Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

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

  • Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

    http://howtowatchsports.com/2010/01/...lly-worthless/

    Alex McVeigh, How To Watch Sports

    The NBA coach is one of the more tenuous positions in the professional sports world. Every sport has their legendary coaches, but in basketball the legendary coaches seem to bounce around more than most.
    Sure, there’s your Jerry Sloans and your Gregg Popovichs who stay with their team for extended periods of time, but coaches move on quite regularly. There have been 236 coaching changes in the league since Jerry Sloan was hired in 1988, or an average of 8 per team.
    And that’s why I’m here to let you in on a little secret: coaches are essentially useless.
    Don’t believe me? Well then take a look at this little tidbit: Before Mike Brown won the NBA Coach of the Year award last year, only Gregg Popovich, winner in 2003, is still with his team.
    Except for Hubie Brown, who left the Grizzlies because of health reasons, each one of the last eight winners was fired within a year or two of earning that award.
    Why is that? Because it’s the players who make the team. Mike Brown is an absolutely terrible coach. And I mean terrible. The man couldn’t draw up an offensive play to save his life.
    But he’s been blessed with LeBron James, who took him to the Finals and won him the Coach of the Year award.
    Now, when I say coaches are essentially useless, there are of course exceptions to that. They are useful in that you have to have a coach, if not to just have an older gentleman (or woman, someday) whom everyone can agree has the final say on basketball matters.
    There are only certain coaches who have an impact that is better to or equal than good players.
    Phil Jackson is clearly one of those. The man just wins rings.
    Now, the cynic in me says that Phil certainly knows a good thing when he’s got it. After all, he only had the best player of all time for six of those rings, and he had the most dominant center of the decade in his prime for three of them, and then he had Kobe at the absolute peak of his powers for the tenth one.
    One could say that Jackson never won a title without at least two Hall-of-Famers (I’m guessing Gasol gets in). But then again, almost every championship team has one, unless you’re Larry Brown in 2004 with the Pistons.
    But clearly, it’s not just about that.
    Jackson, while not an X’s and O’s guy, is a successful coach because of his personality. Much has been made about his relationship with Michael Jordan and his ability to motivate the troops.
    And who doesn’t like Phil Jackson? He looks like an old hippie uncle of yours, one that probably has great stories about Woodstock, but also clearheaded and smart enough to give you great advice.
    Much has been made of his controversial motivational techniques, such as comparing Rick Adelman (then coaching the Sacramento Kings) to Hitler, or Jason Williams to Edward Norton from “American History X”.
    Whatever the means, the ends speak for themselves, as Jackson can put a ring on each finger of both hands.
    Gregg Popovich is another difference maker. With a military background that includes the Air Force and possibly some Cold War espionage in Russia (or so the rumor goes), he is a notoriously hard coach to play for, but like Jackson, the results speak for themselves.
    He is known to be especially hard on point guards, as Tony Parker can surely attest. During the Spurs’ 2007 title run, stories would emerge about Popovich getting all over Parker like stink on a monkey.
    Popovich initially wanted to turn Parker into a Popovich clone, which Parker clearly isn’t meant for. I’m sure it was tough getting him out of that mold, but Parker has even admitted publicly that as tough as Pop was on him, it made him a better player.
    Popovich is the rare coach who seems to have an eye for talent as well as skill in both motivation and X’s and O’s. He was the one who found Parker, and he scouted players like Roger Mason, Jr. and DeJuan Blair.
    Given his relationship with Spurs’ GM R.C. Buford (Buford was hired by Pop in 1994 to be the head scout for the team), they form a duo that is probably the best evaluators of personnel in the league.
    Pop also has that famously dry sense of humor, which seems to appeal to players more than bluster or volume.
    Other than those two, and of course a few coaches throughout NBA history, it’s safe to say that coaches are essentially useless.
    I mentioned Mike Brown, and Doc Rivers is another one. He was known as a lame duck coach until Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen came, and all of a sudden he’s a champion.
    Now, I said coaches are “essentially” useless, that is, without talent around them, they can’t do anything. The best coaches find the talent to put there, but not every coach has that much trust from his owner/GM.
    But there are things that coaches can do to help their team, while they’re not the kind of things that win championships, they do help their team to a certain extent.
    Timeouts are crucial. A good coach knows when to call them, and when not to call them. If the other team is in the midst of a run, the coach needs to call the timeout, particularly if the home crowd is starting to get fired up.
    Mavericks coach Rick Carlisle is good at doing just that. If the other team is creeping up on the Mavs, or the home crowd is starting to get fired up, Carlisle knows the best place to take a timeout to stop the bleeding.
    As a former player, he seems to have more of a sense about when the momentum is starting to shift out of the Mavericks’ favor, and he takes his timeout to do that.
    That’s something that can’t really be taught, and former players turned coaches seem to be more in tune to those subtle swings of emotion than non-players.
    Coaches can also help their teams in terms of substitutions. When a player, particularly a low-post player gets into foul trouble, the coach has to make a call to pull the player out, saving them for later, but also putting a backup big man in for extended minutes.
    Dwight Howard is a player that Stan Van Gundy wants on the floor as much as possible, but as a center, he can get into foul trouble. Van Gundy is lucky in that he has Marcin Gortat to back Howard up, but without a valuable backup, the dropoff from someone like Howard to a normal backup center is pretty steep.
    It’s such a fine line between keeping players on the court, but also out of foul trouble, and it’s sort of a thankless job in that respect, because if your team wins, no one notices, but the second guessing always comes after a loss.
    Mike Dunleavy Sr., easily the worst coach in the NBA, is terrible in both of those respects. He has a knack for taking timeouts several possessions too late, which hurts his team in a lot of ways. He also tends to put ice-cold players in at clutch times, like bringing in a guy for the first time on a late possession, and drawing a play up for him.
    The Clippers clearly have talent on their team, but a coach like Mike Dunleavy shows us the number one impact that coaches can have on their teams: they screw the team up.
    When it comes to coaching, they tend to do more harm than good. You don’t particularly hear about good coaching performances, because a coach’s job is to not screw up. If they’ve done their job right, they stay well out of the spotlight. Usually a coach only gets discussed when they blow the game.
    They’re like NFL placekickers. They just come out and do their job. The ones you remember, like Scott Norwood or Ray Finkle-turned-Lois Einhorn, always get remembered for missing big kicks—or becoming a woman and heading up the police force in Miami.
    First let me start off by saying that this is NOT meant to be a Jim O’Brien thread.
    Something that I struggle to understand is the coaching differences in the NBA and NFL. Why it is that NBA coaches are hired much quicker than NFL coaches? Is it because of the longer season? Guaranteed contracts so the players can’t take the blame but the coaches do? The fact that there are only 15 players on a basketball team compared to 50+ on a football team?

    You look at Lawrence Frank last year. The guy is known as a pretty good coach and respected by his players. Yet he was blamed for the Nets awful start last year. The Nets had an awful team and didn’t really look any better after they fired coach Frank, IMO. Yet Coach Frank took the blame. You look at the NFL and those coaches are given a lot more time to turn things around.

    Think about Mike Brown. Highly regarded as an assistant coach in San Antonio and Indiana. He goes to Cleveland as the head coach and while he is successful he gets fired because his team never won it all. Let me tell you those Cavs teams were never that good outside of Lebron. You still hear Coach Brown get criticized. Was it really his fault?

    Then you have the famous COY curse in the NBA. Win coach of the year and get fired the following season. Now those coaches obviously did some things right to win COY. They showed they could coach. So what happened?

    Take Doc Rivers for example. He won coach of the year with the Magic but was fired a few years later due to a poor start. He did ok with the Magic staying above .500 which was about all you could expect with those teams. He gets fired and goes to Boston. Didn’t do much there until they brought in KG and Ray Allen. He wins a championship and adds another NBA Finals appearance to his resume. He proved he can be a good coach.

    Now you look at Erik Spoelstra. He was highly regarded as an assistant coach and he did pretty good his first two years with the Heat. Now he has all those stars and people expect them to blow teams out of the water. Now they can win a championship based on their talent level but it will be difficult because as a team they lack some things that you need…size and chemistry. Coach Spoelstra has been criticized now for some of the Heat’s losses which maybe he deserves some but I think you have to put more of the blame on the players or Pat Riley who assembled them. I mean Joel Anthony, the $15 MILLION dollar center…come on. With that said they can defiantly still win the championship this year

    This is a talent driven league. The coaches, most of them, do not choose the players. That’s the job of the GMs. You can only use what you have. If you don’t have the talent and intangibles you won’t win a lot in the NBA.

    With guaranteed player contracts and GMs not wanting to admit that it’s their fault/the players fault that they lose the coaches end up getting fired. I hope that the new CBA fixes some of this. It’s unfair to a lot of the head coaches IMO.

  • #2
    Re: Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

    A good GM is more important than a good head coach.

    Talent wins, coaches more or less just motivate and then stay out of the way. Its true for multiple sports.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

      I think coaches are hugely important. Talent, experience, player chemistry wins in the end, but coaches do not just roll the balls out or just stay or get out of the way.

