- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: AD Interview with Marty Smith
Posted on 10/8/17 at 1:43 pm to ShamelessPel
Posted on 10/8/17 at 1:43 pm to ShamelessPel
quote:
We had dogshit at PG
i've never been a big fan of Holiday as a lead guard, but this is problematic.
pre trade, he put up 16/7.5/4 on 47/39 splits.
post trade, he was awful at pg. he was better playing next to Frazier. that was for about 10 games. and Frazier was always going to defer to Holiday in a way that Rondo likely wont. Holiday's touch stats showed the same dribbles/touch and avg seconds/touch. less TOP for Holiday (down from 5.5 mpg to 4.8). was that b/c of Frazier or Cousins? either way, i think there are some legit questions about Holiday at SG.
i understand why the Pels needed to keep Holiday. it's still sort of nuts they paid a lifetime pg ~$25M/yr to move to SG.
1
Posted on 10/8/17 at 3:16 pm to corndeaux
quote:
it's still sort of nuts they paid a lifetime pg ~$25M/yr to move to SG.
Amen. I still can't believe they did it. I always thought that Holiday would make a solid SG, once he got older or injuries forced him to adjust his game. But he is still has the ability to be a good PG. Plus if they wanted a SG, why resign him for over 100M to do it. They could have got Hardaway or KCP for way, way less..
Honestly, I think Holiday will be back at PG next season. There is no way Rondo takes less than 10M a year (if he has a good enough season that the team wants to resign him) to come back and will be gone. It's way easier and cheaper to find a competent SG. So I believe it's just temporary..
Posted on 10/8/17 at 8:22 pm to brmark70816
quote:
NBA coaching is totally overrated to me. The most important things to me are talent, fit and harmony/inspiration
I disagree with you entirely on coaching. Look at the difference D'Antoni was able to make last year for Houston. Look at Denver scheming their offense around Jokic. These aren't things players just "wing". If Finch is as advertised, he may be our most influential offseason addition. Using a Lebron James team is the outlier, not the norm. LBJ is more of a coach out there than Lue is. You really need to look no further than GSW even. They managed to get KD to play a brand of ball that we hadn't seen from him at all in OKC.
Posted on 10/8/17 at 8:54 pm to ShamelessPel
quote:
You really need to look no further than GSW even
Great example. What was Luke Walton's record as a head coach there? Now, how is he doing with the Lakers?
I didn't say a coach doesn't make a difference. I just think that their impact is overrated. I never heard of Finch before we got him. So hopefully you are right. But I can not think of any time an assistant coach has come in and changed the culture of a team, leading them to the upper echelon. Can you?
Posted on 10/9/17 at 1:59 am to brmark70816
Ok well I'm trying to have a debate but you're just trying to be obtuse in your argument, so I'm done. Comparing the Lakers and GSW records and using Walton's interim stint on a veteran team is about as lazy as it gets. You've shifted the argument from coaching is overrated to assistant coaching is overrated. It's just getting pointless. One of our other assistants has already given Finch major props btw. Not that it matters because coaching opinions on coaching is overrated.
Posted on 10/9/17 at 3:42 pm to ShamelessPel
quote:
I disagree with you entirely on coaching. Look at the difference D'Antoni was able to make last year for Houston. Look at Denver scheming their offense around Jokic
its tricky. there are only a handful of coaches that i think can win just about any where. likewise there are very few coaches that i think are just bad.
most of them need the right combo of talent and personalities to really work.
D'Antoni is a great example. i love that guy. those Suns and Webber Kings teams saved the NBA for me. every NBA fan should read McCallum's 7 Seconds Or Less. but Mike has had trouble adjusting when he doesn't have the right guys in the locker room
Posted on 10/9/17 at 5:54 pm to corndeaux
I don't really follow what it was that D'Antoni was supposed to have done. The Rockets were a .500 team the year before he took over. But everybody knew they had underachieved and they won over 50 games the two seasons before that. Morey is a genius GM that keeps that team stocked with talent. The mini rebellion that ousted McHale pretty much doomed that season.
I was pretty shocked D'Antoni got another shot after horrible teams in NY and LA. I totally agree, its all about talent and fit. The only recent exception I can point to is Stevens. Boston way exceeded my expectations the past couple of seasons. I wonder how he'll do this year with a top 5 talented team in the league..
