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

Frank Vogel, or Dwane Casey?

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

  • Frank Vogel, or Dwane Casey?

    Which would you prefer to be our next head coach, assuming it's going to be one or the other, and why?

    When the question was Mike Brown or Frank Vogel, I sided with Mike because I knew him from his time here, he's a big time Poppovich AND Carlisle guy, and I thought he was a good coach in Cleveland, so I preferred that more than I preferred the still unproven Frank Vogel.

    With Dwane Casey, I know little about him, but it means a lot to me that he's also a Rick Carlisle guy.

    Unlike Mike, Dwane's previous stop as a head coach was a mediocre at best Timberwolves team that had a losing record his first year, but in year 2 they fired him while they were a .500 team, and then that team fell apart.

    As before with Mike vs. Frank, though this time I'm less confident when I say this, we probably can't lose here if those are our two choices.

    But this time, I don't know who I'd really prefer. I could say I lean Frank because I'm familiar with him and I liked what he did as the interim head coach, but I could also lean towards Dwane Casey because he's more experienced and is one of 'Rick's guys.'

    I'm torn on this one.
    112
    Frank Vogel
    79.46%
    89
    Dwane Casey
    8.04%
    9
    It's a toss up
    12.50%
    14

  • #2
    Re: Frank Vogel, or Dwane Casey?

    Give me Rick.
    @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Frank Vogel, or Dwane Casey?

      I was all in on Mike Brown for coach. Now that he is out, I'm all in for Vogel.
      You know how hippos are made out to be sweet and silly, like big cows, but are actually extremely dangerous and can kill you with stunning brutality? The Pacers are the NBA's hippos....Matt Moore CBS Sports....

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Frank Vogel, or Dwane Casey?

        Based on what I know, I would probably side with Vogel. I think Casey is a good candidate though and I would not be upset at all if he is hired.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Frank Vogel, or Dwane Casey?

          Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
          Give me Rick.
          That's not the question.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Frank Vogel, or Dwane Casey?

            Originally posted by vnzla81 View Post
            Give me Rick.

            Yeah but do you want Rick Vogel or Rick Casey

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Frank Vogel, or Dwane Casey?

              Man, I am like you Hicks in that I dont know a great deal about Casey

              If it came down to Vogel or Casey I think I would go with Vogel, simply because I dont see Casey as a huge upgrade over Vogel , and if they are almost even,m why not reward the good soldier

              So yeah if it comes down to those two I say Vogel

              My first choice would be Addleman, followed by Jeff VanGundy, then Vogel
              Sittin on top of the world!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Frank Vogel, or Dwane Casey?

                We don't know much about Casey or Vogel to be honest. Vogel didn't have much of a chance to work in his system, but I think he got the players to listen to him and that's says a lot.

                What type of system would Vogel look to implement if he became coach. Is he offensive or defensive minded?

                I know nothing of Casey, but I would gander he would be defensive minded if he worked under Carlisle.

                I voted Vogel.
                First time in a long time, I've been happy with the team that was constructed, and now they struggle. I blame the coach.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Frank Vogel, or Dwane Casey?

                  Here is a very good summary of Casey. Couple of years old and his stock has increased since then. Some great stuff in here, and a good Q&A at the end with Casey.

                  http://www.reclinergm.com/who-is-dwa...hing-position/


                  Who is Dwane Casey and Why Has He Been Interviewed a Second Time for the Sixers’ Head Coaching Position

                  First let me start with the news that Phil Jasner is reporting.
                  Dwane Casey, who has just completed his first season as an assistant with the Dallas Mavericks, has had a second interview for the 76ers’ vacant coaching job, according to a source familiar with the situation.
                  Exactly when or where the second session with Sixers president/general manager Ed Stefanski took place remains unclear. The first meting came last week in Santa Monica, Ca. while Stefanski was in the area scouting a group of college players for the upcoming NBA draft. – Phil Jasner
                  This is the first report of a second interview for anyone and for many it probably comes as a bit of a surprise. Is it a signal Ed Stefanski and crew has really taken a liking to Casey and he is now the front runner? One can only speculate but it certainly isn’t a stretch.

