Also, take a look at some of Kerr's shrewd moves as the GM @ Phoenix. When MDA was still a hot commodity out in Pho, it was Kerr who insisted on him focusing more on the defensive and or getting a defensive coach if he wanted to get to the next level. Kerr kind of went against the grain being that Pho was the NBA's darling team at the time. Kerr was was sort of a soothsayer in that regard because MDA refused, left town and 5-6 years later, MDA hasn't sniffed the playoffs and one of the main reasons for his downfall is not paying as much attention to the defensive end as he should.

Also, I believe Kerr was still apart of the front office with the Suns when they decided to let Amare walk because of the knee problems. In the end, MDA and Stat, were let go by the Suns, joined the Knicks and both have hindered us in many ways....Stats contract and MDA's stubbornness...

holfresh wrote:I don't care what player Odom turns into...He was smoking crack a year ago and this gives no one pause??

The **** cares? If he can play, he can play. It's not like we're sinking a fortune to find out if that's the case.

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:No one here has any idea what kind of coach Steve Kerr will be..I have no clue what entity Steve Kerr is...My problem is that Phil Jackson has no clue what kind of coach Steve Kerr will be and it doesn't give him pause in appointing to the job..He is supposed to get the best possible candidate, instead he is appointing his friend..

Since you do not believe Kerr can be a 'leader of men'...name someone who is out there that fits the bill in your opinion....

It's not the point..The point is we want the best possible candidate..Kerr has never been an assistant so we have no clue if he can motivate or if he does X's and O's..He is getting the job because he knows Phil and nothing else..Phil doesn't know what he will be...

Its all a crap shoot...however if you were to compare MJax's lack of experience vs. Kerr's, I think Kerr's resume wins out being that he played for 2 of the best coaches in the history of the game in PJax and Pop. He also has experience working with Phil so we won't have the disconnect between bench and front office which seems to be a problem with MJax out in GS.

Kerr is a champion 5x over while MJax is/was not. Kerr also worked in the front office for years so knows the inner workings of an organization from a better standpoint than MJax ever did. Just listening to Kerr during games, the Open Court segments on NBATV; he strikes me as an X's and O's type of guy who has mentioned somewhere that he loves the idea of meshing Pop and PJax's philosophies...

The reason why I bring up MJax, is because a lot of people were on board for bringing him here to run the Knicks without any experience. Though, rebuilding, he would have been on his own where as Kerr has PJax, the greatest coach in the history of the game right upstairs that will guide him. We need more than a "Rah, Rah" guy on the bench. We need a guy that knows the game and can coach 'in game' not just before and after. Kerr strikes me as a guy that can do that.

Ultimately, I look at it as a team of Kerr and Phil coaching the Knicks.....As far as a leader of men, did 5'7, never played in the NBA, Jeff Van Gundy strike you as a leader of men the day he was hired? He didn't to me.

Well said. Forgot Kerr played for Pops too. This is a no brainer from Phil and the Knicks standpoint

holfresh wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

holfresh wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

holfresh wrote:When in life has Steve Kerr ever stuck you as a leader of men??..Every interview I have heard with Steve Kerr about the great players he played with, he was always awe struck by their motivation and drive..And if it you think experience isn't important, why is it instrumental for Phil to have knowledgable(experienced) assistants around him??

When in life has Jeff Hornacek struck you as a leader of men? It didn't stop him from turning a hopeless situation into a playoff contender. When in life has Lawrence Frank struck you as a leader of men? Dude is like 5"8', never really played professional basketball and yet has become a fixture in the league in coaching circles. The fact is that talent is talent and if the greatest coach of all-time vouches for a guy, I'll believe in him as well.

Well if I remember correctly, Hornecek and Matt Harding were tough players...Hornecek is tough in Philly when he played with Hershy Hawkins...Hornecek took it to you and played hard and tough for Utah..Hornecek paid his dues as an assistant as well...Lawrence Frank isn't a leader of men, he sucked as a coach but he did pay his dues as an assistant and showed his diligence in hard work... He got his job because of Jason Kidd's insistence with the Nets after a feud with Byron Scott...He sucked and it didn't translate but he was given a shot based on aptitude for the game..I have no idea how Frank got the Detroit job...Obviously off Doc Rivers success..What are u basing your assessment of Steve Kerr on??

