Clyde_Style wrote:tapshotta wrote:Clyde_Style wrote:A steep learning curve for a second year coach with absolutely no coaching experience most definitely is abnormal, because it is probably less than 1% of coaching hires in NBA history that fit that parameter.
You can tell us it takes time while some just cut to the chase and say it was a dumb idea to hire him to begin with.
No, we cannot afford his learning curve. That's the point.
Compared to other coaches the situation or rather the hire is abnormal yes but for this specific instance in this specific situation , the performance, it certainly is not.
To determine if it was dumb I'd need to know the reasoning behind the decision; if it was to compete for a championship year one or even year two, than yes it was. Kerr was in the FO and an analyst for years, Hoiberg was a HC, Budenholzer Assc HC etc.
What is the cost of his learning curve, on the larger scale, what do we lose by having him learn on the job and make unavoidable (in large part) completely rookie mistakes. There is one person in particular who I would see having huge issue, potentially but as a fan base, we don't honestly believe that he's going to cost a a championship this year or even next do we?
Foresight, hindsight, whatever. The learning curve should be evident and it is not. We can excuse Fisher and say his worst coaching record in Knicks history was because we had the worst roster in Knicks history, but that was only the case AFTER we decided to tear it down and start over. When we began last season, Phil was saying we were a playoff team. It shows how little he understood how ill-equipped Fisher was for the job.
Last season was maybe a blessing in disguise since it compelled Phil to pull the plug on most of the roster and to start over and we got KP. But if you believe Fisher had nothing to do with a 17 win season and even a great coach would have had the same record, then I'll have to disagree.
What more do you need to see? Well, some want to support Phil so by extension the great Zen Master knows better than us and Fisher will turn out really well which is not how I see it. I think Phil screwed up. I don't need to qualify this any further. The proof is out on the court after 100 pre and regular season games.
It's hard to make an accurate determination as to whether or not he's learning because the roster has had so much turnover IMO. Different players require different circumstances to succeed. Of those who came back, Early was hurt most of the season, Melo was too, as was Calderon, Aldmunson was for stretches as well iirc. He had Gallo for a significant portion of his rookie year tho.
Fisher isn't just figuring out how to coach, he's learning a new cadre' of players many of whom have limited experience in significant roles, and even fewer with those roles on actual championship caliber teams. O'quinn was an 8th man at best and his teams sucked, Derek Williams wasn't even that and his teams sucked etc. It's hard to teach while you're learning at the same time. You don't have years of knowledge to lean on and command from the sidelines with.
I agree with your interpretation that Phil was surprised about where Fish was in his development. A great coach like Larry Brown or George Karl would have steered us into the rocks purposefully to force Phil's hand or like Pop, Doc, Carlisle, never have come at all. Fish most def had a lot to do with it. It was a sinking ship anyway though.
I dont know how this will turn out; my argument is exactly the opposite of what you're saying in that regard. I don't have enough to judge him on yet. I do think that Phil knows more than us, he's old. And he's got lots of expensive jewelry, definitely more successful than I am.
You never had to qualify anything in the first place, I appreciate yo taking some time out to explain why you feel the way you do.
at the beating fisher is taking which happens after every loss, it screams of ignorance.