                  Dwane Casey: Summary

                  So I am going to break this down two ways. The quick and dirty synopsis of what I found about Dwane Casey and below I will give those how want more depth some of the stuff I actually found about him to read at your leisure. I found some ESPN analysts’ opinions as well as Timberwolves fans’ opinions in Casey.

                  Some Particulars
                  Casey is currently an assistant coach with the Dallas Mavericks (1st year). Prior to that he was hired as the head coach for the Minnesota Timberwolves at the start of the 2005 NBA season. The team finished with a 33-49 record. Not really good but not unexpected either considering the roster which was completely shook up 40 games into the season whey they traded Wally Szczerbiak who was actually playing quite well next to KG. Worth noting as bad as that team was they were still 9th in defensive rating that season under Casey who is known for being a strong defensive coach.

                  The following season Casey only lasted 40 games. He was promptly fired with a 20-20 record after the Wolves lost 4 straight games by large margins (more on this below). Worth noting, going into the ’06-’07 season the Timberwolves were expected to be pretty bad. Certainly not a playoff team and vying for a good lottery spot. At the time Casey was fired he had the Wolves in the 8th playoff spot and again in the top 10 in defense. Casey was fired on January 23rd. The Wolves actually started the month 7-1 with a 20-16 record and overachieving dramatically. Two of the 4 straight loses could directly be attributed to a punch KG threw and ejection in one game and being suspended the following game. Needless to say his firing wasn’t all what it seemed. Not to mention he was completely undermined by the front office who dictated who his lead assistant was by forcing Casey choice out for Randy Wittman, his successor. Word is when that decision came down it was just a matter of time before Casey got the axe. It was clear ownership had started the wheels in another direction before Casey was even out the door.

                  Prior to that debacle Casey was an assistant coach under George Karl and Nate McMillan in Seattle for 11 seasons (starting in 1994) which means he was apart of that 1996 NBA Finals team.

                  Casey coached for 5 seasons in Japan with noted basketball legend Pete Newell leading the National team to their first World Championship appareance in 31 years. Casey started his coaching career as an assistant to Eddie Sutton at Kentucky (where he also played) and under Clem Haskins at Western Kentucky.






                  The Good
                  • Defensive focused coach who was moderately successful as a head coach improving this area
                  • Loves the game of basketball and is student of the game always looking to learn and improve his coaching ability.
                  • Has a diverse coaching background from high level college basketball, NBA and overseas.
                  • Said to be a disciplinarian one who won’t let players run over him but not an authoritarian who over coaches and doesn’t accept thoughtful input from key players, assistant coaches or advanced scouts and statisticians.
                  • Good at developing players and is fantastic with his game preparation and maximizing practice time.
                  • Overachiever
                  • According to Dean Oliver who was with the Supersonics while Casey was an assistant, Dwane does use advanced statistical analysis as part of his coaching toolbox.
                  The Bad
                  • Inexperienced as a head coach with only a year and half under his belt with a bad team. But for an assistant it’s actually more than most.
                  • Said to have weird/questionable rotations and substitution patterns and well as still learning/lacking with his in-game management and adjustments such as when to call timeouts and what is executed out of timeouts.
                  • Perceived to be laid back (but some also say he is intense enough to compliment that)
                  • Would seriously need to paired with a strong offensive lead assistant.
                  Summing It Up


                  Good up and coming coach who unjustly got a bad reputation in Minnesota coaching one star surrounded by a bunch of misfits. Just needs an opportunity with a club that has a decent roster and managment that has a clue. Has his flaws but isn’t egotisical so he realizes and acknowledges them in order to get better. Jury is still out whether he is best suited as an assistant coach because of his strong prepatory and player development skills or can legitimately a good head coach (can excel in game with rotations and tactical adjustments). But the belief by some people is that he can take mediocre roster and overachieve.
                  I am in agreement with something Pete said to me earlier today. While my preference is still Tom Thibodeau I will give whoever the coach is a fair chance.

