KGdaBom wrote:TheZachAttack wrote:KGdaBom wrote:Definitely not.
I think it is extremely hard to defend an idea that Thibs was able to design a system and a culture suited to maximize his best players (Towns/Wiggins/etc) strengths.
If you can’t defend that idea, I think it’s extremely hard to defend the idea that Thibs was not holding the team back.
We had a sensational improvement with Butler, but then Butler went psycho. Did Thibodeau make Butler go psycho. IMO going psycho is all on Butler.
Thibs used a lot of value to go and get Butler. The Wolves had the talent to go as far (arguably farther) with any coach in the league. The Wolves never got the value of the sum of the parts—they went that far in spite of Thibs.
Luke Walton had a great record with the Warriors as a head coach. That doesn’t mean he’s a good coach (he’s not).
The Wolves two best young assets regressed or at best did not progress. Butler hated the culture so badly he blew up and left. The parts Thibs put together didn’t fit and used up tons of cap flexibility. Etc. etc. etc.
It’s entirely possible that Thibs was a good coach for portions of his coaching career (he was), but he was not a good for the Timberwolves. He created a negative culture, a team that did not fit well together, and a system that was negative for his best players.
I see what you are trying to say, but there’s no point in saying Thibs was a good coach for the Wolves—he wasn’t. He may have been for other teams and at other stints—but he wasn’t for the Wolves (and there are a variety of reasons for that).
Even if Butler left on his own accord and that’s bad luck for Thibs, do you really think that Saunders (or most other coaches) couldn’t get an 8 seed and first round exit with KAT, Butler (two top 10-15 players) and a variety of solid role players? The improvement was due to an influx of talent, not coaching pushing players into situations to maximize their skill sets and outperform expectations