to the defense? I hate to tell everyone but putting the ball in the hole is priority number 1, even above defense believe it or not. Defense gets you over the top but you have to have some type of cohesive offense. We don't even have that right now.

I'm not saying to go gung ho about the defense, necessarily at all. I think a balanced approach is the most proven one. But Jordan doesn't have that.

And Rick is a great coach on both sides of the ball with regards to x's and o's. His problem is that his teams don't play with enough tenacity and mental toughness. He's not a great motivator. I think that's one reason we weren't a championship team under him, but also a reason why I think he and Ron are such a good fit.

I don't know if Thibodeau would be a great over all coach. I think he might be similar to Mike Brown. And sure everybody has to have at least a decent offense to get them over the top, but if you have great offensive talent, that will certainly help a lot. The Celtics didn't really figure out their offense until they faced Cleveland in the playoffs.

And not defense is just as important as offense, and that's being generous. All you have to do is look at history to see that that's true. But that's beside the point.

Our offense actually isn't that bad right now. Sure the Dallas game was hideous, but other than that, we haven't had too much trouble scoring the ball over all, and that's without our best scorer. With Kevin back we'll be a solid offensive team. Anybody that tries to suggest that our offense is nearly as bad as our defense right now is simply ignoring what's right in front of them.

Who said that? The first thing Bobby Jackson mentioned when he was traded to Memphis was how much they focused on preparing the defense, a far cry from Ricks tactics apparently.

What I'm saying is if you don't have any offense, it doesn't matter how good you are on defense, you aren't even going to sniff the playoffs. So in that sense, no, overall it's not really as important. It is the thing that gets you over the hump though. We just need to get started, I don't think an offensive minded coach is necessarily a bad choice if it fits the GM and the personnel. The least of our problems right now is figuring how to get over the hump, we're still stuck on the rebuilding thing from the looks of it.

[pillwenney]

Who said that? The first thing Bobby Jackson mentioned when he was traded to Memphis was how much they focused on preparing the defense, a far cry from Ricks tactics apparently.

What I'm saying is if you don't have any offense, it doesn't matter how good you are on defense, you aren't even going to sniff the playoffs. So in that sense, no, overall it's not really as important. It is the thing that gets you over the hump though. We just need to get started, I don't think an offensive minded coach is necessarily a bad choice if it fits the GM and the personnel. The least of our problems right now is figuring how to get over the hump, we're still stuck on the rebuilding thing from the looks of it.

I said that. Rick did focus more on offense, but he set the team up to succeed effectively on both sides of the ball.

The same can kind of be said for the other way around. I mean you might sniff the playoffs, but you're sure as hell not going to get far, and that's all that really matters.

I mean in that respect, I suppose I wouldn't mind having Eddie as a temporary option, but I can say right now that he's not going to lead us anywhere, and I don't think it would be very respectful to hire a guy with the knowledge that we won't be keeping him around for good.

[SacKingZZZ]

Who said that? The first thing Bobby Jackson mentioned when he was traded to Memphis was how much they focused on preparing the defense, a far cry from Ricks tactics apparently.

What I'm saying is if you don't have any offense, it doesn't matter how good you are on defense, you aren't even going to sniff the playoffs. So in that sense, no, overall it's not really as important. It is the thing that gets you over the hump though. We just need to get started, I don't think an offensive minded coach is necessarily a bad choice if it fits the GM and the personnel. The least of our problems right now is figuring how to get over the hump, we're still stuck on the rebuilding thing from the looks of it.

I said that. Rick did focus more on offense, but he set the team up to succeed effectively on both sides of the ball.

The same can kind of be said for the other way around. I mean you might sniff the playoffs, but you're sure as hell not going to get far, and that's all that really matters.

I mean in that respect, I suppose I wouldn't mind having Eddie as a temporary option, but I can say right now that he's not going to lead us anywhere, and I don't think it would be very respectful to hire a guy with the knowledge that we won't be keeping him around for good.

Uh, you do know that the teams that don't even make it to the playoffs have somewhere in the neighborhood of a 0% chance of winning a title right?

[pillwenney]

Uh, you do know that the teams that don't even make it to the playoffs have somewhere in the neighborhood of a 0% chance of winning a title right?

That's not really valid. Getting an 8 seed and then "having a chance every year because technically you have a chance when you're in the playoffs" shouldn't be our goal. Not to mention that in any recent era, about the same percentage of teams have won rings that have followed an offense-first philosophy to the degree of Jordan.

[SacKingZZZ]

Uh, you do know that the teams that don't even make it to the playoffs have somewhere in the neighborhood of a 0% chance of winning a title right?

That's not really valid. Getting an 8 seed and then "having a chance every year because technically you have a chance when you're in the playoffs" shouldn't be our goal. Not to mention that in any recent era, about the same percentage of teams have won rings that have followed an offense-first philosophy to the degree of Jordan.

No, but from where we are as a young team with a few more lotto picks headed our way it's a step up. From where we were as a veteren team it was a step to the side. You put yourself in a situation to get there and then make the tweaks you need from that point on to get better.

[pillwenney]

No, but from where we are as a young team with a few more lotto picks headed our way it's a step up. From where we were as a veteren team it was a step to the side. You put yourself in a situation to get there and then make the tweaks you need from that point on to get better.

Yes, but many teams in the past have put themselves in the position where they can't really move forward past that point and were stuck in that position for years. This debate is about Eddie Jordan, and hiring him is a good way to get yourself stuck in that position.

[SacKingZZZ]

No, but from where we are as a young team with a few more lotto picks headed our way it's a step up. From where we were as a veteren team it was a step to the side. You put yourself in a situation to get there and then make the tweaks you need from that point on to get better.

Yes, but many teams in the past have put themselves in the position where they can't really move forward past that point and were stuck in that position for years. This debate is about Eddie Jordan, and hiring him is a good way to get yourself stuck in that position.

But it isn't. Heck he might just be the 3rd in line to get the team headed in the right direction and nothing more. The timing is right I think. By the start of next year we should have a better idea of our own talent and then it's time to start thinking of how to use them.

[pillwenney]

But it isn't. Heck he might just be the 3rd in line to get the team headed in the right direction and nothing more. The timing is right I think. By the start of next year we should have a better idea of our own talent and then it's time to start thinking of how to use them.

But what isn't? The debate isn't about Eddie Jordan, or it hiring him isn't a good way to get yourself stuck in that position?

[SacKingZZZ]

But it isn't. Heck he might just be the 3rd in line to get the team headed in the right direction and nothing more. The timing is right I think. By the start of next year we should have a better idea of our own talent and then it's time to start thinking of how to use them.

But what isn't? The debate isn't about Eddie Jordan, or it hiring him isn't a good way to get yourself stuck in that position?

I said it isn't a way to get you stuck in that position.

[pillwenney]

Because we would let him go before we got stuck? That doesn't seem very far to him.

[SacKingZZZ]

Because we would let him go before we got stuck? That doesn't seem very far to him.

IF we get stuck. There are no guarantees here either way. Even the mighty Jerry Sloan was on the hot seat at one time. So was Phil Jackson with Lakers a few years ago. How you do in relation to your expectations determines the eventual outcome. If we aren't improving under his rule then, yes, you move on.

[pillwenney]

IF we get stuck. There are no guarantees here either way. Even the mighty Jerry Sloan was on the hot seat at one time. So was Phil Jackson with Lakers a few years ago. How you do in relation to your expectations determines the eventual outcome. If we aren't improving under his rule then, yes, you move on.

I guess, I would just prefer to look for someone that could potentially lead a championship team.