Bulls considering Kenny Atkinson for HC

[Dez]

Why do people keep bringing up Atkinson's assistant coaches as a way to discredit his development ability? It's a weird stance to take, considering none of us really know who is responsible for what. Plus presumably, if you hire him, he'll likely hire those same assistant coaches.

Who is using it to discredit him?

He's being given credit for this apparent Nets "uprising" as if he's the only one sitting on the Nets bench, assistant coaches absolutely play a vital role as well.

[Dez]

Wow, people seem extremely one-sided or other-sided. I think KA is a good coach, but he hasn't proven enough to say it definitively. If he were hired, I have no problem and I'd support him. I'd also be somewhat skeptical.

Which is why he is available. Greeding for someone like Kerr, Ujiri is a recipe for disaster. With how the team has been going, we dont even deserve KA.

Given he isn't a coach, yes that is a recipe for disaster.

[kingkirk]

Giving him credit for superstars going there that immediately got him fired seems like a weird take. It seems instead like those guys went to Brooklyn in spite of Atkinson and immediately conspired to remove him.

As I noted, you're attributing everything positive that happened to Atkinson and nothing negative that happened to him. That could be the correct thing to do, but it's very infrequent in life that it is and there is quite a bit of very direct evidence against that in this specific case.

There are quotes from Durant which suggested the way Brooklyn played and Atkinson coached factored into the decision.

so who wanted him gone? kyrie? his opinion trumps durant's and everyone else's

They both likely wanted him gone. Or at least didn’t step in the way. That being so, it doesn’t change the fact that he was part of the reason they initially went there. It’s not mutually exclusive.

[dougthonus]

Maybe you can elaborate further and explain because to me I see no reasonable argument to suggest Atkinson was pretty awful during his tenure in Brooklyn.

I don't think I can, because I've said it so succinctly so many times. If you just can't even see the argument then it's because you aren't trying and don't want to see it and are just locked into your opinion based on what I would guess is extremely little real information. I can see your argument. I think it's optimistic, but I think it's plausible and could be true and have stated it many times.

One more time though:
Years 1-2:
Competed with tanking teams while not trying to tank. His talent was awful, but his results were awful. There is no way to spin this into a positive outcome. It is a bad to neutral outcome.

Year 3:
Team exceeded expectations in a weak Eastern conference and got up to mediocre. Pro argument is that he did so with very little talent, con argument is that he didn't really achieve much, and the talent he had simply matured (tons of young players entering their 3rd and 4th year). This is a neutral to good outcome. Best case, Atkinson was critical in the development of these players and worst case he didn't screw it up.

Year 4:
Team was probably around expectations given Kyrie's injury. The team that knows the most about the past three years and where on that spectrum of bad to neutral or neutral to good he fell, decided to part ways with him. Best case, the Nets just listened to their star players and had their hands forced and chose them over the coach but didn't try to protect him. Worst case, after four years of close observation, the Nets didn't actually think much of Atkinson at all and fired him because of it.

If you can't see why the negative side of all of these points is plausible and that none of us have enough information to contradict the good or bad side of this argument then I'm not sure what to say to you. I think either side is plausible and I know I don't have enough information. I'm only stating that I'm surprised how many people are taking hte optimistic side, because I don't even think the optimistic side is really even that optimistic.

That said, I also think coaches are notoriously hard to judge because so much of their ability to make an impact is based on their fit inside a given situation and not total ability.

[dougthonus]

There are quotes from Durant which suggested the way Brooklyn played and Atkinson coached factored into the decision.

Not sure how much that sways me without you providing them. I understand if you don't care to go look them up though. Actions speak louder than words regarding Durant. We don't know 100% what his actions were of course, only rumors.

At best, Durant didn't ask the Nets to keep him (they surely would have), and at worst any of his quotes were just BS because he wanted him gone without ever playing for him (either never really wanted him there or after seeing him coach immediately wanted him out but both are similarly negative).

[dougthonus]

They both likely wanted him gone. Or at least didn’t step in the way. That being so, it doesn’t change the fact that he was part of the reason they initially went there. It’s not mutually exclusive.

They clearly didn't want to go there due to Atkinson being there right? I mean they wanted him gone nearly immediately. It wasn't Atkinson they wanted.

So any part he had in that was in improving the team to a level where they were competitive enough that they wanted to play with the talent that was there rather than the talent on the Knicks because it appears to have been a binary decision for them as they wanted to land in NY.

He doesn't project to be a guy who will help you lure a superstar based on that. He projects to be a guy who will hurt in that quest as the stars there wanted him gone, and getting to .500 is probably generally not enough to lure a star, it is just one of the many minimums that is likely required if other things fall into place.

[Onibuh]

Maybe you can elaborate further and explain because to me I see no reasonable argument to suggest Atkinson was pretty awful during his tenure in Brooklyn.

I don't think I can, because I've said it so succinctly so many times. If you just can't even see the argument then it's because you aren't trying and don't want to see it and are just locked into your opinion based on what I would guess is extremely little real information. I can see your argument. I think it's optimistic, but I think it's plausible and could be true and have stated it many times.

One more time though:
Years 1-2:
Competed with tanking teams while not trying to tank. His talent was awful, but his results were awful. There is no way to spin this into a positive outcome. It is a bad to neutral outcome.

Year 3:
Team exceeded expectations in a weak Eastern conference and got up to mediocre. Pro argument is that he did so with very little talent, con argument is that he didn't really achieve much, and the talent he had simply matured (tons of young players entering their 3rd and 4th year). This is a neutral to good outcome. Best case, Atkinson was critical in the development of these players and worst case he didn't screw it up.

Year 4:
Team was probably around expectations given Kyrie's injury. The team that knows the most about the past three years and where on that spectrum of bad to neutral or neutral to good he fell, decided to part ways with him. Best case, the Nets just listened to their star players and had their hands forced and chose them over the coach but didn't try to protect him. Worst case, after four years of close observation, the Nets didn't actually think much of Atkinson at all and fired him because of it.

If you can't see why the negative side of all of these points is plausible and that none of us have enough information to contradict the good or bad side of this argument then I'm not sure what to say to you. I think either side is plausible and I know I don't have enough information. I'm only stating that I'm surprised how many people are taking hte optimistic side, because I don't even think the optimistic side is really even that optimistic.

That said, I also think coaches are notoriously hard to judge because so much of their ability to make an impact is based on their fit inside a given situation and not total ability.

Year 1: He started installing a new System - his System - and the Talent as god awful.
Year 2: Improvments, still god awful Talent to work with (or not developed yet). D got a bit better
Year 3: Success for sure, exceeded expectations. Turned Dinwiddie into a good starter and All Star Level. Turned Russells Career around.
Year 4: Kyrie seems to be Cancer to a lockerroom.

[nitetrain8603]

They both likely wanted him gone. Or at least didn’t step in the way. That being so, it doesn’t change the fact that he was part of the reason they initially went there. It’s not mutually exclusive.

They clearly didn't want to go there due to Atkinson being there right? I mean they wanted him gone nearly immediately. It wasn't Atkinson they wanted.

So any part he had in that was in improving the team to a level where they were competitive enough that they wanted to play with the talent that was there rather than the talent on the Knicks because it appears to have been a binary decision for them as they wanted to land in NY.

He doesn't project to be a guy who will help you lure a superstar based on that. He projects to be a guy who will hurt in that quest as the stars there wanted him gone, and getting to .500 is probably generally not enough to lure a star, it is just one of the many minimums that is likely required if other things fall into place.

I think it was Windhorst, but essentially it was brought up when KD and Kyrie briefly thought about the Knicks for a bit. They quickly decided against that and went to Brooklyn because they seemed like a strong organization on the upswing.

As for KA, I can see the negative side, but I can also see the positive side. Did he underachieve with his team? I don't think so. If I put a "good" coach as his replacement, do they do much better? Does Kerr do much better with the talent? I just don't see that.

[MrFortune3]

There are quotes from Durant which suggested the way Brooklyn played and Atkinson coached factored into the decision.

Not sure how much that sways me without you providing them. I understand if you don't care to go look them up though. Actions speak louder than words regarding Durant. We don't know 100% what his actions were of course, only rumors.

At best, Durant didn't ask the Nets to keep him (they surely would have), and at worst any of his quotes were just BS because he wanted him gone without ever playing for him (either never really wanted him there or after seeing him coach immediately wanted him out but both are similarly negative).

It's not that hard to find.

Irving still seems to be, but other factors helped the Nets forward come to his decision. As it turns out, one of the reasons Durant wanted to come to Brooklyn was head coach Kenny Atkinson.

During his introductory press conference with the team at Nets Media Day on Friday, Durant explained how he studied Atkinson.

I was doing a lot of YouTube research on Kenny Atkinson, and watching interviews and seeing how he talked about the game. And I really liked his approach to his craft as a coach, and that’s what drew me in pretty quickly.

Durant added he felt Atkinson was “pretty genuine about the game.”

Also, Durant disclosed he didn’t research other coaches all that much.

I guess [Atkinson] always had the leg up.

https://netswire.usatoday.com/2019/09/27/kenny-atkinson-won-kevin-durant-over-from-afar/

Starts at 4:16

Watch on YouTube

[MrFortune3]

He helped shape a culture so fascinating that 2 superstar players ended up signing there. The Nets started with nothing and ended up in the playoffs and then 2 superstars after that. Most coaches would have had 3-4 losing seasons with no player development and the Nets still having no future.

Giving him credit for superstars going there that immediately got him fired seems like a weird take. It seems instead like those guys went to Brooklyn in spite of Atkinson and immediately conspired to remove him.

As I noted, you're attributing everything positive that happened to Atkinson and nothing negative that happened to him. That could be the correct thing to do, but it's very infrequent in life that it is and there is quite a bit of very direct evidence against that in this specific case.

That's not what I am doing at all. You keep hammering the point home about his record, I am simply pointing out that within the context of the Nets prospects before he arrived, he did a damn good job.
You keep talking about the record and how it was poor, there was nothing on that roster.

You keep alluding to the lack of picks and how they had reason to try to win. There was no talent on the roster, few draft picks to work themselves out of the hole they were placed in and no one wanted to go there even for big money unless it was a scrub player.

For all of the warts that occurred both before Atkinson and during his time as HC there, he helped change the culture and feel of the franchise.
He developed young players, he built up a solid culture, he helped make that franchise appealing. If Atkinson did as bad of a job as you claim, they don't make the playoffs, there is no superstar tandem in Brooklyn, the Nets are still rebuilding and seeking to land #1 and likely being a Philly or Phoenix.

Now, to be clear, KA is not in my top 3 for candidates for the Bulls job. I simply disagree with your portrayal of him as a HC.
Doesn't matter where you go in the NBA, you need talent to win. ****, we saw Minnesota and Phoenix with loads and young talent and they still struggle to consistently win.

[dougthonus]

It's not that hard to find.

Irving still seems to be, but other factors helped the Nets forward come to his decision. As it turns out, one of the reasons Durant wanted to come to Brooklyn was head coach Kenny Atkinson.

During his introductory press conference with the team at Nets Media Day on Friday, Durant explained how he studied Atkinson.

I was doing a lot of YouTube research on Kenny Atkinson, and watching interviews and seeing how he talked about the game. And I really liked his approach to his craft as a coach, and that’s what drew me in pretty quickly.

Durant added he felt Atkinson was “pretty genuine about the game.”

Also, Durant disclosed he didn’t research other coaches all that much.

I guess [Atkinson] always had the leg up.

https://netswire.usatoday.com/2019/09/27/kenny-atkinson-won-kevin-durant-over-from-afar/

Starts at 4:16

Watch on YouTube

So to summarize:
1: Never had a conversation with Atkinson
2: Liked what he saw of him on youtube
3: Didn't research any other coaches

If you think it's a ringing endorsement, ok. I wouldn't take absolutely anything said there as much of an endorsement, he didn't throw his coach under the bus in an introductory press conference and waited 6 months to voice wanting him out? Just compared to other conversations players have about coaches on changing teams in an introductory press conference where they literally are trying to check boxes about saying something nice about everyone, that's very minimal praise.

[dougthonus]

He helped shape a culture so fascinating that 2 superstar players ended up signing there. The Nets started with nothing and ended up in the playoffs and then 2 superstars after that. Most coaches would have had 3-4 losing seasons with no player development and the Nets still having no future.

Giving him credit for superstars going there that immediately got him fired seems like a weird take. It seems instead like those guys went to Brooklyn in spite of Atkinson and immediately conspired to remove him.

As I noted, you're attributing everything positive that happened to Atkinson and nothing negative that happened to him. That could be the correct thing to do, but it's very infrequent in life that it is and there is quite a bit of very direct evidence against that in this specific case.

That's not what I am doing at all. You keep hammering the point home about his record, I am simply pointing out that within the context of the Nets prospects before he arrived, he did a damn good job.
You keep talking about the record and how it was poor, there was nothing on that roster.

You keep alluding to the lack of picks and how they had reason to try to win. There was no talent on the roster, few draft picks to work themselves out of the hole they were placed in and no one wanted to go there even for big money unless it was a scrub player.

For all of the warts that occurred both before Atkinson and during his time as HC there, he helped change the culture and feel of the franchise.
He developed young players, he built up a solid culture, he helped make that franchise appealing. If Atkinson did as bad of a job as you claim, they don't make the playoffs, there is no superstar tandem in Brooklyn, the Nets are still rebuilding and seeking to land #1 and likely being a Philly or Phoenix.

Now, to be clear, KA is not in my top 3 for candidates for the Bulls job. I simply disagree with your portrayal of him as a HC.
Doesn't matter where you go in the NBA, you need talent to win. ****, we saw Minnesota and Phoenix with loads and young talent and they still struggle to consistently win.

Not sure what to say, because it appears you do not comprehend any of my points, because when you argue them back you invent a position that I am not taking and arguing against it.

He did not do a good job his first two years. He finished where his talent was, not above it and possibly below it. He was neutral to bad in those two years. He did not do a good job in his final year where he had to manage relationships and failed to the point where new stars immediately wanted him gone. He did do a very good job in his third year.

When I add those things up, I think he's a reasonable candidate, but I do not see why everyone thinks he is an amazing candidate. You could bring in Scott Skiles or Sam Mitchell or Jason Kidd or a ton of other people that never lasted anywhere and say similar things about them.

[dice]

There are quotes from Durant which suggested the way Brooklyn played and Atkinson coached factored into the decision.

so who wanted him gone? kyrie? his opinion trumps durant's and everyone else's

They both likely wanted him gone. Or at least didn’t step in the way. That being so, it doesn’t change the fact that he was part of the reason they initially went there. It’s not mutually exclusive.

so let me get this straight...you're giving atkinson credit for luring durant and kyrie, but don't mind that (according to your theory) one or both did a quick 180 and wanted him gone when they actually had to deal with him up close and personal? and even if that is true, why would that be a plus in the bulls hiring him? he surely wouldn't be able to duplicate that trick and lure a superstar given that kyrie and/or durant didn't want him there. these players talk to one another

if you want to bring the guy in to develop the young players, fine. but it sure seems to me that any team that wants to land a superstar free agent or trade for one would be wise to steer clear of kenny atkinson given what transpired with his firing. and assuming that the bulls want to get much better quickly (within a couple of years) in order to lure in a superstar or two, why would the plan be to give atkinson a 5 year deal or whatever to develop players and then get the heave-ho at the point where those superstars might be interested in coming?

[HomoSapien]

Why do people keep bringing up Atkinson's assistant coaches as a way to discredit his development ability? It's a weird stance to take, considering none of us really know who is responsible for what. Plus presumably, if you hire him, he'll likely hire those same assistant coaches.

Who is using it to discredit him?

He's being given credit for this apparent Nets "uprising" as if he's the only one sitting on the Nets bench, assistant coaches absolutely play a vital role as well.

Quite frankly, anyone who has mentioned his assistant coaches is. Obviously they deserve credit, but when we talk about other potential head coaches we rarely if ever mention their coaching staff. For it to come up with Atkinson seems like a clear attempt to discredit him. By the way, we have one of his assistants (Chris Fleming) on staff and didn't see any of that development magic work on our guys.

[HomoSapien]

Let's put this thing about him not being primarily responsible for player development to rest. Like any good coach, he empowers his staff but he's also smart enough to surround himself with the right mix of assistant coaches to get the job done. That deserves credit and there's a reason that quick google search will find so many positive quotes on his coaching/player development abilities:

It’s October 2016 and Kenny Atkinson makes his way into the Brooklyn Nets’ locker room. He surveys the room, taking in what is now his team. A team that finished dead last in the league the year prior.

Brook Lopez, Jeremy Lin, and Bojan Bogdanović headline the roster along with rookie first-round pick Caris LeVert. As training camp progresses, one thing becomes abundantly clear: There will be no quick fix.

Brooklyn general manager Sean Marks had accepted this reality. This was a team with virtually no draft capital or young talent.

The best chance the Nets had to accelerate the rebuild would be to search for overlooked, high-upside talent and develop those players. This is what made Kenny Atkinson such an enticing candidate for the head coaching job.

When asked about what drew him to Atkinson, Marks pointed to the relationships he had seen Atkinson develop with players in San Antonio and Atlanta.

“Player development is more than just on the court shooting and so forth, it’s really about caring,” Marks said. “When you see how Kenny’s relationship is with those players, you can see that he’s getting across to those guys.”

Marks and Atkinson filled the staff with young, hungry basketball minds, hiring Bret Brielmaier and Jacque Vaughn, both former assistants in San Antonio. They also hired Adam Harrington, a former shooting coach, and trainer of Kevin Durant in Oklahoma City, as head of player development

“Developing players is a total approach to helping a player improve,” Atkinson said. “That goes from on-court work to the weight room to nutrition to player performance to off-court habits. It encompasses so many things. You need a great staff, because it’s not just one coach who’s going to do it.”

Brooklyn improved by only eight wins in 2017. However, a core was being developed, and the mindset Atkinson had been preaching began showing up on the court.

The Nets were a team that played hard each night, regardless of the opponent, something you could not say about the team in prior seasons.

Players around the league began to take notice. The Nets were having fun: dancing on the bench, clowning each other in postgame press conferences and developing close friendships in the locker room.

Atkinson also employed a system that was attractive to players around the league. The style was fast-paced, three-point heavy and unselfish. All of this had Brooklyn slowly creeping into the free agency conversation.

https://nothinbutnets.com/2020/04/06/kenny-atkinson-brooklyn-nets/

“When I look back and I look at the job Kenny has done, I say look at our players that have improved over the course of the last two years,” said Sean Marks on Monday, sitting next to Atkinson. “If you want to call some of them diamonds in the rough or so forth, but I don’t think we can argue with what Kenny and the staff have done in terms of developing talent.”

“Kenny’s my guy,” Hollis-Jefferson said when asked about Atkinson, his face lighting up like a match in a dark room, back in November. “Just being with him the last year and some change, our relationship has grown – I’m just understanding him more, getting to know him; just being around him. He wants the best out of all his guys, that’s something that I see in me. I want to be great. I want everyone around me to become great. That’s where we get along very well.”

https://www.netsdaily.com/2018/4/18/17251062/sean-marks-kenny-atkinson-gets-high-marks-for-development

“Kenny’s my guy,” Spencer Dinwiddie said of his ex-Nets head coach. “He was great and like I told him in a text, I said, I needed to be able to be in a situation and an environment where I could make mistakes and that was critical to my development and he afford me that opportunity. Believing you’re a great player is one thing, but being able to go out there and not look over your shoulder and think that you’re gonna come out if you miss a shot or turn it over is paramount in anybody’s development, any NBA player. That was huge for me and I’ll always appreciate it.”

https://clutchpoints.com/nets-news-spencer-dinwiddie-caris-levert-react-to-kenny-atkinson-firing/

Watch on YouTube

[MGB8]

Just looked at the Nets...

Year 1 (2016-2017) - NBA's worst record. But, in fairness, they started Jeremy Lin at PG but then he got hurt, forcing Dinwiddie to start (but he only played 59 games). Brook Lopez was their star and played 75 games for them, getting 20.5 points and 5.4 rebounds. Bojan Bogdanovic was their 2nd guy, putting up 14 points per game. Trevor Booker was their starting 4 for half the year. RHJ was a 2nd year player who didn't develop much. Levert was a rookie, coming off injury, and wasn't particularlty good. Sean Kilpatrick, a done Randy Foye (who was never that great to beign with), Isaiah Whitehead and even Justin Hamilton were part time starters for this group. Talent level was very poor, and fit even worse... but they were climbing out of the Garnett/Pierce/Joe Johnson hole, and were only one game worse than the prior year's more talented group with not just Lopez and Bogdanovic (and Kilpatric) but also Joe Johnson, Thad Young, and Jarrett Jack.

Year 2 (2017-18) - modest improvement (by 8 games, but still a bad team - but better than the Bulls that year! - 9th worst record in the league). They had traded Lopez for DeAngelo Russell... but only got 48 games out of him. Got one game out of Lin. But Dinwiddie, LeVert, and Joe Harris, along with rookie Jarrett Allen, all show development.

Year 3 - (2018-19) - finish over .500 and make the playoffs (tied with the magic for 6th and 7th seeds, ahead of the Spo coached Heat, Carslile coached Mavs, etc., and awful Bulls). Russell becomes a net positive player. Dinwiddie continues developing into starter level player, as does Levert ()despite more injuries). Allen also keeps developing. Joe Harris becomes an elite 3 point shooter. RHJ continues to flatline. DeMarre Caroll falls off.

Year 4 - (2019-20) - Atkinson 28-34, but more or less at the same spot (bottom of eastern playoffs), then fired. Irving playing amazingly well statistically (for two sets of 10 games, interrupted by 20 or so games out, then a final injury) - increase in volume without much reduction in efficiency. Dinwiddie even better, too, but his 3 point shot disappears. LeVert also looks improved - but more injury issues. Harris remains a marksman. Waller-Prince plays "ok". Allen kind of plateua's, though, in part because of worse FT percentage. Vetereans they brought in don't do much (Temple, Chandler), though DeAndre Jordan ok in limited minutes. So they swapped out full time Russell for half-time Kyrie, with part time LeVert... and were basically in the same boat.

[kingkirk]

Maybe you can elaborate further and explain because to me I see no reasonable argument to suggest Atkinson was pretty awful during his tenure in Brooklyn.

I don't think I can, because I've said it so succinctly so many times. If you just can't even see the argument then it's because you aren't trying and don't want to see it and are just locked into your opinion based on what I would guess is extremely little real information. I can see your argument. I think it's optimistic, but I think it's plausible and could be true and have stated it many times.

One more time though:
Years 1-2:
Competed with tanking teams while not trying to tank. His talent was awful, but his results were awful. There is no way to spin this into a positive outcome. It is a bad to neutral outcome.

Year 3:
Team exceeded expectations in a weak Eastern conference and got up to mediocre. Pro argument is that he did so with very little talent, con argument is that he didn't really achieve much, and the talent he had simply matured (tons of young players entering their 3rd and 4th year). This is a neutral to good outcome. Best case, Atkinson was critical in the development of these players and worst case he didn't screw it up.

Year 4:
Team was probably around expectations given Kyrie's injury. The team that knows the most about the past three years and where on that spectrum of bad to neutral or neutral to good he fell, decided to part ways with him. Best case, the Nets just listened to their star players and had their hands forced and chose them over the coach but didn't try to protect him. Worst case, after four years of close observation, the Nets didn't actually think much of Atkinson at all and fired him because of it.

If you can't see why the negative side of all of these points is plausible and that none of us have enough information to contradict the good or bad side of this argument then I'm not sure what to say to you. I think either side is plausible and I know I don't have enough information. I'm only stating that I'm surprised how many people are taking hte optimistic side, because I don't even think the optimistic side is really even that optimistic.

That said, I also think coaches are notoriously hard to judge because so much of their ability to make an impact is based on their fit inside a given situation and not total ability.

I’m finding it difficult to be swayed, not because I’m wedded you my ideas, but because you’ve stated high level points while suggesting youre not really across the situation or have all the information.

Because of this, and as I asked, I don’t see a reasonable conclusion that suggests Atkinson was a “pretty awful” coach.

[dougthonus]

I’m finding it difficult to be swayed, not because I’m wedded you my ideas, but because you’ve stated high level points while suggesting youre not really across the situation or have all the information.

Because of this, and as I asked, I don’t see a reasonable conclusion that suggests Atkinson was a “pretty awful” coach.

I don't expect to sway you. You said you can't even see the argument.

I can see the argument of why he might be good. I'm also not swayed, because the argument is literally in the form of, even though he had bad results three times out of four, here's a bunch of reasons why that doesn't count, oh, and the one time in four he exceeded expectations, that was 100% him. Just find that not to be a compelling argument.

[kulaz3000]

I'd be happy with Atkinson, because he has shown enough potential that he would likely get better considering he is still relatively young.

He may not bring the entire package yet, but there are two glaring issues this Bulls team has, unknown pontential of so many of the young players on the roster, of a pool of mostly young players and consistently playing hard.

There is no head coach currently with teams or not, who is going to bring this roster from the lottery to the playoffs, not in season 1. What I do expect from the coach is to clearly pinpoint which are the players who are going to be longterm foundational players on this roster, and work with them to fulfil their potential, and for the team to consistently play hard every single game, and not only showing up for big games.

[HomoSapien]

I’m finding it difficult to be swayed, not because I’m wedded you my ideas, but because you’ve stated high level points while suggesting youre not really across the situation or have all the information.

Because of this, and as I asked, I don’t see a reasonable conclusion that suggests Atkinson was a “pretty awful” coach.

I don't expect to sway you. You said you can't even see the argument.

I can see the argument of why he might be good. I'm also not swayed, because the argument is literally in the form of, even though he had bad results three times out of four, here's a bunch of reasons why that doesn't count, oh, and the one time in four he exceeded expectations, that was 100% him. Just find that not to be a compelling argument.

But you're really missing the context if you think those first two season were "bad". They weren't a playoff team and weren't supposed to be. Yet both seasons, within those seasons, they showed pretty valuable growth. Personally, I think the only season that really strikes me as a bad season is his last one.