Hornecek was a jump shooter that was a bit of a sieve defensively. As far as "leader of men", Hornacek has as much charisma as drying paint. It doesn't change the fact that he has made himself into a good tactician and has figured out a way to mitigate his own flaws, through his assistants.

I also find it interesting that you think Doc Rivers is a good coach, while forgetting that he got his coaching gig under the same circumstances that Kerr would. Rivers went straight from the broadcasting booth with ZERO coaching experience or championship experience. So why all of your animosity toward Kerr? What are YOU basing YOUR assessment of Kerr off of?

I asked u that question first...

The fact that he has a championship pedigree. The fact that he played in Phil's system for 3 seasons. The fact that former guard's who were role players, have had an overwhelming amount of success as coaches. The fact that there is precedent for men becoming head coach with zero coaching experience and excelling (see Doc Rivers, Jason Kidd and Mark Jackson). The fact that Kerr seems really bright, especially in his discussion of how to contain the pick and roll in Open Court yesterday. The fact that Kerr seems to have a great deal of poise and a temperament that is conducive to winning.

P.S., I thought you started this thread, which is why my posts may have seemed to be a bit prickly. I apologize for that and meant no harm either way.

holfresh wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

holfresh wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

holfresh wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

holfresh wrote:When in life has Steve Kerr ever stuck you as a leader of men??..Every interview I have heard with Steve Kerr about the great players he played with, he was always awe struck by their motivation and drive..And if it you think experience isn't important, why is it instrumental for Phil to have knowledgable(experienced) assistants around him??

When in life has Jeff Hornacek struck you as a leader of men? It didn't stop him from turning a hopeless situation into a playoff contender. When in life has Lawrence Frank struck you as a leader of men? Dude is like 5"8', never really played professional basketball and yet has become a fixture in the league in coaching circles. The fact is that talent is talent and if the greatest coach of all-time vouches for a guy, I'll believe in him as well.

Well if I remember correctly, Hornecek and Matt Harding were tough players...Hornecek is tough in Philly when he played with Hershy Hawkins...Hornecek took it to you and played hard and tough for Utah..Hornecek paid his dues as an assistant as well...Lawrence Frank isn't a leader of men, he sucked as a coach but he did pay his dues as an assistant and showed his diligence in hard work... He got his job because of Jason Kidd's insistence with the Nets after a feud with Byron Scott...He sucked and it didn't translate but he was given a shot based on aptitude for the game..I have no idea how Frank got the Detroit job...Obviously off Doc Rivers success..What are u basing your assessment of Steve Kerr on??

Hornecek was a jump shooter that was a bit of a sieve defensively. As far as "leader of men", Hornacek has as much charisma as drying paint. It doesn't change the fact that he has made himself into a good tactician and has figured out a way to mitigate his own flaws, through his assistants.

I also find it interesting that you think Doc Rivers is a good coach, while forgetting that he got his coaching gig under the same circumstances that Kerr would. Rivers went straight from the broadcasting booth with ZERO coaching experience or championship experience. So why all of your animosity toward Kerr? What are YOU basing YOUR assessment of Kerr off of?

I asked u that question first...

The fact that he has a championship pedigree. The fact that he played in Phil's system for 3 seasons. The fact that former guard's who were role players, have had an overwhelming amount of success as coaches. The fact that there is precedent for men becoming head coach with zero coaching experience and excelling (see Doc Rivers, Jason Kidd and Mark Jackson). The fact that Kerr seems really bright, especially in his discussion of how to contain the pick and roll in Open Court yesterday. The fact that Kerr seems to have a great deal of poise and a temperament that is conducive to winning.

P.S., I thought you started this thread, which is why my posts may have seemed to be a bit prickly. I apologize for that and meant no harm either way.

None taken, we are all here to talk about the team we root for...I don't get hung up on that stuff, I like passion even from dk7, though misguided...