      If Phil Jackson going to take the Clippers to a 60 win team of course not, but they would be better with Jackson as their coach.

      Some teams, some groups of players are more open to coaching. But I think the impact Jerry Sloan has on the Jazz and the way he always gets his teams every year to execute the offense proves what a great coach he is.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

        Yeah sure they do some good things. Especially with getting a system in place during the offseason. They can call timeouts and draw up plays in-game. But in the grand scheme of things their value is largely overrated.

        And on the flip side they shoulder an unproportional amount of the blame as well. Its just human nature for people to point to one guy and say he's why they're good/bad.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

          Without good coaching, the assembled talent cannot maximize its performance either as individuals or in the team concept, and ultimately will fail to win as many games as a result. Also, good coaching can attract better talent sometimes because the players beleive they have a better chance to win.

          If good coaching didn't matter, NBA and college coaches would not make nearly the money they do, and coaches overall would hold onto their jobs longer than they ordinarily do because changing coaches for the most part would be a waste of time and effort on the part of the franchises or schools involved.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

            There is a reason why Phil Jackson has won 10 Championships

            and the reason is NOT just because he had MJ and Kobe/Shaq
            Sittin on top of the world!

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

              As far as money goes, perceived market value does not make an argument. Like I said earlier, its human nature to pick out a person responsible for why a team is good or bad. Thats why coaches are consistently on the hot seat. We have to blame a person, which there are some good articles out there and how it ties into our culture but differently in others.

              I digress, yes coaches help. Thats not the question, the article made several caveats to this effect. Its just that what they do provide is often easily replaceable, outside of a very small # of coaches.

              GM's and players are just more valuable.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

                If they are like JOB yes .................
                @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

                  Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
                  If they are like JOB yes .................
                  who would win in a fight between you and Obie?
                  Sittin on top of the world!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

                    Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                    There is a reason why Phil Jackson has won 10 Championships

                    and the reason is NOT just because he had MJ and Kobe/Shaq
                    Now, when I say coaches are essentially useless, there are of course exceptions to that.
                    There are only certain coaches who have an impact that is better to or equal than good players.
                    Phil Jackson is clearly one of those. The man just wins rings.
                    Everyone raise their hand who actually read the article.

                    The author with all of his cynicism admits quite frequently that there are some elite coaches who are an exception.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

                      Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                      who would win in a fight between you and Obie?
                      if we're talking about vnzla coaching the team for a few games he'd probably win more games than obrien
                      In 49 states it's just basketball, but this is Indiana!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

                        Originally posted by Scot Pollard View Post
                        if we're talking about vnzla coaching the team for a few games he'd probably win more games than obrien
                        LOL

                        Yeah but he would get T'd up at the first bad call , then T'd up at the second and get tossed

                        Sittin on top of the world!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

                          First, I want to say that this is a very poorly written article. The guy makes a pretty bold statement and doesn't really provide anything to back it up other than the guy who wins COY gets fired, and Phil and Pop win a lot so they're not useless.

                          If anything, I think coaches are underrated actually.

                          Sure, players ultimately decide how the game goes because they are the ones on the court with the ball in their hands. If the player can't make a shot, that's on the player. If the player can't miss, that's the player.

                          But, the coach controls the tempo of the game, the flow of the offense, the type of defense, the substitutions, and timeouts. Most importantly, the coach controls the PRACTICES!

                          Games and championships are not only won within the 48 minutes that the clock is running. Successful teams put in the work IN PRACTICE to have the skill, the chemistry, and the understanding of what to do on the court. Coaches who run a good practice are then able to sit on the sideline and look like they are unimportant because they've coached their team in practice.

                          Then you have coaches like Larry Brown who draw up great in-bound plays. Jackson who develops an offensive system that can't be stopped when he has the talent to fill in the positions. Pop who controls the tempo of a game, knowing when to run and when to slow it down -- not to mention the defense he coaches. Sloan gets more out of less EVERY year. Carlisle does too.

                          NFL coaches are more hands-on during the game than NBA coaches, and I think that's what gives this perception. But I don't think I could disagree more with it.

                          --pizza
                          It's a new day for Pacers Basketball.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

                            Originally posted by 90'sNBARocked View Post
                            There is a reason why Phil Jackson has won 10 Championships

                            and the reason is NOT just because he had MJ and Kobe/Shaq
                            Of course not. He also had Pippen and Gasol.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Are NBA Coaches Worthless?

                              Originally posted by Shade View Post
                              Of course not. He also had Pippen and Gasol.
                              Still do you think someone like Jay Triano, Jim O'Brien or Dick Versace woudl win with those exact same squads
                              Sittin on top of the world!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X