Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Potential Coaching Candidates

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Axel wrote: View Post
    I would honestly take Hoiberg over Thibs. Thibs is more set in his ways and kinda stubborn (like someone else we all know). I see Hoiberg as a better long term option.
    Based on the article, Fred Hoiberg is the absolute Anti-Casey.

    Comment


    • #17
      Axel, do you want a poll? Interesting to see the group consensus.

      Comment


      • #18
        Gary Payton would be a dream coach if all things went according to plan! I'd love to see him trash talking in a suit on the sidelines or yelling in players faces for not doing their job. I really just don't see that happening and as WMCJ stated, I don't wanna be the first team to give him a crack at it at this point.

        Comment


        • #19
          mcHAPPY wrote: View Post
          True but he was an NBA player and spent time in front office.

          His biggest knock would be it was Minny's front office-lol
          The Minny thing gives him some credence, he left because of Kahn. Clearly he was smarter than the higher ups in the franchise, but I guess that bar is pretty low.
          Heir, Prince of Cambridge

          If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

          Comment


          • #20
            psrs1 wrote: View Post
            Hoiberg looks promising but college coaches going to NBA is always a crap shoot.
            Biggest difference with Hoiberg and the traditional college coach (guys like Shaka Smart for example) is that he basically runs a NBA offence in college. Guys like Shaka Smart run a system that wouldn't transition to the NBA, so you're basically asking a guy to change everything but still be effective. Also he isn't a micro-manager like a lot of college coaches.

            Plus, Hoiberg has NBA pedigree.
            Heir, Prince of Cambridge

            If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

            Comment


            • #21
              Apollo wrote: View Post
              Axel, do you want a poll? Interesting to see the group consensus.
              Well I just threw a list of names out there. Still looking for more ideas. Not sure we have a real "pool" to vote on at this point. I know who I would vote for, but it's too early to vote imo.
              Heir, Prince of Cambridge

              If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

              Comment


              • #22
                Axel wrote: View Post
                Biggest difference with Hoiberg and the traditional college coach (guys like Shaka Smart for example) is that he basically runs a NBA offence in college. Guys like Shaka Smart run a system that wouldn't transition to the NBA, so you're basically asking a guy to change everything but still be effective. Also he isn't a micro-manager like a lot of college coaches.

                Plus, Hoiberg has NBA pedigree.
                Not just NBA pedigree, but in a role player position during his playing career. I said bit players always intrigue me, but basically guys who play supporting roles often intrigue me. Maybe it's because lots of good former player coaches come from such backgrounds, and many higher profile players become flawed coaches.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Mack North wrote: View Post
                  Gary Payton would be a dream coach if all things went according to plan! I'd love to see him trash talking in a suit on the sidelines or yelling in players faces for not doing their job. I really just don't see that happening and as WMCJ stated, I don't wanna be the first team to give him a crack at it at this point.
                  He would be entertaining, which I guess is something. I agree though, wouldn't want him taking charge next year. Maybe as an assistant; mostly I just want to see him do post-game interviews, or even the Sterner half-time ones.
                  Heir, Prince of Cambridge

                  If you see KeonClark in the wasteland, please share your food and water with him.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Just anyone else, please.
                    The name's Bond, James Bond.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      white men can't jump wrote: View Post
                      Not just NBA pedigree, but in a role player position during his playing career. I said bit players always intrigue me, but basically guys who play supporting roles often intrigue me. Maybe it's because lots of good former player coaches come from such backgrounds, and many higher profile players become flawed coaches.
                      Pure speculation - maybe bit players are forced to really understand team dynamics and systems so they can find their niche, be effective, and keep their jobs. Guys with gobs of natural talent sometimes just get to "do what they do" while the rest of the team accommodates and tries to fit in around them.

                      Also, guys who are role players may be slightly less physically gifted but manage to make the cut because of basketball smarts.

                      It reminds me a bit of a study where C level students at Harvard were much more successful in the business world than A students. One of the thoughts was that a less gifted student had to learn to work harder and leverage other skills (speaking skills, kissing ass, etc.) to get through college successfully while A students cruised through on natural academic talent. The broader skills the C students developed transferred better to the working world than the A students' ability to write a great paper or exam. Are successful role players forced to develop skills that transfer well to coaching?
                      "We're playing in a building." -- Kawhi Leonard

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        S.R. wrote: View Post
                        Pure speculation - maybe bit players are forced to really understand team dynamics and systems so they can find their niche, be effective, and keep their jobs. Guys with gobs of natural talent sometimes just get to "do what they do" while the rest of the team accommodates and tries to fit in around them.

                        Also, guys who are role players may be slightly less physically gifted but manage to make the cut because of basketball smarts.

                        It reminds me a bit of a study where C level students at Harvard were much more successful in the business world than A students. One of the thoughts was that a less gifted student had to learn to work harder and leverage other skills (speaking skills, kissing ass, etc.) to get through college successfully while A students cruised through on natural academic talent. The broader skills the C students developed transferred better to the working world than the A students' ability to write a great paper or exam. Are successful role players forced to develop skills that transfer well to coaching?
                        Spending more time on the bench and around the coaching staff also helps provide deeper insights beyond just your role/position. Similar to how catchers make good managers in baseball, as they see the entire game and are heavily involved in game-planning and play-calling. The stars are out there playing their game, while the role players have to understand roles, responsibilities, chemistry, fit, strategy, matchups, etc...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          S.R. wrote: View Post
                          Pure speculation - maybe bit players are forced to really understand team dynamics and systems so they can find their niche, be effective, and keep their jobs. Guys with gobs of natural talent sometimes just get to "do what they do" while the rest of the team accommodates and tries to fit in around them.

                          Also, guys who are role players may be slightly less physically gifted but manage to make the cut because of basketball smarts.

                          It reminds me a bit of a study where C level students at Harvard were much more successful in the business world than A students. One of the thoughts was that a less gifted student had to learn to work harder and leverage other skills (speaking skills, kissing ass, etc.) to get through college successfully while A students cruised through on natural academic talent. The broader skills the C students developed transferred better to the working world than the A students' ability to write a great paper or exam. Are successful role players forced to develop skills that transfer well to coaching?
                          CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                          Spending more time on the bench and around the coaching staff also helps provide deeper insights beyond just your role/position. Similar to how catchers make good managers in baseball, as they see the entire game and are heavily involved in game-planning and play-calling. The stars are out there playing their game, while the role players have to understand roles, responsibilities, chemistry, fit, strategy, matchups, etc...
                          I think a lot has to do with egos as well. Bit/role players can learn more from having to fit in and maximize a limited skill/talent level. However they also have lesser egos, and understand what it's like to not be the star, and what it takes for a team to be successful in terms of guys coming together and buying in. I think they have a big advantage in dealing with personalities/egos whereas former stars struggle to relate to the different guys on their roster. They seem to have a "why can't these guys do it like I used to/am telling them to?" problem.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            S.R. wrote: View Post
                            Pure speculation - maybe bit players are forced to really understand team dynamics and systems so they can find their niche, be effective, and keep their jobs. Guys with gobs of natural talent sometimes just get to "do what they do" while the rest of the team accommodates and tries to fit in around them.

                            Also, guys who are role players may be slightly less physically gifted but manage to make the cut because of basketball smarts.

                            It reminds me a bit of a study where C level students at Harvard were much more successful in the business world than A students. One of the thoughts was that a less gifted student had to learn to work harder and leverage other skills (speaking skills, kissing ass, etc.) to get through college successfully while A students cruised through on natural academic talent. The broader skills the C students developed transferred better to the working world than the A students' ability to write a great paper or exam. Are successful role players forced to develop skills that transfer well to coaching?
                            By definition C students make up over 60 % of all students in a curved marking schemes. A student less than 3%

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              white men can't jump wrote: View Post
                              I think a lot has to do with egos as well. Bit/role players can learn more from having to fit in and maximize a limited skill/talent level. However they also have lesser egos, and understand what it's like to not be the star, and what it takes for a team to be successful in terms of guys coming together and buying in. I think they have a big advantage in dealing with personalities/egos whereas former stars struggle to relate to the different guys on their roster. They seem to have a "why can't these guys do it like I used to/am telling them to?" problem.
                              It goes the other way too. Players are likely to respect a coach who carved out a successful career for themselves as a blue-collar type player and had to earn his stripes, as a fellow player who 'gets it'.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                                It goes the other way too. Players are likely to respect a coach who carved out a successful career for themselves as a blue-collar type player and had to earn his stripes, as a fellow player who 'gets it'.
                                Yep. Whereas the gravitas a star has can quickly wear off if he doesn't understand how to relate to his players and help them be more successful.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X