                  Dwane Casey: More Depth

                  John Hollinger was a big Casey proponent and was completely dumbfounded when he was fired by Kevin McHale and fools that run that organization.
                  Here is the article from Hollinger after Dwane Casey was fired. (my bolding for emphasis of key points)
                  Can anyone remember the last time a coach took a team that was expected to be lottery-bound, had them at .500 and in line for a playoff spot at the halfway point of the season in a very tough conference, and got fired anyway?
                  I can’t, which makes Dwane Casey’s dismissal by the Minnesota Timberwolves on Tuesday one of the season’s more puzzling events.
                  Minnesota hired the guy only a year and a half ago, and the same exec who hired him then — team president Kevin McHale — was the one wielding the hatchet today.
                  Somebody, anybody, please tell me what this guy did wrong.

                  Casey kept the Wolves in the top half of the league in Defensive Efficiency all season despite basically having only three big men in his rotation — Kevin Garnett, the sporadically motivated Mark Blount and rookie Craig Smith, a second-round draft pick.
                  You can’t critique Casey’s late-game strategy either: He more than held his own in close games, winning three straight overtime contests earlier this month.

                  But apparently losing four games in a row — two of which can directly be pinned on Garnett’s ejection against Detroit last Friday and subsequent one-game suspension — was too much for Minnesota’s brass to bear. No matter that the Wolves were 7-5 in January, or that they surprisingly held the West’s No. 8 seed heading into Monday’s games.

                  Apparently Minnesota management thinks this is still 2003-04 and they’re gunning for the Western Conference title. This would be an absurd notion with almost any other franchise, but the Timberwolves are perhaps the league’s most delusional franchise.

                  From the lofty contract extensions they’ve handed out to even their most mediocre players, to the way they’ve axed both Flip Saunders (in February 2005) and now Casey rather than admitting the serial imperfections of the roster, to their current refusal to trade Garnett before his value declines, Minnesota’s front office has existed in an alternate state of reality for some time now.

                  In the early hours after McHale’s move, we’re still hunting down all the skeletons associated with Casey’s firing, but one thing is for certain: There’s a good coach walking around today without a job, and he deserved better.
                  Let’s hope Casey lands on his feet with one of the many openings that are expected this summer. And in the meantime, let’s hope the Timberwolves can start acting sensible some time before the end of the decade. – John Hollinger
                  Here is John Hollinger again before the 2007-2008 season (season after Casey was fired) doing his preseason forecast (cut down and abbreviated with just the Dwane Casey antedotes)
                  A bigger factor, however, was head coach Dwane Casey, who had his undersized team competing far more aptly than anyone had thought possible. To the shock of many, he kept the Wolves in the top half of the league in defensive efficiency through the first half of the season and had Minnesota at 20-16 through 36 games.

                  While that record was several games better than anyone who covers the league expected, it apparently wasn’t better than the team’s management expected. And when the Timberwolves hit a four-game losing streak that dropped them to 20-20 on Jan. 23, the Wolves made the unbelievable decision to fire Casey — apparently believing their team was capable of much better despite all evidence pointing to the contrary.

                  My favorite quote was Kevin McHale’s complaint that, “We started the season with certain goals and expectations that have not been met.” What pray tell, were the expectations? Casey had the team in the playoffs as the No. 8 seed in the West on the day he was fired, something which would have won him coach of the year had he kept it up. But McHale somehow thought his trash heap of undesirable contracts was capable of more. In fact, owner Glen Taylor reportedly told Casey that the team was capable of making it to the Western Conference finals. (This might technically be true, but I couldn’t verify if the Hungarian Basketball Association had split into conferences.)

                  “We don’t want to be the eighth seed,” McHale said when he fired Casey, and man, did he ever get his wish. Newly instated coach Randy Wittman went 12-30 the rest of the way as Minnesota finished well out of the money. The defense that thrived under Casey almost immediately went in the tank, as the Wolves were one of the league’s bottom three teams in defensive efficiency over the final 42 games.

                  Moreover, after McHale complained about a lack of consistency in Casey’s tenure, the team failed to win consecutive games after the All-Star break under Wittman. All told, this had to be the most idiotic coaching switch of the past decade. – John Hollinger
                  Chris Sheridan’s take on Casey’s dismissal from the Wolves:
                  Today’s dismissal of Dwane Casey appears to me to be a case of “We’d better fire him now while it’s still convenient, because it might not be easier to fire him down the road.”

