PG: "It's Just Us Here."

[Iron Mantis]

When Phil got here he kept saying he wasn't married to the triangle. That he just wanted system basketball that didn't 100% rely on pick and roll after pick and roll and to let everybody on the floor get involved. That he wanted to be like the Spurs.

Everybody should be down for that. So then IDK why we're being so damn strict with the triangle. Other teams incorporate triangle sets into their offense, but they're much more versatile. All that talk about Fish altering the system a bit and wanting to push the pace have all went out the window. This team is as slow, predictable, stagnant, and jump shot happy as ever. The ugliest offense I've seen in quite a while.

Would like to see what happens if we threw this isosceles system out the window and just gave Grant the keys to run said pick and roll after pick and roll with our starters instead of Lou Amundson.

Grant is ineffective at the P&R due to his lack of a jumper and inconsistency at the rim.

We are not talking P&R with Seraphin and Lance KOQ and Lou.

We have no idea how effective he could be with KP, Melo, Rolo beside him. I recall the few times he and KP ran the high pick n roll/pop it was money.

We need some stats to show how many minutes he has played with those 3 all on the court and how effective/innefective it was before we jump on the generic Grant sucks response.

[K_ick_God]

BTW good coaching is not about "Comeoncomeoncomeon" -- it's that your ship and plan are tight and you are putting things in place that keep interruptions to a minimum. Not about motivation alone, or about staying on top of guys in the ways a lot of people think.

It's about paying attention to detail and knowing how to massage things here and there, tweak every so often, to keep it going. Also it's establishing a system.

Knicks were caught sleeping but that's not just awareness and prodding guys along -- it's a symptom of bad coaching overall.

[Greenie]

this game was pretty important. team currently in the 8th spot, we're on a losing streak. if there was a game to get up for....this was it.

We got up...
WHY ARE YOU HERE?

[GONYK]

Then what's the job of the coach? He doesn't score any baskets. He doesn't defend anyone. His entire job is to have then prepared strategically. If they come out unprepared, then it's entirely his fault. He gets credit for getting them back in the game in the second half, or is that all on the players too?

Knicks have been coming out flat for 15 years. Was Fisher coaching then too?

Detroit came out flat against us when we played them in MSG. Is SVG a sh*tty coach too?

Spurs came out flat against GSW and where wholly unprepared for the ass kicking they received. They also came out flat and lost in the first 2 weeks of the season to the Pelicans when all they had was AD and no backcourt. Fire Pop?

All a matter of degrees. Of course nothing works perfectly, and the more talent you have the bigger the room for error.

We haven't had a really good coach in a long, long time. Woodson was maybe about average or a little better or worse. Then you'd have to go back to JVG for decency but he was a flawed coach too.

I don't think Fisher is necessarily awful long-term. Right now his inexperience shows too often, or he'll never be too good at the job.

I'm not even talking about Fisher here specifically. It's just that this notion that the players playing hard is 100% the coach's responsibility is a little off to me.

How can you remove all responsibility from grown men who are paid millions to be ready when the opening tap is thrown up?

[Sark]

If people wanna blame the coach for a team not coming out with enough energy then that's their choice but it doesn't mean the're right in doing so. Players have to play and these guys are grown azz men so if they can't play with energy then a big part of that is on them. Not all on them but at least half the fault is on them.

Then what's the job of the coach? He doesn't score any baskets. He doesn't defend anyone. His entire job is to have then prepared strategically. If they come out unprepared, then it's entirely his fault. He gets credit for getting them back in the game in the second half, or is that all on the players too?

Knicks have been coming out flat for 15 years. Was Fisher coaching then too?

Detroit came out flat against us when we played them in MSG. Is SVG a sh*tty coach too?

Spurs came out flat against GSW and where wholly unprepared for the ass kicking they received. They also came out flat and lost in the first 2 weeks of the season to the Pelicans when all they had was AD and no backcourt. Fire Pop?

Knicks have had **** coaches for 15 years. Last good coach was Van Gundy.


And don't compare Fisher to Popovich. If Fisher had 5 rings in his pocket as coach, he'd get cut some slack. Fact is he has never even been more than 2 games over .500, and lead the team to its worst record in franchise history, and is watching his team sink into the abyss again this year, albeit without a draft pick.

[GONYK]

Then what's the job of the coach? He doesn't score any baskets. He doesn't defend anyone. His entire job is to have then prepared strategically. If they come out unprepared, then it's entirely his fault. He gets credit for getting them back in the game in the second half, or is that all on the players too?

Knicks have been coming out flat for 15 years. Was Fisher coaching then too?

Detroit came out flat against us when we played them in MSG. Is SVG a sh*tty coach too?

Spurs came out flat against GSW and where wholly unprepared for the ass kicking they received. They also came out flat and lost in the first 2 weeks of the season to the Pelicans when all they had was AD and no backcourt. Fire Pop?

Knicks have had **** coaches for 15 years. Last good coach was Van Gundy.


And don't compare Fisher to Popovich. If Fisher had 5 rings in his pocket as coach, he'd get cut some slack. Fact is he has never even been more than 2 games over .500, and lead the team to its worst record in franchise history, and is watching his team sink into the abyss again this year, albeit without a draft pick.

Knicks came out flat with JVG all the time too. They just had better players.

The fact that Pop has 5 rings and still doesn't know how to get his team to come out with energy consistently is worse.

[K_ick_God]

Knicks have been coming out flat for 15 years. Was Fisher coaching then too?

Detroit came out flat against us when we played them in MSG. Is SVG a sh*tty coach too?

Spurs came out flat against GSW and where wholly unprepared for the ass kicking they received. They also came out flat and lost in the first 2 weeks of the season to the Pelicans when all they had was AD and no backcourt. Fire Pop?

All a matter of degrees. Of course nothing works perfectly, and the more talent you have the bigger the room for error.

We haven't had a really good coach in a long, long time. Woodson was maybe about average or a little better or worse. Then you'd have to go back to JVG for decency but he was a flawed coach too.

I don't think Fisher is necessarily awful long-term. Right now his inexperience shows too often, or he'll never be too good at the job.

I'm not even talking about Fisher here specifically. It's just that this notion that the players playing hard is 100% the coach's responsibility is a little off to me.

How can you remove all responsibility from grown men who are paid millions to be ready when the opening tap is thrown up?

I suppose I subscribe to some old-school principles that aren't talked about anymore very much. One of them is that I think a team's players take on the coach's personality to a large extent.

But a good plan keeps guys rowing together and a bad one, even separate from pure energy or caring which is how it's interpreted by fans, will see guys getting surprised and not keeping the initiative as much. I don't know about responsibility as a moral thing, but I do believe in plans working or not.

How else do you explain Thibs or Riley when he came to the Knicks? They turned guys into the players, especially defensively, they wanted them to be. Without them, the gameplan wouldn't have existed, and the players would have been on a different plan. Like ours.

[Sark]

Knicks have been coming out flat for 15 years. Was Fisher coaching then too?

Detroit came out flat against us when we played them in MSG. Is SVG a sh*tty coach too?

Spurs came out flat against GSW and where wholly unprepared for the ass kicking they received. They also came out flat and lost in the first 2 weeks of the season to the Pelicans when all they had was AD and no backcourt. Fire Pop?

Knicks have had **** coaches for 15 years. Last good coach was Van Gundy.


And don't compare Fisher to Popovich. If Fisher had 5 rings in his pocket as coach, he'd get cut some slack. Fact is he has never even been more than 2 games over .500, and lead the team to its worst record in franchise history, and is watching his team sink into the abyss again this year, albeit without a draft pick.

Knicks came out flat with JVG all the time too. They just had better players.

The fact that Pop has 5 rings and still doesn't know how to get his team to come out with energy consistently is worse.

Teams have off nights. Everyone does. They don't have them too often. Only 8 in fact, compared to 41 good nights.

Contrast that to the Knicks who have had 29 bad nights, and only 23 good ones.



Don't twist it and imply that a coach has to be 100% or get fired. His career record is 40-94. He's been bad 70.1% of the time.

[GONYK]

All a matter of degrees. Of course nothing works perfectly, and the more talent you have the bigger the room for error.

We haven't had a really good coach in a long, long time. Woodson was maybe about average or a little better or worse. Then you'd have to go back to JVG for decency but he was a flawed coach too.

I don't think Fisher is necessarily awful long-term. Right now his inexperience shows too often, or he'll never be too good at the job.

I'm not even talking about Fisher here specifically. It's just that this notion that the players playing hard is 100% the coach's responsibility is a little off to me.

How can you remove all responsibility from grown men who are paid millions to be ready when the opening tap is thrown up?

I suppose I subscribe to some old-school principles that aren't talked about anymore very much. One of them is that I think a team's players take on the coach's personality to a large extent.

But a good plan keeps guys rowing together and a bad one, even separate from pure energy or caring which is how it's interpreted by fans, will see guys getting surprised and not keeping the initiative as much. I don't know about responsibility as a moral thing, but I do believe in plans working or not.

How else do you explain Thibs or Riley when he came to the Knicks? They turned guys into the players, especially defensively, they wanted them to be. Without them, the gameplan wouldn't have existed, and the players would have been on a different plan. Like ours.

Gameplan is not the same as effort or energy.

Gameplan is knowing what to do. Effort and energy is putting forth maximum focus to do it.

I've never in my entire life had a boss that could make me put in maximum focus every M-F every day of the year. Have you?

[K_ick_God]

Let's not hold up JVG. He was not a really good leader. Man is an assistant coach who got a little lucky. Good defensive coach, horrible offensive one. Basically clueless as a leader of men. Great analyst though.

[GONYK]

Knicks have had **** coaches for 15 years. Last good coach was Van Gundy.


And don't compare Fisher to Popovich. If Fisher had 5 rings in his pocket as coach, he'd get cut some slack. Fact is he has never even been more than 2 games over .500, and lead the team to its worst record in franchise history, and is watching his team sink into the abyss again this year, albeit without a draft pick.

Knicks came out flat with JVG all the time too. They just had better players.

The fact that Pop has 5 rings and still doesn't know how to get his team to come out with energy consistently is worse.

Teams have off nights. Everyone does. They don't have them too often. Only 8 in fact, compared to 41 good nights.

Contrast that to the Knicks who have had 29 bad nights, and only 23 good ones.



Don't twist it and imply that a coach has to be 100% or get fired. His career record is 40-94. He's been bad 70.1% of the time.

You don't twist it. We aren't talking about winning and losing. We are talking about coming out flat.

The Spurs come out flat all the time. In fact, they do it more often than not. They just have the discipline and talent to overcome that as the game goes on.

The Knicks came out flat, but eventually turned up the intensity and showed effort. They don't have the same level of talent and discipline.

The discipline part is the coaching. The effort part is the players.

[K_ick_God]

I'm not even talking about Fisher here specifically. It's just that this notion that the players playing hard is 100% the coach's responsibility is a little off to me.

How can you remove all responsibility from grown men who are paid millions to be ready when the opening tap is thrown up?

I suppose I subscribe to some old-school principles that aren't talked about anymore very much. One of them is that I think a team's players take on the coach's personality to a large extent.

But a good plan keeps guys rowing together and a bad one, even separate from pure energy or caring which is how it's interpreted by fans, will see guys getting surprised and not keeping the initiative as much. I don't know about responsibility as a moral thing, but I do believe in plans working or not.

How else do you explain Thibs or Riley when he came to the Knicks? They turned guys into the players, especially defensively, they wanted them to be. Without them, the gameplan wouldn't have existed, and the players would have been on a different plan. Like ours.

Gameplan is not the same as effort or energy.

Gameplan is knowing what to do. Effort and energy is putting forth maximum focus to do it.

I've never in my entire life had a boss that could make me put in maximum focus every M-F every day of the year. Have you?

I just don't think sports and business are the same in THIS way, but I know where you're coming from overall.

I don't really disagree with being frustrated with guys getting paid millions and looking out of it. But all NBA players are getting paid a lot and each night, some will win and others will lose. And I'm not talking about holding guys responsible or personal feelings about it -- I'm just saying that great coaching will lead to sustained success on a very tight plan. Then if you're not as good a coach, you'll see the other team's millionaire athletes get the better of you. Again, I don't think it's as much about caring and being 'alive' as people say.

It's more complex than that in terms of factors, but those factors are dictated by the coach's plan and the coach's talent for coaching and leading -- most of all it's organizing men for battle. Regular jobs don't really work QUITE that way, but there is some overlap.

All about seizing the initiative and effecting a plan that people follow and that leads to consistency in effort, performance, etc. Sounds like cliches yeah but I believe it 100%.

No players can really coach themselves. Remember how Phil got the Lakers humming after Dell Harris. Do you think Phil would preside over a team that is caught with its pants down as much as we are? Hells to the no. He wouldn't. Which, kind of sort of, proves my theory.

Best coaches get guys giving sustained effort through all the levers at their disposal. The weaker ones succumb to the better coached teams. Just a very Darwinian thing about the NBA.

Thibs would have this cleaned up pretty fast. You would see a very similar plan and direction, and some results, as the Bulls had. Not quite the same, talent matters, but lots of closer games, way more D, and more organization from the top down. 100%. Thibs would succeed in NY in ways Fish cannot right now.

[GONYK]

I suppose I subscribe to some old-school principles that aren't talked about anymore very much. One of them is that I think a team's players take on the coach's personality to a large extent.

But a good plan keeps guys rowing together and a bad one, even separate from pure energy or caring which is how it's interpreted by fans, will see guys getting surprised and not keeping the initiative as much. I don't know about responsibility as a moral thing, but I do believe in plans working or not.

How else do you explain Thibs or Riley when he came to the Knicks? They turned guys into the players, especially defensively, they wanted them to be. Without them, the gameplan wouldn't have existed, and the players would have been on a different plan. Like ours.

Gameplan is not the same as effort or energy.

Gameplan is knowing what to do. Effort and energy is putting forth maximum focus to do it.

I've never in my entire life had a boss that could make me put in maximum focus every M-F every day of the year. Have you?

I just don't think sports and business are the same in THIS way, but I know where you're coming from overall.

I don't really disagree with being frustrated with guys getting paid millions and looking out of it. But all NBA players are getting paid a lot and each night, some will win and others will lose. And I'm not talking about holding guys responsible or personal feelings about it -- I'm just saying that great coaching will lead to sustained success on a very tight plan. Then if you're not as good a coach, you'll see the other team's millionaire athletes get the better of you. Again, I don't think it's as much about caring and being 'alive' as people say.

It's more complex than that in terms of factors, but those factors are dictated by the coach's plan and the coach's talent for coaching and leading -- most of all it's organizing men for battle. Regular jobs don't really work QUITE that way, but there is some overlap.

All about seizing the initiative and effecting a plan that people follow and that leads to consistency in effort, performance, etc. Sounds like cliches yeah but I believe it 100%.

No players can really coach themselves. Remember how Phil got the Lakers humming after Dell Harris. Do you think Phil would preside over a team that is caught with its pants down as much as we are? Hells to the no. He wouldn't. Which, kind of sort of, proves my theory.

Best coaches get guys giving sustained effort through all the levers at their disposal. The weaker ones succumb to the better coached teams. Just a very Darwinian thing about the NBA.

Thibs would have this cleaned up pretty fast. You would see a very similar plan and direction, and some results, as the Bulls had. Not quite the same, talent matters, but lots of closer games, way more D, and more organization from the top down. 100%. Thibs would succeed in NY in ways Fish cannot right now.

I won't even for one second say Thibs isn't a better coach and wouldn't get better results.

I will say that when the players come out flat for him, which they inevitably will over the course of multiple 82 game seasons, I will blame them before him.

X's and O's? Subs? Defensive schemes? Late game execution? All coach.

Showing up with energy from the opening tap? That will always be a matter of personal pride and responsibility of the players to me. It's not even that much to ask for when you think about it.

But maybe that is just me.

[Capn'O]

I will say this - save a few games, effort wasn't really an issue before Fish's comments about not being disappointed with missing the playoffs. I'll never understand that line.

[K_ick_God]

Gameplan is not the same as effort or energy.

Gameplan is knowing what to do. Effort and energy is putting forth maximum focus to do it.

I've never in my entire life had a boss that could make me put in maximum focus every M-F every day of the year. Have you?

I just don't think sports and business are the same in THIS way, but I know where you're coming from overall.

I don't really disagree with being frustrated with guys getting paid millions and looking out of it. But all NBA players are getting paid a lot and each night, some will win and others will lose. And I'm not talking about holding guys responsible or personal feelings about it -- I'm just saying that great coaching will lead to sustained success on a very tight plan. Then if you're not as good a coach, you'll see the other team's millionaire athletes get the better of you. Again, I don't think it's as much about caring and being 'alive' as people say.

It's more complex than that in terms of factors, but those factors are dictated by the coach's plan and the coach's talent for coaching and leading -- most of all it's organizing men for battle. Regular jobs don't really work QUITE that way, but there is some overlap.

All about seizing the initiative and effecting a plan that people follow and that leads to consistency in effort, performance, etc. Sounds like cliches yeah but I believe it 100%.

No players can really coach themselves. Remember how Phil got the Lakers humming after Dell Harris. Do you think Phil would preside over a team that is caught with its pants down as much as we are? Hells to the no. He wouldn't. Which, kind of sort of, proves my theory.

Best coaches get guys giving sustained effort through all the levers at their disposal. The weaker ones succumb to the better coached teams. Just a very Darwinian thing about the NBA.

Thibs would have this cleaned up pretty fast. You would see a very similar plan and direction, and some results, as the Bulls had. Not quite the same, talent matters, but lots of closer games, way more D, and more organization from the top down. 100%. Thibs would succeed in NY in ways Fish cannot right now.

I won't even for one second say Thibs isn't a better coach and wouldn't get better results.

I will say that when the players come out flat for him, which they inevitably will over the course of multiple 82 game seasons, I will blame them before him.

X's and O's? Subs? Defensive schemes? Late game execution? All coach.

Showing up with energy from the opening tap? That will always be a matter of personal pride and responsibility of the players to me. It's not even that much to ask for when you think about it.

But maybe that is just me.

I just take a minority view that effort AS WE SEE IT is less about coaxing guys or their personal pride and professionalism than people think. At least as it's relative to other teams, the opponents. I think it's a symptom or effect of coaching more than some kind of independent or last-minute choice that is made -- meaning either something that the player can simply do himself OR that the coach can even "get out of him" by just making sure it's given (often called holding players accountable by the fans and media). It's a sign of a good plan or a plan that is not as good.

Not saying personal pride or holding guys accountable is not in the mix, but I think the invisible hand of coaching is powerful and it's long-term. Not something you can do sustainably just by making a personal decision or by the coach remembering to stay on top of guys. No, to me, it's about steps A through Z and if things are missed in building the foundation of good coaching, you'll see it in things like last night's first half.

Not a quick fix thing and not something the Knicks players can just decide to fix on their own.

[GONYK]

I just don't think sports and business are the same in THIS way, but I know where you're coming from overall.

I don't really disagree with being frustrated with guys getting paid millions and looking out of it. But all NBA players are getting paid a lot and each night, some will win and others will lose. And I'm not talking about holding guys responsible or personal feelings about it -- I'm just saying that great coaching will lead to sustained success on a very tight plan. Then if you're not as good a coach, you'll see the other team's millionaire athletes get the better of you. Again, I don't think it's as much about caring and being 'alive' as people say.

It's more complex than that in terms of factors, but those factors are dictated by the coach's plan and the coach's talent for coaching and leading -- most of all it's organizing men for battle. Regular jobs don't really work QUITE that way, but there is some overlap.

All about seizing the initiative and effecting a plan that people follow and that leads to consistency in effort, performance, etc. Sounds like cliches yeah but I believe it 100%.

No players can really coach themselves. Remember how Phil got the Lakers humming after Dell Harris. Do you think Phil would preside over a team that is caught with its pants down as much as we are? Hells to the no. He wouldn't. Which, kind of sort of, proves my theory.

Best coaches get guys giving sustained effort through all the levers at their disposal. The weaker ones succumb to the better coached teams. Just a very Darwinian thing about the NBA.

Thibs would have this cleaned up pretty fast. You would see a very similar plan and direction, and some results, as the Bulls had. Not quite the same, talent matters, but lots of closer games, way more D, and more organization from the top down. 100%. Thibs would succeed in NY in ways Fish cannot right now.

I won't even for one second say Thibs isn't a better coach and wouldn't get better results.

I will say that when the players come out flat for him, which they inevitably will over the course of multiple 82 game seasons, I will blame them before him.

X's and O's? Subs? Defensive schemes? Late game execution? All coach.

Showing up with energy from the opening tap? That will always be a matter of personal pride and responsibility of the players to me. It's not even that much to ask for when you think about it.

But maybe that is just me.

I just take a minority view that effort AS WE SEE IT is less about coaxing guys or their personal pride and professionalism than people think. At least as it's relative to other teams, the opponents. I think it's a symptom or effect of coaching more than some kind of independent or last-minute choice that is made -- meaning either something that the player can simply do himself OR that the coach can even "get out of him" by just making sure it's given (often called holding players accountable by the fans and media). It's a sign of a good plan or a plan that is not as good.

Not saying personal pride or holding guys accountable is not in the mix, but I think the invisible hand of coaching is powerful and it's long-term. Not something you can do sustainably just by making a personal decision or by the coach remembering to stay on top of guys. No, to me, it's about steps A through Z and if things are missed in building the foundation of good coaching, you'll see it in things like last night's first half.

Not a quick fix thing and not something the Knicks players can just decide to fix on their own.

Fair enough.

I think it's a responsibility shared by both parties, but I won't say your view is incorrect either.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[K_ick_God]

Let me give an example instead of theorizing --

Closing out PROPERLY on players and minimizing their space, as well as playing good team defense -- these are skills and little tricks that coaches can devise, demand and inculcate into the plan. They have to be practiced, it takes coaching skill to come up with them and then to make sure it's followed, and it's not a simple thing about telling players to do X, Y, Z. It's less simple than people think.

We work hard defensively but we're pretty ineffective at taking away little bits of space and/or playing a team defense that helps and recovers and makes scorers and passers just a little bit less comfortable against us.

So that's coaching.

But if we see guys getting beat and looking like they are not closing hard -- it could be seen as just a lazy effort or a lack of awareness.

Now, those other things are also in play -- you can stay on top of guys and demand things, you have to do that TOO, but it's necessary and not sufficient. It's part of the puzzle, though I suspect a smaller part of the puzzle.

But if a player comes to play in Detroit with the proper amount of pride and also is reminded by his coach that it's an important game and be ready to play right at the tip -- if that player hasn't had the right teaching and practice on how to close, and how to play committed team D, then playing like your hair is on fire ... it may work at lower levels but in the NBA it is not enough. Same with offense IMO. And these are all team concepts so one guy having commitment is not even the main problem. It's about the unit functioning well together, which further reduces (in my mind) the salience of individual effort/pride as we interpret it on TV.

Thibs D is about him instilling routines in practice and in repetition and delivery that players are incorporating -- they are becoming cogs in his larger plan, which is what coaching is all about.

So that's why I see a disconnect at blaming this all on effort or guys not having pride, or even coaches not properly staying on top of guys. The foundation is not there.

[HEZI]

What GONYK is pointing out as far as energy and focus, is something that I would say is a result of lack of leadership on the floor, not the sidelines. The players dont hold each other accountable and thats an issue. Have they even set a goal for themselves? Is anybody keeping track of progress made towards that goal? The only way to keep the focus and drive going is to keep reaching for a set goal, otherwise with the season being as long as it is, it is easy to have guys just fade off into space eventually.

[moocow007]

I'm not even talking about Fisher here specifically. It's just that this notion that the players playing hard is 100% the coach's responsibility is a little off to me.

How can you remove all responsibility from grown men who are paid millions to be ready when the opening tap is thrown up?

I suppose I subscribe to some old-school principles that aren't talked about anymore very much. One of them is that I think a team's players take on the coach's personality to a large extent.

But a good plan keeps guys rowing together and a bad one, even separate from pure energy or caring which is how it's interpreted by fans, will see guys getting surprised and not keeping the initiative as much. I don't know about responsibility as a moral thing, but I do believe in plans working or not.

How else do you explain Thibs or Riley when he came to the Knicks? They turned guys into the players, especially defensively, they wanted them to be. Without them, the gameplan wouldn't have existed, and the players would have been on a different plan. Like ours.

Gameplan is not the same as effort or energy.

Gameplan is knowing what to do. Effort and energy is putting forth maximum focus to do it.

I've never in my entire life had a boss that could make me put in maximum focus every M-F every day of the year. Have you?

If I had someone on my team that was slacking, absolutely I'd make sure they weren't slacking or were no longer on my team. Why? Because it's my job to make sure they are productive or else. And i'm not getting paid anywhere near what Fisher is.

Most guys on this board probably would not want to work for me.

[GONYK]

I suppose I subscribe to some old-school principles that aren't talked about anymore very much. One of them is that I think a team's players take on the coach's personality to a large extent.

But a good plan keeps guys rowing together and a bad one, even separate from pure energy or caring which is how it's interpreted by fans, will see guys getting surprised and not keeping the initiative as much. I don't know about responsibility as a moral thing, but I do believe in plans working or not.

How else do you explain Thibs or Riley when he came to the Knicks? They turned guys into the players, especially defensively, they wanted them to be. Without them, the gameplan wouldn't have existed, and the players would have been on a different plan. Like ours.

Gameplan is not the same as effort or energy.

Gameplan is knowing what to do. Effort and energy is putting forth maximum focus to do it.

I've never in my entire life had a boss that could make me put in maximum focus every M-F every day of the year. Have you?

If I had someone on my team that was slacking, absolutely I'd make sure they weren't slacking or were no longer on my team. Why? Because it's my job to make sure they are productive or else. And i'm not getting paid anywhere near what Fisher is.

Most guys on this board probably would not want to work for me.

Getting rid of them? Sure.

I'm interested in how you would make them perform 365 days a year though.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk