Eddie Jordan's New Coaching Job

Higga · Post #1 » by **Higga** » Mon Dec 5, 2011 11:35 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/hi ... story.html

How the "mighty" have fallen...Ex Eastern Conference All-Star team coach Eddie Jordan is now coaching High School basketball.

High School FRESHMEN basketball... :lol:

To think this guy actually coached an NBA team once.....

tkunit · Post #2 » by **tkunit** » Mon Dec 5, 2011 11:52 pm

Good for him

Induveca · Post #3 » by **Induveca** » Mon Dec 5, 2011 11:54 pm

Guy is making 3 million a year from the Sixers this year......I suspect with the lockout he just got bored.

He'll be back as an assistant eventually.

closg00 · Post #4 » by **closg00** » Tue Dec 6, 2011 12:35 am

He's doing it for free for his old Alma Mater, good for him. The pay-outs from Ernie Grunfeld and the Sixers have treated Eddie well :-)

Nivek · Post #5 » by **Nivek** » Tue Dec 6, 2011 3:32 pm

I hope I can fall so hard one day that I'm in a position to be a volunteer coach in my 50s.

dobrojim · Post #6 » by **dobrojim** » Tue Dec 6, 2011 7:28 pm

EJ should be set for life after his last 2 head coaching jobs...

he made....$10M? from those two gigs?

we should all be so lucky

closg00 · Post #7 » by **closg00** » Tue Dec 6, 2011 8:53 pm

dobrojim wrote:EJ should be set for life after his last 2 head coaching jobs...

he made....$10M? from those two gigs?

we should all be so lucky

The beauty of it all is that EJ only had to work two partial seasons to receive all of those millions, he suckered two General Managers.

Nivek · Post #8 » by **Nivek** » Tue Dec 6, 2011 10:31 pm

I know you're trying to be funny, but I don't like that "suckered" characterization. I had my issues with Eddie, but he was a good guy and a good offensive coach who worked hard. He had a blind spot on the defensive side of the game, which hamstrung him as a head coach.

Interestingly, the Eddie Jordan story kinda encapsulates how bad basketball analysis is. Eddie became a head coaching candidate primarily because of the success of the New Jersey Nets. The popular narrative at the time was that New Jersey went to the Finals and was winning because of the innovative Princeton offense taught by Eddie and run by Jason Kidd. It's true that New Jersey ran the Princeton. It's true that Eddie was the offensive coordinator -- it was his system. It's true that Kidd ran the system.

What's not true is that the offense was the primary reason they won. The Nets went to the Finals because they played GREAT defense. Their offense was below average. Now, Eddie's system may have had the Nets playing better offensively than they would have otherwise. But credit should have gone to their defense (run by Mike O'Koren), not to Eddie and the offense.

Of course, then Eddie came to DC (with O'Koren as his D-coordinator) and ran one of the league's very best offenses. Didn't hurt that he had an elite offensive weapon in Arenas -- one of the game's most efficient high-usage players. And, the defense -- run by O'Koren -- sucked.

JWizmentality · Post #9 » by **JWizmentality** » Tue Dec 6, 2011 11:46 pm

Nivek wrote:I hope I can fall so hard one day that I'm in a position to be a volunteer coach in my 50s.

Amen.

Post #10 » by **montestewart** » Wed Dec 7, 2011 3:07 am

SON, SEE THAT PAINTED AREA? PROTECT IT!

Jimmy Recard · Post #11 » by **Jimmy Recard** » Wed Dec 7, 2011 3:15 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHzVfLXOxQM[/youtube]

Just recently re-watched this gem (OT win @ Phoenix, Gil goes for 54 points 3 days after his 60 in LA). Despite the win, it is embarrassing how bad Eddie's defensive scheme was. We gave up countless open three pointers without even being close to contesting them, particularly corner three's.

He has a reputation for being a good offensive coach for some reason when all the offense consisted of was iso's for Gilbert and Caron from straight away, or iso's for Jamison along the baseline. Not even close to enough ball movement when you compare to Phoenix's offensive sets with Nash running the show.