                  The Wolves’ current four-game losing streak gave owner Glen Taylor just enough cover to try to justify the change, but this firing had been coming ever since management forced Casey to get rid of trusted assistant Johnny Davis last summer in order to clear the way for Randy Wittman as the ownership-chosen lead assistant. – Chris Sheridan
                  Dwane Casey Interview with Minneapolis Star-Tribune writer Steve Aschburner from January 19, 2007 (right before he was fired) that was sent to me via email.
                  Dwane Casey was uncomfortable from the start with an interview that would focus solely on him. The Timberwolves had opened 2007 with four consecutive victories, on the way to a 7-1 mark through the first half of January, and the head coach felt a little awkward being placed front and center during the hot streak, lest someone think he was taking credit for all the happy outcomes. Then it was explained to Casey, midway through his second season at the Wolves’ helm, that the Q&A assignment was conceived two weeks earlier. Back when his job, at least to outsiders, was hanging by a slender thread. Back when the Wolves fell behind by 20 points at Charlotte and you’d swear you could almost hear the folding chairs being set up for a dismissal news conference. Oddly, that reassured the coach, who shoulders blame more readily than he takes credit. Casey talked about that trait and others related to his job as Wolves coach over a lunch with Star Tribune NBA writer Steve Aschburner:

                  Q. One difference in you this season is, you’re a married coach rather than engaged. How has your wife, Brenda, a sports marketing executive, handled the ups and downs?
                  A. It’s really no different from before. The basketball’s still the same. The focus still is the same. Same time watching tapes. Brenda’s been good – she’s been through it. She understands. She’s a basketball widow. She played basketball, so she knows the game, she knows the time commitment that goes into it. Which makes it a lot easier.

                  Q. Does she attend the games?
                  A. When she’s in town. She travels a lot. To Chicago – Brian Urlacher is one of her clients, she does his marketing. Also Ben Wallace.

                  Q. You give the impression that you’re unflappable. People never see you sweat.
                  A. Oh no! It’s just that the media part of it doesn’t bother me. Where I feel the lows is when I haven’t done a good job of preparing the team or couldn’t get things done offensively or defensively. When things are not clicking, I take that on myself. More than media coverage or [job] speculation or anything. Really, going through what I went through at Kentucky – that [recruiting] investigation was [publicized 17 years ago] worldwide – really hardened me as far as coverage or negativity. Whatever happens that way, I can’t control it.

                  Q. It’s fashionable in sports to say, if you win, the players won. If you lost, either the other team won or the coach lost.
                  A. That’s the age-old adage. I watched what Coach [Joe B.] Hall went through at Kentucky, what Eddie Sutton went through, Tubby Smith. The high-pressure programs are the same as in the NBA: If you win, you’re supposed to. If you don’t, it’s your fault. When you sign up to be a coach in the NBA, I’m a true believer, that’s what we sign up for. That type of criticism, that non-appreciative [view].

                  Q. How are you different in this job from a year ago?
                  A. More confident in what we do. More comfortable. Our core guys, the more time we spend together, the better. Same with our coaching staff. We’re coming up on a year [since the Wolves-Boston trade]. And now you add three more guys to the rotation – Mike [James], Craig [Smith] and Randy [Foye] – it’s an ongoing process. We’re no finished product. By getting this time together, coming up on a year, we’re jelling. You can just see the togetherness coming, the trust, as the season goes on.

                  Q. You’re more secure in your rotation, which means sitting some guys for days on end.
                  A. Last year, more than anything else, I was searching to see what guys could do. I didn’t know if A.C. [Anthony Carter] could be that point guard. Or Troy [Hudson] or Marko. That was me searching. Now I’m more defined. It’s more set. Not saying those guys are not valuable – I tell them all the time, `You’re a hangnail away from being in the thick of things’ – and I think Troy, Justin [Reed], Eddie [Griffin], Mark Madsen, those guys have done a good job.

                  Q. So you like all the things that go into being a head coach, rather than an assistant?
                  A. I don’t enjoy being in the spotlight. If I could just be in the gym, in the locker room and the office and out there for games, I’d love it. No disrespect to [the media], but I love the basketball duties of coaching. I could sit in the gym and talk Xs and Os all day. I do miss the closeness that you get with the players as an assistant coach. The one-on-one work, spending time with the players in the summer.