That said, Doc sucked in Orlando and Tracy McGrady let the world know about it, I don't want to be Orlando....Jason Kidd has proved nothing, Woodson won 54 game last year, what did that prove??...Mark Jackson is a motivational speaker...He isn't about X's and O's guy... Motivation has a short shelf life...

I have nothing against Kerr..Absolutely nothing...I'm just not convinced he is the best possible candidate...To me, Phil looks like he is working on his legacy...During his press conference when he was being introduced, he said his system was "much maligned" in the NBA...I really don't care about Phil Jackson's legacy, I care about the Knicks winning...If they turn into mutual goals then I'm all for it...Right now, not hiring the best guy for the job doesn't excite me...

TeamBall wrote:

holfresh wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

holfresh wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

holfresh wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

holfresh wrote:When in life has Steve Kerr ever stuck you as a leader of men??..Every interview I have heard with Steve Kerr about the great players he played with, he was always awe struck by their motivation and drive..And if it you think experience isn't important, why is it instrumental for Phil to have knowledgable(experienced) assistants around him??

When in life has Jeff Hornacek struck you as a leader of men? It didn't stop him from turning a hopeless situation into a playoff contender. When in life has Lawrence Frank struck you as a leader of men? Dude is like 5"8', never really played professional basketball and yet has become a fixture in the league in coaching circles. The fact is that talent is talent and if the greatest coach of all-time vouches for a guy, I'll believe in him as well.

Well if I remember correctly, Hornecek and Matt Harding were tough players...Hornecek is tough in Philly when he played with Hershy Hawkins...Hornecek took it to you and played hard and tough for Utah..Hornecek paid his dues as an assistant as well...Lawrence Frank isn't a leader of men, he sucked as a coach but he did pay his dues as an assistant and showed his diligence in hard work... He got his job because of Jason Kidd's insistence with the Nets after a feud with Byron Scott...He sucked and it didn't translate but he was given a shot based on aptitude for the game..I have no idea how Frank got the Detroit job...Obviously off Doc Rivers success..What are u basing your assessment of Steve Kerr on??

Hornecek was a jump shooter that was a bit of a sieve defensively. As far as "leader of men", Hornacek has as much charisma as drying paint. It doesn't change the fact that he has made himself into a good tactician and has figured out a way to mitigate his own flaws, through his assistants.

I also find it interesting that you think Doc Rivers is a good coach, while forgetting that he got his coaching gig under the same circumstances that Kerr would. Rivers went straight from the broadcasting booth with ZERO coaching experience or championship experience. So why all of your animosity toward Kerr? What are YOU basing YOUR assessment of Kerr off of?

I asked u that question first...

The fact that he has a championship pedigree. The fact that he played in Phil's system for 3 seasons. The fact that former guard's who were role players, have had an overwhelming amount of success as coaches. The fact that there is precedent for men becoming head coach with zero coaching experience and excelling (see Doc Rivers, Jason Kidd and Mark Jackson). The fact that Kerr seems really bright, especially in his discussion of how to contain the pick and roll in Open Court yesterday. The fact that Kerr seems to have a great deal of poise and a temperament that is conducive to winning.

P.S., I thought you started this thread, which is why my posts may have seemed to be a bit prickly. I apologize for that and meant no harm either way.

None taken, we are all here to talk about the team we root for...I don't get hung up on that stuff, I like passion even from dk7, though misguided...

That said, Doc sucked in Orlando and Tracy McGrady let the world know about it, I don't want to be Orlando....Jason Kidd has proved nothing, Woodson won 54 game last year, what did that prove??...Mark Jackson is a motivational speaker...He isn't about X's and O's guy... Motivation has a short shelf life...

I have nothing against Kerr..Absolutely nothing...I'm just not convinced he is the best possible candidate...To me, Phil looks like he is working on his legacy...During his press conference when he was being introduced, he said his system was "much maligned" in the NBA...I really don't care about Phil Jackson's legacy, I care about the Knicks winning...If they turn into mutual goals then I'm all for it...Right now, not hiring the best guy for the job doesn't excite me...

Not excited about Kerr myself but really who is the best guy that is actually available?

I'm not sure to be honest..I'm jsut not a big believer in system basketball..I believe in head coaches, the individual...The triangle hasn't worked since Phil's left coaching...

holfresh wrote:

TeamBall wrote:

holfresh wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

holfresh wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

holfresh wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

holfresh wrote:When in life has Steve Kerr ever stuck you as a leader of men??..Every interview I have heard with Steve Kerr about the great players he played with, he was always awe struck by their motivation and drive..And if it you think experience isn't important, why is it instrumental for Phil to have knowledgable(experienced) assistants around him??

When in life has Jeff Hornacek struck you as a leader of men? It didn't stop him from turning a hopeless situation into a playoff contender. When in life has Lawrence Frank struck you as a leader of men? Dude is like 5"8', never really played professional basketball and yet has become a fixture in the league in coaching circles. The fact is that talent is talent and if the greatest coach of all-time vouches for a guy, I'll believe in him as well.

Well if I remember correctly, Hornecek and Matt Harding were tough players...Hornecek is tough in Philly when he played with Hershy Hawkins...Hornecek took it to you and played hard and tough for Utah..Hornecek paid his dues as an assistant as well...Lawrence Frank isn't a leader of men, he sucked as a coach but he did pay his dues as an assistant and showed his diligence in hard work... He got his job because of Jason Kidd's insistence with the Nets after a feud with Byron Scott...He sucked and it didn't translate but he was given a shot based on aptitude for the game..I have no idea how Frank got the Detroit job...Obviously off Doc Rivers success..What are u basing your assessment of Steve Kerr on??

Hornecek was a jump shooter that was a bit of a sieve defensively. As far as "leader of men", Hornacek has as much charisma as drying paint. It doesn't change the fact that he has made himself into a good tactician and has figured out a way to mitigate his own flaws, through his assistants.

I also find it interesting that you think Doc Rivers is a good coach, while forgetting that he got his coaching gig under the same circumstances that Kerr would. Rivers went straight from the broadcasting booth with ZERO coaching experience or championship experience. So why all of your animosity toward Kerr? What are YOU basing YOUR assessment of Kerr off of?

I asked u that question first...

The fact that he has a championship pedigree. The fact that he played in Phil's system for 3 seasons. The fact that former guard's who were role players, have had an overwhelming amount of success as coaches. The fact that there is precedent for men becoming head coach with zero coaching experience and excelling (see Doc Rivers, Jason Kidd and Mark Jackson). The fact that Kerr seems really bright, especially in his discussion of how to contain the pick and roll in Open Court yesterday. The fact that Kerr seems to have a great deal of poise and a temperament that is conducive to winning.

P.S., I thought you started this thread, which is why my posts may have seemed to be a bit prickly. I apologize for that and meant no harm either way.

None taken, we are all here to talk about the team we root for...I don't get hung up on that stuff, I like passion even from dk7, though misguided...

That said, Doc sucked in Orlando and Tracy McGrady let the world know about it, I don't want to be Orlando....Jason Kidd has proved nothing, Woodson won 54 game last year, what did that prove??...Mark Jackson is a motivational speaker...He isn't about X's and O's guy... Motivation has a short shelf life...

I have nothing against Kerr..Absolutely nothing...I'm just not convinced he is the best possible candidate...To me, Phil looks like he is working on his legacy...During his press conference when he was being introduced, he said his system was "much maligned" in the NBA...I really don't care about Phil Jackson's legacy, I care about the Knicks winning...If they turn into mutual goals then I'm all for it...Right now, not hiring the best guy for the job doesn't excite me...

Not excited about Kerr myself but really who is the best guy that is actually available?

I'm not sure to be honest..I'm jsut not a big believer in system basketball..I believe in head coaches, the individual...The triangle hasn't worked since Phil's left coaching...

I agree that its a players league, however, it's more than just a system on the court, its the system that is established throughout the organization that breeds winning. Just having everyone on the same page, from Coaches, to GM, to President, to Owner to Scouts, etc....That's how organizations win big in the league. Kerr and Phil's guys in the organization mean no one has an agenda, which is what has ruined us for decades.....Brown vs Isiah, Dolan vs Walsh, Van Gundy vs Grunfeld, etc....