11/8 | G11: Houston Rockets at Oklahoma City Thunder - 7PM CST

[getrichordie]

Fair enough, My comment is inaccurate and I’ll take my medicine

To be fair, this board has been super reactionary and super critical after almost every game. I’m shocked the “fire Billy” ideology has died down. It finally feels somewhat peaceful on the board.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Bad coaches can win too. Ty Lue has a ring.

Everyone keeps talking about Roberson coming back like he’s going to be good. Have you guys done any research whatsoever on what happens to careers after a ruptured patellar tendon occurs?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Its better than not seeing if he can. And there isn't much recent history

You really think Lue is a bad coach? Dude, what’s your reasoning? That’s amazing. Coaches around the league applauded Lue for his in-game adjustments. That’s amazing.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[bondom34]

To be fair, this board has been super reactionary and super critical after almost every game. I’m shocked the “fire Billy” ideology has died down. It finally feels somewhat peaceful on the board.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Bad coaches can win too. Ty Lue has a ring.

Everyone keeps talking about Roberson coming back like he’s going to be good. Have you guys done any research whatsoever on what happens to careers after a ruptured patellar tendon occurs?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Its better than not seeing if he can. And there isn't much recent history

You really think Lue is a bad coach? Dude, what’s your reasoning? That’s amazing. Coaches around the league applauded Lue for his in-game adjustments. That’s amazing.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Scott Brooks. Mike Brown. And yea, Lue was kinda bad. Who were these people applauding Lue. Everyone said he was awful.

But there's a laundry list of bad coaches who won.

[getrichordie]

Bad coaches can win too. Ty Lue has a ring.



Its better than not seeing if he can. And there isn't much recent history

You really think Lue is a bad coach? Dude, what’s your reasoning? That’s amazing. Coaches around the league applauded Lue for his in-game adjustments. That’s amazing.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Scott Brooks. Mike Brown. And yea, Lue was kinda bad. Who were these people applauding Lue. Everyone said he was awful.

But there's a laundry list of bad coaches who won.

So what, bad coaches win and good coaches lose? Let me guess, you think Kerr is a good coach?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[bondom34]

You really think Lue is a bad coach? Dude, what’s your reasoning? That’s amazing. Coaches around the league applauded Lue for his in-game adjustments. That’s amazing.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Scott Brooks. Mike Brown. And yea, Lue was kinda bad. Who were these people applauding Lue. Everyone said he was awful.

But there's a laundry list of bad coaches who won.

So what, bad coaches win and good coaches lose? Let me guess, you think Kerr is a good coach?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Yes, and Mark Jackson a bad coach.

I don't judge a coach on results only. I judge him on (shockingly) merit.

[getrichordie]

Scott Brooks. Mike Brown. And yea, Lue was kinda bad. Who were these people applauding Lue. Everyone said he was awful.

But there's a laundry list of bad coaches who won.

So what, bad coaches win and good coaches lose? Let me guess, you think Kerr is a good coach?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Yes, and Mark Jackson a bad coach.

I don't judge a coach on results only. I judge him on (shockingly) merit.

And what has Kerr done that has earned him this “merit” you speak of? Let me guess: He said “man, I have two of the best shooters in the league; I should get them the ball” Jackson was already coaching them up to be where they are at. Kerr gets a team with two of the best shooters in all of NBA history who now have playoff experience. He wins (shockingly) with those two players and suddenly he has merit?

In the past you’ve given Westbrook and KD credit for dragging Billy Donovan to a 7-game series against the 73-win warriors. You won’t give Curry and Klay credit for dragging Kerr to a championship? Makes 0 sense.

I’m sorry but Kerr coaching the Warriors to championships isn’t impressive at all. It’s expected. Hell, you could put Donovan in place of Kerr (from day 1) and the results will be the same.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[bondom34]

So what, bad coaches win and good coaches lose? Let me guess, you think Kerr is a good coach?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Yes, and Mark Jackson a bad coach.

I don't judge a coach on results only. I judge him on (shockingly) merit.

And what has Kerr done that has earned him this “merit” you speak of? Let me guess: He said “man, I have two of the best shooters in the league; I should get them the ball” Jackson was already coaching them up to be where they are at. Kerr gets a team with two of the best shooters in all of NBA history who now have playoff experience. He wins (shockingly) with those two players and suddenly he has merit?

In the past you’ve given Westbrook and KD credit for dragging Billy Donovan to a 7-game series against the 73-win warriors. You won’t give Curry and Klay credit for dragging Kerr to a championship? Makes 0 sense.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

You realize their entire offense changed when he got there right? They ran an iso heavy offense with little passing prior to him getting there. Their locker room was toxic, and the offense stagnant. Kerr entirely changed that. He has great players. He also totally changed that team.

Hell ask Warriors fans. Or literally anyone who knows a thing.

You're absolutely dead wrong and I'm a little confused at how amazingly incorrect this post was.

[getrichordie]

Yes, and Mark Jackson a bad coach.

I don't judge a coach on results only. I judge him on (shockingly) merit.

And what has Kerr done that has earned him this “merit” you speak of? Let me guess: He said “man, I have two of the best shooters in the league; I should get them the ball” Jackson was already coaching them up to be where they are at. Kerr gets a team with two of the best shooters in all of NBA history who now have playoff experience. He wins (shockingly) with those two players and suddenly he has merit?

In the past you’ve given Westbrook and KD credit for dragging Billy Donovan to a 7-game series against the 73-win warriors. You won’t give Curry and Klay credit for dragging Kerr to a championship? Makes 0 sense.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

You realize their entire offense changed when he got there right? They ran an iso heavy offense with little passing prior to him getting there. Their locker room was toxic, and the offense stagnant. Kerr entirely changed that. He has great players. He also totally changed that team.

Hell ask Warriors fans. Or literally anyone who knows a thing.

You're absolutely dead wrong and I'm a little confused at how amazingly incorrect this post was.

You realize that a lot of those stories had no corroboration, right? Anybody can put out a false story to discredit someone and turn the public against them. Happens all the time in politics and organizations. Especially when you bump heads with the wrong organization. But winning cures everything and Lacob and Kerr are golden boys. But hey, believe everything you read.

Jackson won games. Kerr got Barnes and Green when they were entering into their third year. Jackson coached them up as well as Curry and Thompson. Jackson didn’t even get a chance to finish what he started and Kerr reaped the benefits of having a previously well-coached Curry, Thompson, Draymond, and Barnes.

Curry went to bat for Jackson and tried to help him keep his job. Why do you think that is?

And then you look at the roster change and the natural progression of players from Jackson’s last year to Kerr’s first.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[bondom34]

And what has Kerr done that has earned him this “merit” you speak of? Let me guess: He said “man, I have two of the best shooters in the league; I should get them the ball” Jackson was already coaching them up to be where they are at. Kerr gets a team with two of the best shooters in all of NBA history who now have playoff experience. He wins (shockingly) with those two players and suddenly he has merit?

In the past you’ve given Westbrook and KD credit for dragging Billy Donovan to a 7-game series against the 73-win warriors. You won’t give Curry and Klay credit for dragging Kerr to a championship? Makes 0 sense.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

You realize their entire offense changed when he got there right? They ran an iso heavy offense with little passing prior to him getting there. Their locker room was toxic, and the offense stagnant. Kerr entirely changed that. He has great players. He also totally changed that team.

Hell ask Warriors fans. Or literally anyone who knows a thing.

You're absolutely dead wrong and I'm a little confused at how amazingly incorrect this post was.

You realize that a lot of those stories had no corroboration, right? Anybody can put out a false story to discredit someone and turn the public against them. Happens all the time in politics and organizations. Especially when you bump heads with the wrong organization. But winning cures everything and Lacob and Kerr are golden boys. But hey, believe everything you read.

Jackson won games. Kerr got Barnes and Green when they were entering into their third year. Jackson coached them up as well as Curry and Thompson. Jackson didn’t even get a chance to finish what he started and Kerr reaped the benefits of having a previously well-coached Curry, Thompson, Draymond, and Barnes.

Curry went to bat for Jackson and tried to help him keep his job. Why do you think that is?



And then you look at the roster change and the natural progression of players from Jackson’s last year to Kerr’s first.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

No, they actually had corroboration. From many people.

Then you look at the numbers and realize they went from an iso heavy offense with little passing to one that was the polar opposite. So yeah, you'd be wrong wrong wrong and wrong some more.

Quick check:

Jackson's last season.

https://stats.nba.com/teams/passing/?Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=PASSES_MADE&dir=-1

Dead last passing

Kerr's first:

https://stats.nba.com/teams/passing/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=PASSES_MADE&dir=1

9th.

Check play frequency. Check offensive rating. Check whatever.


Why don't you ask someone else just to see. Because I'm trying to put it politely but you really can't be any more wrong about a topic than you are right now.

[getrichordie]

You realize their entire offense changed when he got there right? They ran an iso heavy offense with little passing prior to him getting there. Their locker room was toxic, and the offense stagnant. Kerr entirely changed that. He has great players. He also totally changed that team.

Hell ask Warriors fans. Or literally anyone who knows a thing.

You're absolutely dead wrong and I'm a little confused at how amazingly incorrect this post was.

You realize that a lot of those stories had no corroboration, right? Anybody can put out a false story to discredit someone and turn the public against them. Happens all the time in politics and organizations. Especially when you bump heads with the wrong organization. But winning cures everything and Lacob and Kerr are golden boys. But hey, believe everything you read.

Jackson won games. Kerr got Barnes and Green when they were entering into their third year. Jackson coached them up as well as Curry and Thompson. Jackson didn’t even get a chance to finish what he started and Kerr reaped the benefits of having a previously well-coached Curry, Thompson, Draymond, and Barnes.

Curry went to bat for Jackson and tried to help him keep his job. Why do you think that is?



And then you look at the roster change and the natural progression of players from Jackson’s last year to Kerr’s first.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

No, they actually had corroboration. From many people.

Then you look at the numbers and realize they went from an iso heavy offense with little passing to one that was the polar opposite. So yeah, you'd be wrong wrong wrong and wrong some more.

Quick check:

Jackson's last season.

https://stats.nba.com/teams/passing/?Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=PASSES_MADE&dir=-1

Dead last passing

Kerr's first:

https://stats.nba.com/teams/passing/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=PASSES_MADE&dir=1

9th.

Check play frequency. Check offensive rating. Check whatever.


Why don't you ask someone else just to see. Because I'm trying to put it politely but you really can't be any more wrong about a topic than you are right now.

No one corroborated Lowe’s story about Jackson turning players against Festus, etc. Festus even tweeted about it, making fun of it because it wasn’t true.

No doubt the offense changed. I don’t disagree with you there. But you are missing the point. Jackson didn’t get the chance to optimize the offense the way Kerr did. Jackson was coaching inexperienced players. Kerr got what Jackson was working on and improved it the following year. Who is to say that under Jackson they wouldn’t have made similar strides?





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[bondom34]

You realize that a lot of those stories had no corroboration, right? Anybody can put out a false story to discredit someone and turn the public against them. Happens all the time in politics and organizations. Especially when you bump heads with the wrong organization. But winning cures everything and Lacob and Kerr are golden boys. But hey, believe everything you read.

Jackson won games. Kerr got Barnes and Green when they were entering into their third year. Jackson coached them up as well as Curry and Thompson. Jackson didn’t even get a chance to finish what he started and Kerr reaped the benefits of having a previously well-coached Curry, Thompson, Draymond, and Barnes.

Curry went to bat for Jackson and tried to help him keep his job. Why do you think that is?



And then you look at the roster change and the natural progression of players from Jackson’s last year to Kerr’s first.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

No, they actually had corroboration. From many people.

Then you look at the numbers and realize they went from an iso heavy offense with little passing to one that was the polar opposite. So yeah, you'd be wrong wrong wrong and wrong some more.

Quick check:

Jackson's last season.

https://stats.nba.com/teams/passing/?Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=PASSES_MADE&dir=-1

Dead last passing

Kerr's first:

https://stats.nba.com/teams/passing/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=PASSES_MADE&dir=1

9th.

Check play frequency. Check offensive rating. Check whatever.


Why don't you ask someone else just to see. Because I'm trying to put it politely but you really can't be any more wrong about a topic than you are right now.

No one corroborated Lowe’s story about Jackson turning players against Festus, etc. Festus even tweeted about it, making fun of it because it wasn’t true.

No doubt the offense changed. I don’t disagree with you there. But you are missing the point. Jackson didn’t get the chance to optimize the offense the way Kerr did. Jackson was coaching inexperienced players. Kerr got them experienced. Big difference.





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Jackson was there for years. He did, that's his offense.

And there was more than just the Ezeli story. Which they wouldn't admit and others have said was true. We literally had a Warriors mod post this stuff here a few months ago.

Seriously, ask anyone else. I'd love to see that.

[getrichordie]

No, they actually had corroboration. From many people.

Then you look at the numbers and realize they went from an iso heavy offense with little passing to one that was the polar opposite. So yeah, you'd be wrong wrong wrong and wrong some more.

Quick check:

Jackson's last season.

https://stats.nba.com/teams/passing/?Season=2013-14&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=PASSES_MADE&dir=-1

Dead last passing

Kerr's first:

https://stats.nba.com/teams/passing/?Season=2014-15&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&sort=PASSES_MADE&dir=1

9th.

Check play frequency. Check offensive rating. Check whatever.


Why don't you ask someone else just to see. Because I'm trying to put it politely but you really can't be any more wrong about a topic than you are right now.

No one corroborated Lowe’s story about Jackson turning players against Festus, etc. Festus even tweeted about it, making fun of it because it wasn’t true.

No doubt the offense changed. I don’t disagree with you there. But you are missing the point. Jackson didn’t get the chance to optimize the offense the way Kerr did. Jackson was coaching inexperienced players. Kerr got them experienced. Big difference.





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Jackson was there for years. He did, that's his offense.

And there was more than just the Ezeli story. Which they wouldn't admit and others have said was true. We literally had a Warriors mod post this stuff here a few months ago.

Seriously, ask anyone else. I'd love to see that.

Who are others? Because I can’t find anything. It’s no secret that Lacob, Myers didn’t get along with Jackson. That happens sometimes in the workplace, but how does that make you a bad coach? He got them to 51 wins in his last season. That’s bad? I’m not saying Jackson was going to get them to 67 wins but if he gets them to 60, is he a bad coach? No. I will concede and say Kerr is a better coach, but Kerr being better doesn’t mean Jackson is bad.

People will believe everything they hear/read/etc. if it supports their beliefs.

Maybe you can hit me with some facts and not hearsay?

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[bondom34]

No one corroborated Lowe’s story about Jackson turning players against Festus, etc. Festus even tweeted about it, making fun of it because it wasn’t true.

No doubt the offense changed. I don’t disagree with you there. But you are missing the point. Jackson didn’t get the chance to optimize the offense the way Kerr did. Jackson was coaching inexperienced players. Kerr got them experienced. Big difference.





Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Jackson was there for years. He did, that's his offense.

And there was more than just the Ezeli story. Which they wouldn't admit and others have said was true. We literally had a Warriors mod post this stuff here a few months ago.

Seriously, ask anyone else. I'd love to see that.

Who are others? Because I can’t find anything. It’s no secret that Lacob, Myers didn’t get along with Jackson. That happens sometimes in the workplace, but how does that make you a bad coach? He got them to 51 wins in his last season. That’s bad? I’m not saying Jackson was going to get them to 67 wins but if he gets them to 60, is he a bad coach? No.

People will believe everything they hear/read/etc. if it supports their beliefs.

Maybe you can hit me with some facts and not hearsay?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

When I used facts you just replied with your own hypothesis that totally denies reality. How's this. Post it on the general board or Warriors board like when people (rightly) said Donovan is a bad coach. Because I don't even care anymore. You're just entirely incorrect.

Edit: Ah here screw it. Just one his old boss:

https://sports.yahoo.com/warriors-co-owner-joe-lacob-destroys-mark-jackson-and-his-former-staff-during-a-speech-012350662.html?y20=1

"Part of it was that he couldn't get along with anybody else in the organization," Lacob said. "And look, he did a great job, and I'll always compliment him in many respects, but you can't have 200 people in the organization not like you."

“It’s hard when you get the ball in an iso situation and you have a set defense in front of you,” Barnes said. “Very few players in the league can do that. You look at the best – Durant, Melo, those guys – look at what percentage they shoot. And that’s the best of the best, so you can imagine where I’m at. I’m like at 15, 20 percent on isos. To get me with the ball moving, getting me in different spots, playing off other people, that’s more of a strength for me right now. Going straight isos, that wasn’t a strength for me.”

There, more facts

[oken]

No Westbrook so the offense should be flowing without all his dumb mistakes.

How did you know? You should bet more.

[DoubleJ13]

Might be most surprised by Ferg showing up & doing stuff in a game that Russ wasn't out there with him.

[spearsy23]

It's a nice win for us and all, but something is REALLY wrong with Houston.

[Pillendreher]

Wow! What a win! Much, much better offensive execution. They played with more energy and force, didn't stand around as much. This is what I wanted them to do vs Cleveland. Schröder, George and Adams combined for 15 assists.

-I think Adams is better than Capela and it's not even that close. The way they used him in the post tonight was excellent. He has an offensive game outside of catching lobs/dunking. I think he's legitimately the best Non-Star-Center in the league.

Read on Twitter

-I don't know if I'm imagining it or not, but Ferguson appears to be much, much improved defensively since we started winning. I don't know how that suddenly happened, but please do keep it up.
-This defense might be legit, which is saying both about last season and Roberson overall, I'd say. And it's not just grabbing steals; they've held opposing teams below the league average eFG% seven out of 11 times and are currently 7th overall in opp eFG%. I laughed when Royce said that the Thunder were trying to get better defensively from a systematic standpoint, but what the hell, whatever they're doing seems to be working.
-Melo finally becomes the X-Factor for the Thunder. I'm glad he finally found the role in which he can help the team the most.
-Ferguson-George-Grant now at +18.1 NetRtG (113.0 ORtG | 94.9 DRtG). I don't know how the hell that lineup is working, but as long as it is, fine by me. And that's actually quite close to the Roberson starters form a defensive standpoint iirc.

---------------------------------------

Read on Twitter

[Bergmaniac]

Wow, great defence by you all game. And George us usual showed up for a nationally televised game. Adams was amazing on both ends.

But there is something seriously wrong with Houston, they have looked completely out of sorts all season, the offensive execution is a shadow of what it used to be, and Paul suddenly looks his age, he can't beat anyone without blatantly pushing off more than usual so the refs are starting finally call it. If this isn't because of some injury and only because of age, his contract may well turn out to be an all time worst.

Also, LOL at Melo, though in fairness I thought he was decent on D, but on offense - oh, my...

Ferguson's 3 pt shot is so weird, he either makes it or misses by a mile, no in-between.

[slick_watts]

-This defense might be legit, which is saying both about last season and Roberson overall, I'd say. And it's not just grabbing steals; they've held opposing teams below the league average eFG% seven out of 11 times and are currently 7th overall in opp eFG%. I laughed when Royce said that the Thunder were trying to get better defensively from a systematic standpoint, but what the hell, whatever they're doing seems to be working.

i'm still not really buying the opp eFG, based on shot location and openness. but, if it is legit, you're not mentioning someone you said to me you would give some credit to.

[CROklahoma]

Houston is missing Ariza, that guy one day will be someones mastermind on coaching staff.

[Old Man Game]

-I don't know if I'm imagining it or not, but Ferguson appears to be much, much improved defensively since we started winning. I don't know how that suddenly happened, but please do keep it up.

I don't think its an illusion. I first noticed it a few games ago and its what got me on board the Ferg bandwagon. I think he's going to be pretty special defensively. He does a great job tracking his man when off the ball and is pretty good just avoiding screens so he doesn't have to fight through them with that wiry frame. When defending the ball handler he's really disciplined utilizing his length and the verticality rule to contest shots.

I don't know, its hard to quantify, something about him is just reminding me of watching Andre early in his career, before he'd established himself as a defender and refs still gave him some bull fouls. I think next season Ferg is going to straight blow up as a 3 and D guy.