Looking back now, i must have been delusional to think this team of jump shooters with no defense was good enough to go deep in the post season.

hands11 · Post #12 » by **hands11** » Wed Dec 7, 2011 4:28 am

closg00 wrote:
dobrojim wrote:EJ should be set for life after his last 2 head coaching jobs...

he made....$10M? from those two gigs?

we should all be so lucky

The beauty of it all is that EJ only had to work two partial seasons to receive all of those millions, he suckered two General Managers.

Make that one owner and one GM

EJ was all Abe. Hand picked and retained.

But yes, he did do well for himself.

hands11 · Post #13 » by **hands11** » Wed Dec 7, 2011 4:36 am

Jimmy Recard wrote:[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHzVfLXOxQM[/youtube]

Just recently re-watched this gem (OT win @ Phoenix, Gil goes for 54 points 3 days after his 60 in LA). Despite the win, it is embarrassing how bad Eddie's defensive scheme was. We gave up countless open three pointers without even being close to contesting them, particularly corner three's.

He has a reputation for being a good offensive coach for some reason when all the offense consisted of was iso's for Gilbert and Caron from straight away, or iso's for Jamison along the baseline. Not even close to enough ball movement when you compare to Phoenix's offensive sets with Nash running the show.

Looking back now, i must have been delusional to think this team of jump shooters with no defense was good enough to go deep in the post season.

Wow, the whole game is up on YouTube. Thanks.

As for the delusional awakening. Welcome to the other side. We have warm cookies for you. Here. Have one. It will make you feel better.

Wow, strange to see so many vets on the floor. What a shame they couldnt have transitioned that talent into a winning team more smoothly. I wanted them to trade Gil back when he was a red hot asset. Same with AJ. They could have build around Haywood, Dray and Butler by adding the great assets they would have gotten for those two. Though AJ would have been great for about 6M off the bench. Oh well, at least they hit the reset button eventually.

Induveca · Post #14 » by **Induveca** » Wed Dec 7, 2011 6:06 am

Arenas is undoubtedly my favorite player in my adult years......those games vs the Lakers/Suns.....that whole season was pure enjoyment.

Say what you will about him now, much like these younger kids **** on Shaq for being on TNT and KG for being a grumpy old man. Arenas for 3 seasons was a HOF talent, up there with any scoring PG to play the game.

closg00 · Post #15 » by **closg00** » Wed Dec 7, 2011 10:27 am

hands11 wrote:
closg00 wrote:
dobrojim wrote:EJ should be set for life after his last 2 head coaching jobs...

he made....$10M? from those two gigs?

we should all be so lucky

The beauty of it all is that EJ only had to work two partial seasons to receive all of those millions, he suckered two General Managers.

Make that one owner and one GM

EJ was all Abe. Hand picked and retained.

But yes, he did do well for himself.

A Myth now becoming a legend to some posters.

closg00 · Post #16 » by **closg00** » Wed Dec 7, 2011 10:40 am

Nivek wrote:I know you're trying to be funny, but I don't like that "suckered" characterization. I had my issues with Eddie, but he was a good guy and a good offensive coach who worked hard. He had a blind spot on the defensive side of the game, which hamstrung him as a head coach.

Interestingly, the Eddie Jordan story kinda encapsulates how bad basketball analysis is. Eddie became a head coaching candidate primarily because of the success of the New Jersey Nets. The popular narrative at the time was that New Jersey went to the Finals and was winning because of the innovative Princeton offense taught by Eddie and run by Jason Kidd. It's true that New Jersey ran the Princeton. It's true that Eddie was the offensive coordinator -- it was his system. It's true that Kidd ran the system.

What's not true is that the offense was the primary reason they won. The Nets went to the Finals because they played GREAT defense. Their offense was below average. Now, Eddie's system may have had the Nets playing better offensively than they would have otherwise. But credit should have gone to their defense (run by Mike O'Koren), not to Eddie and the offense.

Of course, then Eddie came to DC (with O'Koren as his D-coordinator) and ran one of the league's very best offenses. Didn't hurt that he had an elite offensive weapon in Arenas -- one of the game's most efficient high-usage players. And, the defense -- run by O'Koren -- sucked.

Nivek - Suckered is the appropriate adjective. After EJ was finally fired by EG, he became a candidate for the Philly coaching position. EJ beat-out other candidates by selling Ed Stefanski on his offensive schemes. I had followed the press accounts closely while both Wizard & Sixers boards were waving a huge red flag.

hands11 · Post #17 » by **hands11** » Wed Dec 7, 2011 11:13 am

What is the myth ?

Nivek · Post #18 » by **Nivek** » Wed Dec 7, 2011 2:21 pm

closg00 wrote:
Nivek wrote:I know you're trying to be funny, but I don't like that "suckered" characterization. I had my issues with Eddie, but he was a good guy and a good offensive coach who worked hard. He had a blind spot on the defensive side of the game, which hamstrung him as a head coach.

Interestingly, the Eddie Jordan story kinda encapsulates how bad basketball analysis is. Eddie became a head coaching candidate primarily because of the success of the New Jersey Nets. The popular narrative at the time was that New Jersey went to the Finals and was winning because of the innovative Princeton offense taught by Eddie and run by Jason Kidd. It's true that New Jersey ran the Princeton. It's true that Eddie was the offensive coordinator -- it was his system. It's true that Kidd ran the system.

What's not true is that the offense was the primary reason they won. The Nets went to the Finals because they played GREAT defense. Their offense was below average. Now, Eddie's system may have had the Nets playing better offensively than they would have otherwise. But credit should have gone to their defense (run by Mike O'Koren), not to Eddie and the offense.

Of course, then Eddie came to DC (with O'Koren as his D-coordinator) and ran one of the league's very best offenses. Didn't hurt that he had an elite offensive weapon in Arenas -- one of the game's most efficient high-usage players. And, the defense -- run by O'Koren -- sucked.

Nivek - Suckered is the appropriate adjective. After EJ was finally fired by EG, he became a candidate for the Philly coaching position. EJ beat-out other candidates by selling Ed Stefanski on his offensive schemes. I had followed the press accounts closely while both Wizard & Sixers boards were waving a huge red flag.

How is that suckering? Eddie interviewed for the job. He impressed Stefanski. That's what he was supposed to do -- unless the reason people interview for jobs has changed. Maybe I missed the memo or something.

"Suckering" carries the connotation that Eddie did something wrong. That he lied, misled or was fraudulent in some way. I've never gotten that sense about Eddie. He pitched Stefanski on his offense. Stefanski liked him and hired him. It didn't work.

closg00 · Post #19 » by **closg00** » Wed Dec 7, 2011 2:49 pm

You say impressed, I say suckered, conned, whatever. Philly should have known better than to hire EJ, they had to pay for their mistake during the first year of his contract. The next coach took the exact same players and went to the playoffs. EJ's name was subsequently never mentioned again when coaching vacancies were discussed nor as he interviewed for any coaching vacancies. I wonder why?

fishercob · Post #20 » by **fishercob** » Wed Dec 7, 2011 2:56 pm

closg00 wrote:
Nivek wrote:I know you're trying to be funny, but I don't like that "suckered" characterization. I had my issues with Eddie, but he was a good guy and a good offensive coach who worked hard. He had a blind spot on the defensive side of the game, which hamstrung him as a head coach.

Interestingly, the Eddie Jordan story kinda encapsulates how bad basketball analysis is. Eddie became a head coaching candidate primarily because of the success of the New Jersey Nets. The popular narrative at the time was that New Jersey went to the Finals and was winning because of the innovative Princeton offense taught by Eddie and run by Jason Kidd. It's true that New Jersey ran the Princeton. It's true that Eddie was the offensive coordinator -- it was his system. It's true that Kidd ran the system.

What's not true is that the offense was the primary reason they won. The Nets went to the Finals because they played GREAT defense. Their offense was below average. Now, Eddie's system may have had the Nets playing better offensively than they would have otherwise. But credit should have gone to their defense (run by Mike O'Koren), not to Eddie and the offense.

Of course, then Eddie came to DC (with O'Koren as his D-coordinator) and ran one of the league's very best offenses. Didn't hurt that he had an elite offensive weapon in Arenas -- one of the game's most efficient high-usage players. And, the defense -- run by O'Koren -- sucked.

Nivek - Suckered is the appropriate adjective. After EJ was finally fired by EG, he became a candidate for the Philly coaching position. EJ beat-out other candidates by selling Ed Stefanski on his offensive schemes. I had followed the press accounts closely while both Wizard & Sixers boards were waving a huge red flag.

Can we get to the important part of this debate here? You think suckered is an adjective? :lol: