Will Billy Donovan leave OKC to go to Indiana?

[DubCeeSwag]

I still have a gut feeling that Stevens will end up at IU. I know he's denying it, but he pretty much has to deny it right now no matter what. He's Indiana born and raised, and we all know how crazy that state is for their college hoops programs, especially the Hoosiers.

I really don't know why any currently successful NBA coach would consider going back to college. If you can be the next Coach K that's obviously as prestigious as coaching in the NBA, but I seriously doubt that Coach K would have left a promising young pro team to go back to college back in the day had that been the situation.

I suppose it matters which NBA team you work for. Coaching someone like Duncan, Durant, or Curry is an experience that is the very pinnacle of basketball. You can't get that in college. Even your best college kids aren't that smart, mature and dedicated.

[mg]

It also wouldn't surprise me one bit if Alford went back to IU. His son graduates this spring and Lonzo will be gone. Probably in his best interest to get out before Lavar's other two less talented but equally hyped sons show up. Lonzo's high school coach did the same thing and got out after Lonzo graduated last year.

[bondom34]

The Indiana job is still a great gig. If you can go into that program and win more games than Crean did last year, you will be a god among men in Bloomington. I feel like Steve Alford is a realistic option because he had left New Mexico with still a year left and he had a year taken off by UCLA last year on his contract. Why wouldn't he leave to go back to his home? He is an excellent recruiter and could get Indiana talent to stay in Indiana. Heck, Kris Wilkes is from North Central HS and he committed to Alford all the way in LA. Assistant coach Ed Schiling is one of the best in the business in getting talent and he could follow Alford back to Indiana and bring wins back into the program.

IU has missed out of talent such as:
Biggie to Purdue (From Fort Wayne Homestead) Indiana Mr Basketball
Trey Lyles to Kentucky (From Indianapolis Tech) Indiana Mr Basketball
Kyle Guy to Virginia (From Lawrence North) Indiana Mr Basketball
CJ Walker to Florida State (From Indianapolis Tech)
Malik Williams to Louisville (Fort Wayne Snider)
Kris Wilkes to UCLA
Jarren Jackson to MSU (La Lumiere)
Paul Scruggs to Xavier (Southport, IN)
Steve McElvene RIP to Dayton (Fort Wayne New Haven)

I know the buyout is $7 million, but it would be worth it in the long run for IU.

Do you think he's that great of coach? UCLA just seems like a more prestigious job, but I guess you could argue both ways on that one. It just seems crazy to leave a situation like UCLA after becoming a juggernaut, though maybe with Ball gone next year it wouldn't be sustainable.

And I guess Roy Williams did leave Kansas for North Carolina.

I think the one thing that would get a guy back is money. I don't know Donovan's salary, but I'd guess IU would pay a boat load.

[bwgood77]

The Indiana job is still a great gig. If you can go into that program and win more games than Crean did last year, you will be a god among men in Bloomington. I feel like Steve Alford is a realistic option because he had left New Mexico with still a year left and he had a year taken off by UCLA last year on his contract. Why wouldn't he leave to go back to his home? He is an excellent recruiter and could get Indiana talent to stay in Indiana. Heck, Kris Wilkes is from North Central HS and he committed to Alford all the way in LA. Assistant coach Ed Schiling is one of the best in the business in getting talent and he could follow Alford back to Indiana and bring wins back into the program.

IU has missed out of talent such as:
Biggie to Purdue (From Fort Wayne Homestead) Indiana Mr Basketball
Trey Lyles to Kentucky (From Indianapolis Tech) Indiana Mr Basketball
Kyle Guy to Virginia (From Lawrence North) Indiana Mr Basketball
CJ Walker to Florida State (From Indianapolis Tech)
Malik Williams to Louisville (Fort Wayne Snider)
Kris Wilkes to UCLA
Jarren Jackson to MSU (La Lumiere)
Paul Scruggs to Xavier (Southport, IN)
Steve McElvene RIP to Dayton (Fort Wayne New Haven)

I know the buyout is $7 million, but it would be worth it in the long run for IU.

Do you think he's that great of coach? UCLA just seems like a more prestigious job, but I guess you could argue both ways on that one. It just seems crazy to leave a situation like UCLA after becoming a juggernaut, though maybe with Ball gone next year it wouldn't be sustainable.

And I guess Roy Williams did leave Kansas for North Carolina.

I think the one thing that would get a guy back is money. I don't know Donovan's salary, but I'd guess IU would pay a boat load.

I doubt it after leaving amidst such controversy. The only guy reporting this is Jordan Schultz, who never has anything right, and it has been refuted. This would not look good for Indiana.

Allowing Alford to coach Indiana basketball would be putting the need for on-court success to be far more important than respected culture. If the accusations of player abuse by Kevin Wilson in the football program were not tolerated, how could the shot callers turn a blind eye to Alford’s disturbing past?

Hiring Alford to coach at the historic program of Indiana would be setting standards that could never be recovered. The sheer hypocrisy of the situation is one that Fred Glass would be unable to explain to the fans, players and staff. Alford’s protection of Pierre Peirce and having no sympathy for the victim should be the reason Indiana declines a homecoming.

http://hoosierstateofmind.com/2017/03/19/if-indiana-hoosiers-hire-steve-alford-biggest-contradiction-yet/

[Doctor MJ]

With what, Westbrook's play? Not really. He made his biggest improvements mainly with Brooks, though he's still improved a bit under Donovan most of the youth on the roster hasn't. His rotations have been questionable at best, he's fallen in love with players who aren't good but may be "hustle" guys (see Waiters, Christon) and Brooks was frankly better at both. To add, though I don't see the current roster as overly talented I do think it's better than what Brooks had to work with 2 years ago when Durant was in and out, there were big in season trades, and much worse injuries (including Ibaka, Adams, Collison, and Roberson) and Brooks managed mostly better results. To add to all of that, defense was better under Brooks.

College coaching is vastly different than NBA coaching.

Okay, yeah that answers my question definitely. Both coaches have looked their best not in OKC - and to be clear, there's nothing about the schemes Donovan used in college that wouldn't work in the pros. I would say the reality is that Westbrook, like many stars of the past, plays instinctively and this tends to make coaches look bad.

This doesn't mean anything here is necessarily a mistake. For all we know Westbrook will be so unstoppable he'll win titles this way - though obviously I'm skeptical of this - but no matter what happens, Donovan probably is going to be viewed in a negative light. At best he'll be seen as a coach who got lucky, and at worst he'll be blamed for the lack of system which leads to role players not playing well.

So what would you say about Durant then, if the implication here is that Westbrook didn't work with Brooks.

Because remember who else played on that team. And remember the exact same offense is now happening in Washington. With worse players.

Could it be, just maybe this time it's not Westbrook's fault?

I'm trying to be clear that it's possible that in the end there is no "fault". Maybe Westbrook can do his thing and conquer the whole world, and if so, then a coach trying to do something else would only get in the way.

And if you want to rope Durant into the blame too, that's fine by me.

I'll also reiterate that OKC last year could have won the title, and when I first said that last year I emphasized that all of that made my quibbles throughout the years seem more minor.

But it was never a system. It was two guys taking turns trying to score while the other guys largely tried to be ready to be useful in other capacities, and for a good long time we threw criticism toward Brooks about it. "Imagine how good they'd be if they actually played with a strategy!" folks like me said.

Is it the same offense in Washington that OKC had but with worse players? Well, I mean Washington is in the top 10 in terms of assists per possession, whereas I believe the Brooks' Thunder was always in the bottom 10 except in the year when Westbrook was hurt. If you want to call that the same offense with variation coming because Wall is a better passer, be my guest.

(In Westbrook's defense, OKC last year got plenty of assists so it's not like Westbrook's presence necessarily means low assists, but just in terms of what you said, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to look at the Wizards doing everything worse than the Thunder used to.)

[bondom34]

I'm trying to be clear that it's possible that in the end there is no "fault". Maybe Westbrook can do his thing and conquer the whole world, and if so, then a coach trying to do something else would only get in the way.

And if you want to rope Durant into the blame too, that's fine by me.

I'll also reiterate that OKC last year could have won the title, and when I first said that last year I emphasized that all of that made my quibbles throughout the years seem more minor.

But it was never a system. It was two guys taking turns trying to score while the other guys largely tried to be ready to be useful in other capacities, and for a good long time we threw criticism toward Brooks about it. "Imagine how good they'd be if they actually played with a strategy!" folks like me said.

Is it the same offense in Washington that OKC had but with worse players? Well, I mean Washington is in the top 10 in terms of assists per possession, whereas I believe the Brooks' Thunder was always in the bottom 10 except in the year when Westbrook was hurt. If you want to call that the same offense with variation coming because Wall is a better passer, be my guest.

(In Westbrook's defense, OKC last year got plenty of assists so it's not like Westbrook's presence necessarily means low assists, but just in terms of what you said, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to look at the Wizards doing everything worse than the Thunder used to.)

You're right, it was never a system, which is why Brooks never should have been fired to me. It was a bad move.



That said, Washington was 4th last year in assists/100, now 8th. So Brooks has actually brought that down. As well, assists aren't an inherent measure of ball movement. Wall is averaging the same time of possession per game as Westbrook this year, with fewer assists:
http://stats.nba.com/players/touches/#!?sort=TIME_OF_POSS&dir=1

But if you'd like to insist that's an improvement, go for it .



Not to derail it any further, but Brooks wasn't fired for any good reason, and was replaced with a worse coach. It never was a system in OKC. That's not on Westbrook. There's a point where blaming him without thought has gone too far, and that seems to be it. Durant would then be just as uncoachable. Same for Ibaka and Roberson and the whole team. Maybe it's just hiring a coach without an offensive system is why.

[Doctor MJ]

You're right, it was never a system, which is why Brooks never should have been fired to me. It was a bad move.



That said, Washington was 4th last year in assists/100, now 8th. So Brooks has actually brought that down. As well, assists aren't an inherent measure of ball movement. Wall is averaging the same time of possession per game as Westbrook this year, with fewer assists:
http://stats.nba.com/players/touches/#!?sort=TIME_OF_POSS&dir=1

But if you'd like to insist that's an improvement, go for it .



Not to derail it any further, but Brooks wasn't fired for any good reason, and was replaced with a worse coach. It never was a system in OKC. That's not on Westbrook. There's a point where blaming him without thought has gone too far, and that seems to be it. Durant would then be just as uncoachable. Same for Ibaka and Roberson and the whole team. Maybe it's just hiring a coach without an offensive system is why.

The thing is that Westbrook's the guy with the ball in hands. The general rule is that if there is no system, the point guard is the system. And if there are major weaknesses with performance that come from making poor use of the talents you have, well that's the system's fault, whether it's something mandated by the coach or forced in response to how the point guard chooses to play.

I feel like we go round and round in circles but to me the crux of it all is this:

Westbrook, more than anyone else, shaped how the Thunder attacked the defense, and this is either a good thing, or a bad thing.

On the current roster I don't really think there's a vastly more effective way of doing things, but my long-established philosophy is that you need something more sophisticated to make optimal use of all 5 guys on the court, and if you want to win championships, you generally need to be pretty close to optimal in your strategy.

Could my philosophy be proven wrong? Absolutely. But it's not about hating Westbrook now, it's about me saying basically the same stuff for a long time and feeling like it's pretty much held true. If Westbrook can really lead a team to a title with something close to a 40 usage, it's a brave new world for me.

[bondom34]

You're right, it was never a system, which is why Brooks never should have been fired to me. It was a bad move.



That said, Washington was 4th last year in assists/100, now 8th. So Brooks has actually brought that down. As well, assists aren't an inherent measure of ball movement. Wall is averaging the same time of possession per game as Westbrook this year, with fewer assists:
http://stats.nba.com/players/touches/#!?sort=TIME_OF_POSS&dir=1

But if you'd like to insist that's an improvement, go for it .



Not to derail it any further, but Brooks wasn't fired for any good reason, and was replaced with a worse coach. It never was a system in OKC. That's not on Westbrook. There's a point where blaming him without thought has gone too far, and that seems to be it. Durant would then be just as uncoachable. Same for Ibaka and Roberson and the whole team. Maybe it's just hiring a coach without an offensive system is why.

The thing is that Westbrook's the guy with the ball in hands. The general rule is that if there is no system, the point guard is the system. And if there are major weaknesses with performance that come from making poor use of the talents you have, well that's the system's fault, whether it's something mandated by the coach or forced in response to how the point guard chooses to play.

I feel like we go round and round in circles but to me the crux of it all is this:

Westbrook, more than anyone else, shaped how the Thunder attacked the defense, and this is either a good thing, or a bad thing.

On the current roster I don't really think there's a vastly more effective way of doing things, but my long-established philosophy is that you need something more sophisticated to make optimal use of all 5 guys on the court, and if you want to win championships, you generally need to be pretty close to optimal in your strategy.

Could my philosophy be proven wrong? Absolutely. But it's not about hating Westbrook now, it's about me saying basically the same stuff for a long time and feeling like it's pretty much held true. If Westbrook can really lead a team to a title with something close to a 40 usage, it's a brave new world for me.

So wait, it was Westbrook's fault, but not Durant's? Because that's what you're saying here. And it wasn't the coach either. Which is totally incredible when we saw Durant not only do the same stuff under 2 coaches like Westbrook, but still the same under Kerr.

And you'd also be claiming Wall isn't doing the same, which is again...something. Durant had the ball in his hands plenty, as does Wall now. Maybe it's the coach and for once, just one time in his career Westbrook isn't somehow through mind tricks at fault.

And Westbrook did not shape how the Thunder attacked the defense. Sorry, but that's on coaching as well as players, and Durant (who was still the guy in crunch time) failed there mightily.

I'm not saying a 40 percent usage is winning a title, but you're pulling some mighty goalpost shifting here Doc and I really respect you a ton, it's weird to see.

To clarify:

Westbrook/Durant/Brooks: Lack of ball movement

Westbrook/Durant/Donovan: Lack of ball movement

Durant goes to GSW, still finds himself isolating more than they'd like. Westbrook's fault

Brooks goes to Washington, Washington's assist numbers decrease. Westbrook's fault here too.

Meanwhile in OKC, the crunch time offense makes a sudden leap to being good from years of being terrible with Durant running the game late.

[Doctor MJ]

Let me make it simple:

I'm fine just letting the point guard be the offense if I have enough respect for his brain.

Westbrook has yet to sell me on this. Maybe this will be the year.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[MartinToVaught]

I still have a gut feeling that Stevens will end up at IU. I know he's denying it, but he pretty much has to deny it right now no matter what. He's Indiana born and raised, and we all know how crazy that state is for their college hoops programs, especially the Hoosiers.

I really don't know why any currently successful NBA coach would consider going back to college. If you can be the next Coach K that's obviously as prestigious as coaching in the NBA, but I seriously doubt that Coach K would have left a promising young pro team to go back to college back in the day had that been the situation.

Some guys just love coaching in college. They love recruiting and coaching up young talent. Maybe they feel they can get through easier to players who see them as their ticket to the paychecks that the pros are already cashing.

Jim Harbaugh went back to college just a couple years after leading a team to the Super Bowl, even though every NFL team with an opening would have thrown crazy money at him. Larry Brown bounced from college to the NBA and back many times in his career. If they could do it, it's not necessarily out of the question for Stevens to do it as well.

[bondom34]

Yeah, you're still underselling him if you think his brain is the problem and trust other players who I won't name here.

[Ballerhogger]

Let me make it simple:

I'm fine just letting the point guard be the offense if I have enough respect for his brain.

Westbrook has yet to sell me on this. Maybe this will be the year.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I look at it from kobes 2005-2006 angle (unless Thunder get another star) as far comparison goes. i dont see any stand out players besides Westbrook. I see Adams as decent 2nd option.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah, you're still underselling him if you think his brain is the problem and trust other players who I won't name here.

Fine maybe I am.

I am done talking to you about Westbrook.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Doctor MJ]

Let me make it simple:

I'm fine just letting the point guard be the offense if I have enough respect for his brain.

Westbrook has yet to sell me on this. Maybe this will be the year.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I look at it from kobes 2005-2006 angle (unless Thunder get another star) as far comparison goes. i dont see any stand out players besides Westbrook. I see Adams as decent 2nd option.

Kobe doesn't have the brain for what I'm talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums