oohah wrote:

martin wrote:
Terry Porter comes to mind.

If Jax had any real motivation to be a coach, he would be out there already.

Please elaborate because I do not see any rationale behind that statement.

oohah

Jackson thinks taking an assistant coaches job and "paying his dues" is beneath him. He expects a franchise to just make him a head coach.

misterearl wrote:Martin - real motivation?

Jackson is staying close to the game by scouting, studying film, and offering analysis on every team single in the league. Broadcasting requires hard work and focus. If that is not laying his analytical cards "out there" on a public table, for everyone (including team presidents) to see, I don't know what is.

See you at the interview.

Same could be said bout Jalen Rose as well

Seriously jokes aside i like Jackson but i think its fair to say not many franchises would put their faith in an inexperienced head coach

kam77 - you have absolutely no proof that Jackson thinks "paying his dues" is beneath him. None. If you do, I would like to see it. Please cite an example to back your claim.

NineMike2 - Jalen Rose? You funny. Like I was sayin', "I pity the fo' playing guard under Jackson who relies on 16 per cent three point shooting for his offensive contribution."

What better franchise to take a chance on an "inexperienced" head coach than one with "inexperienced" players?

orangeblobman wrote:

misterearl wrote:oohah - I caught Mark Jackson in a Summer benefit game. Every pass of his was a work of art. No doubt, he brought fun to the game where every time down the court you just KNEW something special would happen.

kam77 - you have absolutely no proof that Jackson thinks "paying his dues" is beneath him. None. If you do, I would like to see it. Please cite an example to back your claim.

NineMike2 - Jalen Rose? You funny. Like I was sayin', "I pity the fo' playing guard under Jackson who relies on 16 per cent three point shooting for his offensive contribution."

What better franchise to take a chance on an "inexperienced" head coach than one with "inexperienced" players?

misterearl why we talk of mark jackson? he no coming here, ever. our man is mda, next 3 year. mda do good once roster settle.

right now, bad chemistry, it no mda fault, it fault of knucklehead.

i think mr. jackson, he be good coach in league one day, but with us? no.

figured darko's biggest fan would've been the first to lose faith in d'amnphoney

misterearl wrote:Nalod - Jeff Van Gundy is an announcer.

Mark Jackson is a student of basketball - who learned by doing.

Build a monument to him? C'mon man! No one is suggesting a statue. What I AM suggesting is that the ONLY reason to hire a D'Antoni over a Mark Jackson, with a roster of vagabonds, is to buy time and patience from fans and the media. Build a monument to him? I would submit that the "monument" built to D'Antoni, in Phoenix, was carved in stone by Nash, Matrix and Stoudamire.

Of course, Mark Jackson could have failed as many other head coaches have. That is the nature of the game. Somewhere between your indecision between "hack" and "worthy of monument" is a more enlightened analysis of how Mark Jackson might perform as an NBA head coach. As Duhon sucks, as you have noted - which Stevie Wonder can see from ten miles away - then why is D'Antoni still starting him?

Think of it this way Nalod - What difference would it have made if Notre Dame gave the $30 million to Tyrone Willingham?

Michael Jordan was professor of bbal and our dear friend Isiah was not much worth, but both sucks on anything else bbal related.
If somebody was a great player this has nothing to do with him being a coach, a GM, or whotever.
An yes - Duhon sucks. Always was and will suck forever.

misterearl wrote:kam77 - you have absolutely no proof that Jackson thinks "paying his dues" is beneath him. None. If you do, I would like to see it. Please cite an example to back your claim.

Just as you have no proof of anything Jackson would do as coach. Pure speculation.

Panos wrote:

misterearl wrote:kam77 - you have absolutely no proof that Jackson thinks "paying his dues" is beneath him. None. If you do, I would like to see it. Please cite an example to back your claim.

Just as you have no proof of anything Jackson would do as coach. Pure speculation.

A prediction about somebody's coaching abilities based on his playing career is completely different from making up something about somebodies' character based on nothing.

oohah

Panos wrote:

oohah wrote:

Panos wrote:

misterearl wrote:kam77 - you have absolutely no proof that Jackson thinks "paying his dues" is beneath him. None. If you do, I would like to see it. Please cite an example to back your claim.

Just as you have no proof of anything Jackson would do as coach. Pure speculation.

A prediction about somebody's coaching abilities based on his playing career is completely different from making up something about somebodies' character based on nothing.

oohah

Well then good thing I didn't do that, isn't it.

Quite a reply there.

Nobody said you did. However you did make that very comparison in regard to what kam77 wrote to Misterearl's opinion of how Mark Jackson would coach.

I'm a pretty good reader.

oohah

Panos wrote:

oohah wrote:

Panos wrote:

oohah wrote:

Panos wrote:

misterearl wrote:kam77 - you have absolutely no proof that Jackson thinks "paying his dues" is beneath him. None. If you do, I would like to see it. Please cite an example to back your claim.

Just as you have no proof of anything Jackson would do as coach. Pure speculation.

A prediction about somebody's coaching abilities based on his playing career is completely different from making up something about somebodies' character based on nothing.

oohah

Well then good thing I didn't do that, isn't it.

Quite a reply there.

Nobody said you did. However you did make that very comparison in regard to what kam77 wrote to Misterearl's opinion of how Mark Jackson would coach.

I'm a pretty good reader.

oohah

Yes, I am talking about claims about how MarkJax would coach when its pure conjecture.
I think I was pretty clear. Not sure what you're reading.

This is a bizarre exchange. Your answer to misterearl compares kam's making up something out of whole cloth to a prediction of a person's ability to coach.

I point out to you how the comparison you made of what Kam wrote to what misterearl wrote is apples to oranges, and your response is: "Well then good thing I didn't do that, isn't it.".

What were you talking about when you wrote "Well then good thing I didn't do that, isn't it."? There must be something I am missing here.

oohah