Chanel Bomber wrote:Ok so first of all David Blatt is a former coach whose mandate throughout his basketball career was to win games. Not to manage assets, not to evaluate talent, but to win games. I'm not saying he can't adjust, but I'm really afraid that with that coaching background he's going to push for the Knicks to become competitive asap and mismanage our assets for short-term results. How many successful front office people had a coaching background? There's a clash of interests philosophically speaking.
Was he that great of a basketball mind anyway? Ty Lue was a more progressive head coach than Blatt, and he gets clowned on the regular while Blatt (wonder why) gets widely praised for his coaching acumen despite failing on several fronts with the Cavs. I have just never been impressed with him as a head coach (not saying he was bad either).
We're once again moving further away from analytics with this hire. This is the biggest problem with this organization. It's old-school. Everything is old-school. The decision-makers are old-school. The vision is old-school.
And of course this reeks of nepotism. This is bad all-around.
Guys and their coaching career get judged on more than their NBA track record. I mean, if your analogy stands, than Mike Miller hasn't done sh*t, as he's coached 6 NBA games and other than that kicked around the NCAA and G-League, where he did well at times and other times didn't exactly light things on fire.
Blatt's a basketball lifer. It MIGHT matter, brain wise - depends on his role. Then again, Perry was and is a basketball lifer and he hasn't been that great. So obviously, the answer might be to get guys who have a lot of success early but are like 7 years in - a fast riser, a mustang.
But I'm not judging Blatt based on a 1 year stint with prime diva LeBron.
This could be a bad idea for a number of reasons around Mills, but what ability Blatt might have for the role not necessarily it.