mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:never thought mark jackson should have went into coaching straight from the booth without earning his stripes as an assistant. he might know the game of basketball, but it's evident he doesn't know how to run a team.

Being 19 games over .500 is indicative of not "know(ing) how to run a team"? If that's the case, 75% of the league's coaches are bums.

He has a talented team oriented squad.

Curious to see how good he would be with our mess. After a month we would be calling for his head.

You dont judge a coach by what they do with the worst scenario...you judge them by having a good scenario.

In a good scenario even Woodson has been successful with the expectations of the teams he's coached.

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:never thought mark jackson should have went into coaching straight from the booth without earning his stripes as an assistant. he might know the game of basketball, but it's evident he doesn't know how to run a team.

Being 19 games over .500 is indicative of not "know(ing) how to run a team"? If that's the case, 75% of the league's coaches are bums.

He has a talented team oriented squad.

Curious to see how good he would be with our mess. After a month we would be calling for his head.

To be fair, our mess won 54 games last season with only minor tweaks and changes. There is no guarantee that talent wins games (see the Elton Brand Clippers of yore).

Its not the same team.

Aside from Jason Kidd being substituted by Beno Udrih and Andrea Bargnani for Steve Novak, what is different about our rotation?

Veteran leadership. And, kidds efficiency numbers for the first part of the year were magnificent.

JR also started the/his year like horsesh1t after he came back. That killed us.

Why do you think there is such a drastic change in our records between the two years?

I think the veteran leadership explanation is a bit overrated. Most members of our supporting cast are approaching or have approached their tenth consecutive season in the league and have experienced success on other teams. I can't believe that some geriatrics that hardly played made so much of a difference on the team.

As for why we suck this year, I'm not sure. Maybe we were a mediocre team this entire time. After all, we would've been a .500 team if not for two incredible win streaks at the beginning and end of last season (both of which JR looked like an all-star for). With our inability to hit the long ball this season (and JR getting his guaranteed money), I don't think it is too surprising why we ended up the way we did.

mreinman wrote:

toad wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:To be fair, our mess won 54 games last season with only minor tweaks and changes. There is no guarantee that talent wins games (see the Elton Brand Clippers of yore).

Its not the same team.

Aside from Jason Kidd being substituted by Beno Udrih and Andrea Bargnani for Steve Novak, what is different about our rotation?

You underestimate veteran leadership--Kidd, Rasheed, Kurt Thomas. Aside from the obvious injuries, this team is talented enough to be at the top of the Atlantic. They suffer from laziness, stupidity, and lack of focus. They have no leader. When they give effort for 48 mins they can compete with anyone. They started the season thinking they're better than they are and didn't have the urgency to play hard every night, and once the losses started piling up, they panicked because they don't have a leader.

Also, what winning team has a back court as bad as ours?

We may have the worst backcourt in modern NBA history. This isn't an attempt at humor or hyperbole either. Raymond Felton is not a rotation player in the NBA, Iman Shumpert has been no better than Shannon Brown (who wasn't getting any attention before us), Pablo Prigioni can't piece together two brilliant performances (which generally aren't longer than 20 minutes) and JR has played like a D-league player.

NardDogNation wrote:

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:never thought mark jackson should have went into coaching straight from the booth without earning his stripes as an assistant. he might know the game of basketball, but it's evident he doesn't know how to run a team.

Being 19 games over .500 is indicative of not "know(ing) how to run a team"? If that's the case, 75% of the league's coaches are bums.

He has a talented team oriented squad.

Curious to see how good he would be with our mess. After a month we would be calling for his head.

Doc Rivers would like to have a word with you.

You dont judge a coach by what they do with the worst scenario...you judge them by having a good scenario.

In a good scenario even Woodson has been successful with the expectations of the teams he's coached.

Define "successful" because the Hawks had been the same team with and without. The only coach that might have worse/fewer offensive schemes than him might be Mike Brown, who may be the worst coach in the league now that Vinny Del Negro isn't among the ranks.

The hawks were at best a 2nd round team, thats where they wound up....success.

knickscity wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:never thought mark jackson should have went into coaching straight from the booth without earning his stripes as an assistant. he might know the game of basketball, but it's evident he doesn't know how to run a team.

Being 19 games over .500 is indicative of not "know(ing) how to run a team"? If that's the case, 75% of the league's coaches are bums.

He has a talented team oriented squad.

Curious to see how good he would be with our mess. After a month we would be calling for his head.

Doc Rivers would like to have a word with you.

You dont judge a coach by what they do with the worst scenario...you judge them by having a good scenario.

In a good scenario even Woodson has been successful with the expectations of the teams he's coached.

Define "successful" because the Hawks had been the same team with and without. The only coach that might have worse/fewer offensive schemes than him might be Mike Brown, who may be the worst coach in the league now that Vinny Del Negro isn't among the ranks.

Of course they were the same, all they have had was Woody and then his assistant he coached the exact same way.

The hawks were at best a 2nd round team, thats where they wound up....success.

A "successful" coach to me is one that gets his team to overachieve. Being a 2nd round team and getting to the 2nd round does not qualify as success IMHO.

NardDogNation wrote:

knickscity wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:never thought mark jackson should have went into coaching straight from the booth without earning his stripes as an assistant. he might know the game of basketball, but it's evident he doesn't know how to run a team.

Being 19 games over .500 is indicative of not "know(ing) how to run a team"? If that's the case, 75% of the league's coaches are bums.

He has a talented team oriented squad.

Curious to see how good he would be with our mess. After a month we would be calling for his head.

Doc Rivers would like to have a word with you.

You dont judge a coach by what they do with the worst scenario...you judge them by having a good scenario.

In a good scenario even Woodson has been successful with the expectations of the teams he's coached.

Define "successful" because the Hawks had been the same team with and without. The only coach that might have worse/fewer offensive schemes than him might be Mike Brown, who may be the worst coach in the league now that Vinny Del Negro isn't among the ranks.

Of course they were the same, all they have had was Woody and then his assistant he coached the exact same way.

The hawks were at best a 2nd round team, thats where they wound up....success.

A "successful" coach to me is one that gets his team to overachieve. Being a 2nd round team and getting to the 2nd round does not qualify as success IMHO.

which coach is/has over achieved. Pretty much all successful coaches have the best players.

Coaches can over achieve by pushing their players extremely hard defensively like JVG and Thibs but unfortunately, that style is no longer sustainable with player : coach salary ratio's. That is why you need a gigantic alpha male running the show like Jackson.

Phil Jackson if he is coach, president or GM will not allow JR and Melo to jack up any contested shot they want. I don't think Melo will be here next year but if he stays, there will be rules that he will have to adhere to. Woody has no power or stature to enforce rules. If he told Melo that he should not shoot in certain situations Melo would say go phuck yourself. He is not saying that to Phil Jackson.

Jackson needs to get us the right players/team. I have more hope that he can do that than anybody else.

nyk4ever wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:never thought mark jackson should have went into coaching straight from the booth without earning his stripes as an assistant. he might know the game of basketball, but it's evident he doesn't know how to run a team.

His team is 44-27. They beat the Nuggets in the first round lastr and gave the Spurs trouble in the second round last year. His team has been successful. I don't think his people skills change much working under someone. His team is successful.

he also has a ton of talent. scott brooks team has done really well too and i wouldn't make the thunder's record indicative of scott brooks coaching ability. having curry, klay, lee, bogut, it's kind of surprising they dont have more than 44 wins. anytime a guy gets reassigned in the fashion scalabrine has been, it raises an eyebrow.. all im saying.

And the fact that he would give Mike Malone the silent treatment for weeks at a time?

Something smells rotten. I don't see this lasting too long.

This just doesn't look good. And mostly because the greatest strength of Jackson isn't looking so strong these days.

One of the staples of his tenure has been the chemistry in the locker room. His players love him, even when they are riding the bench, and they play hard for him. That's still true for the most part. But the Warriors have a developed a pattern of playing down to competition and not maxing out every night.

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:never thought mark jackson should have went into coaching straight from the booth without earning his stripes as an assistant. he might know the game of basketball, but it's evident he doesn't know how to run a team.

Being 19 games over .500 is indicative of not "know(ing) how to run a team"? If that's the case, 75% of the league's coaches are bums.

He has a talented team oriented squad.

Curious to see how good he would be with our mess. After a month we would be calling for his head.

To be fair, our mess won 54 games last season with only minor tweaks and changes. There is no guarantee that talent wins games (see the Elton Brand Clippers of yore).

Its not the same team.

Aside from Jason Kidd being substituted by Beno Udrih and Andrea Bargnani for Steve Novak, what is different about our rotation?

Veteran leadership. And, kidds efficiency numbers for the first part of the year were magnificent.

JR also started the/his year like horsesh1t after he came back. That killed us.

Why do you think there is such a drastic change in our records between the two years?

I think the veteran leadership explanation is a bit overrated. Most members of our supporting cast are approaching or have approached their tenth consecutive season in the league and have experienced success on other teams. I can't believe that some geriatrics that hardly played made so much of a difference on the team.

As for why we suck this year, I'm not sure. Maybe we were a mediocre team this entire time. After all, we would've been a .500 team if not for two incredible win streaks at the beginning and end of last season (both of which JR looked like an all-star for). With our inability to hit the long ball this season (and JR getting his guaranteed money), I don't think it is too surprising why we ended up the way we did.

+1 on the JKidd leadership point, which gets beat to death in almost every thread, by some of the same people who point out how disgustingly bad our backcourt is this year. JKidd spent possibly the last half of last season as the worst player on the team who actually played in games.

Other Possible reasons we suck:
Tyson reverting to Mrs. Hibbert/FluTyson/PersonalIssueTyson/BrokenTyson for most of this season. DPOY seems so long ago.
Absolutely No Kmart.
Melo's minutes.
Woodson living out the credo that you grow more and more stupid as you lose more and more games.