                  Q. Granted, an NBA coach who puts himself front and center can have problems. Then again, players need to know who the boss is. How do you balance that?
                  A. All I can control is playing time. If a guy’s not doing what he’s supposed to do, then he won’t play. I don’t think this is a sledgehammer league. I don’t think you can just browbeat guys – there are way too many games. You have to have a system in place, the way you want to play, and you work on it. But to do it with whip and chain doesn’t work.

                  Q. The Twin Cities seems to be a market that loves local connections. Yet you have none. Would you be more embraced if you had a Minnesota background?
                  A. I haven’t thought about that. I know Minnesotans love Minnesota players and ex-players, which they should. That’s a great thing. But Timberwolves fans want to win. Which I do. Time and winning buys you that time to be embraced. And I think Minnesotans appreciate hard work.

                  Q. How dicey did it get for you in December? There was one rumor circulating that you were within 48 hours of getting fired.
                  A. That’s the process of coaching. You know going in, you don’t have a lot of time. You want it done yesterday. Every coach in this league knows the position we’re in. There’s no running from it. Forty-eight hours, huh? You just want to make sure you can get it done in the amount of time you’re given.

                  Q. Some coaches, as a way of surviving, cater to their best players. Since Kevin Garnett is the key guy here, how do you relate to him?
                  A. Kevin Garnett stands for winning. He wants to be coached, he wants the right information. If he makes a mistake, he knows it before you tell him. Let’s put it this way: I don’t know a head coach in this league who doesn’t have an open line of communication with his star player. Coaching Kevin, will we have disagreements? Yes. But both of you are about the same thing and that’s winning. I don’t have an ego as far as taking the credit. If Kevin sees something out there that works, let’s look at it. You’ve got to have a give-and-take.

                  Q. How do you let off steam?
                  A. I love working out. Going to movies. I think coaches need to make sure they stay physically fit: Work out. Eat right. Get their rest. I try at least to work out.

                  Q. Was the clamor over a possible Allen Iverson trade a distraction?
                  A. Actually, we had a stretch of games there where we played well. If it affects your team, yes, you’d rather not go through it. But speculation is part of the business. Fans are going to say what they say. You guys have a job to do to report things.

                  Q. Last question: Were there any days this season when you were reluctant to buy green bananas?
                  A. No, no. I don’t think in those terms. I just think, what can I do today to turn it around? If today’s work or tonight’s game doesn’t get it done, they can walk in tomorrow and say, `Hey, time’s up.’ If you worry about what tomorrow is going to bring, you’re not taking care of business today. I’ll always be a coach. Somewhere, whether it’s college, high school, overseas or somewhere. But I promise you I do not sit around and worry about the guillotine. That’s when you die a slow death.
                  Last edited by Unclebuck; 05-25-2011, 10:28 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Frank Vogel, or Dwane Casey?

                    I see now, too, that Casey also previously worked as an assistant for both Nate McMillan and also George Karl.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Frank Vogel, or Dwane Casey?

                      A lot about him sounds good, except the weird lineups part. I just have a hard time picking any one over Vogel.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Frank Vogel, or Dwane Casey?

                        IMO, Frank deserves the job over any candidate who is not clearly more accomplished & experienced. I don't doubt that Casey is an excellent candidate; I'd just much rather Larry show loyalty to someone who clearly has demonstrated great potential to grow and mature as a coach ... just as the team has shown great potential to grow and mature. Give them two years to do it together.


                        "He’s no shrinking violet when it comes to that kind of stuff."

                        - Rick Carlisle on how Kevin Pritchard responds to needed roster changes.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Frank Vogel, or Dwane Casey?

                          Yeah, I've had enough weird lineups in the past several years to last me a lifetime. That and the Kentucky thing bother me, but other than that he'd probably be pretty good.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Frank Vogel, or Dwane Casey?

                            Originally posted by Unclebuck View Post
                            Yeah but do you want Rick Vogel or Rick Casey
                            @WhatTheFFacts: Studies show that sarcasm enhances the ability of the human mind to solve complex problems!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Why are we writing off Brian Shaw and Rick Adelman so soon? Particularly Shaw...I wouldn't blame him if he torched Staples Center to the ground.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X