I was pretty shocked D'Antoni got another shot after horrible teams in NY and LA. I totally agree, its all about talent and fit. The only recent exception I can point to is Stevens. Boston way exceeded my expectations the past couple of seasons. I wonder how he'll do this year with a top 5 talented team in the league..
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:13 pm to brmark70816
quote:
I didn't say a coach doesn't make a difference. I just think that their impact is overrated.
How much importance do you assume the average person is attributing to coaching?
I think we need to know that if we are to understand why you think the impact of coaching is overrated?
Like are you assuming most people think 70-80-90% of a teams success is dependent on coaching? If you assume people think that, than yeah, I would agree with you. They are probably over-valuing the impact a coach has on a team.
If you think most people assume 40%'ish of a team's success is dependent on coaching, than I would say I am probably in that number and would disagree with you saying their impact is not that great.
This post was edited on 10/9/17 at 6:18 pm
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:31 pm to bonhoeffer45
There is an index that actually tries to quantify coaches and their value. I heard about it last year and the highest valued coach at the time was Kerr. It put his value as something like 7 wins. So his influence was worth 7 additional wins a season. For a team like the Warriors, I guess that would be about 10%. While that might a bit low, I think its pretty close to accurate. Bad teams lose and good teams win, coaches can only do so much to push them one way or another..
To answer your question, I think people equate well over 50% of performance to coaches. They are ultimately punished first and most severely. Thats why I think they are overrated. I've seen too many flash in the pans with super talented teams that were never decent again. Take Carlisle. The guy is revered in coaching circles and probably one of the smartest coaches on the planet. Yet how many sub .500 seasons has he had in a row? There is just so much he can do..
To answer your question, I think people equate well over 50% of performance to coaches. They are ultimately punished first and most severely. Thats why I think they are overrated. I've seen too many flash in the pans with super talented teams that were never decent again. Take Carlisle. The guy is revered in coaching circles and probably one of the smartest coaches on the planet. Yet how many sub .500 seasons has he had in a row? There is just so much he can do..
Posted on 10/9/17 at 6:55 pm to brmark70816
I think coaches are punished not because of the assumption they hold more value than they do, but because coaches are much easier to move or replace than an Omer Asik or Eric Gordon on albatross contracts. It's the easy meat to feed upset fans that want improvement.
That index seems pretty flawed unless they are basing it on some sort of baseline coach. Like the average coach can produce X wins with Y talent and a superior coach can produce % more in wins.
If you remove a coach, or replace Kerr with an objectively terrible coaching staff, do you really expect the Warriors to win 60 games? Kerr replaced Jackson, who himself was not a bad coach. In fact the only reason he seems to remain unemployed is because he carries behind the scenes baggage that turns off owners. Kerr oversaw a team that went from 51 wins to 67 wins and a championship.
I would agree that there are few major difference makers at coach in the NBA, but that is also because believe it or not, you don't really have a lot of objectively shite coaches running around either. Most, no matter how bad they are at designing systems, X's and O's, rotations, substitutions, and player management compared to their NBA peers, there is enough baked in corporate knowledge, layer foundation on most teams, and coaching skill to rarely allow a situation where the coach actually retards the baseline expectations of the talent their roster has. Injuries not withstanding.
My opinion has always been that talent determines the baseline and potential of a squad, and a coach is what determines how close to the ceiling that squad can get. But because of the nature of the game, the power talent does play compared to sports like the NFL, that baseline is higher relative to talent, and the ceiling closer.
That index seems pretty flawed unless they are basing it on some sort of baseline coach. Like the average coach can produce X wins with Y talent and a superior coach can produce % more in wins.
If you remove a coach, or replace Kerr with an objectively terrible coaching staff, do you really expect the Warriors to win 60 games? Kerr replaced Jackson, who himself was not a bad coach. In fact the only reason he seems to remain unemployed is because he carries behind the scenes baggage that turns off owners. Kerr oversaw a team that went from 51 wins to 67 wins and a championship.
I would agree that there are few major difference makers at coach in the NBA, but that is also because believe it or not, you don't really have a lot of objectively shite coaches running around either. Most, no matter how bad they are at designing systems, X's and O's, rotations, substitutions, and player management compared to their NBA peers, there is enough baked in corporate knowledge, layer foundation on most teams, and coaching skill to rarely allow a situation where the coach actually retards the baseline expectations of the talent their roster has. Injuries not withstanding.
My opinion has always been that talent determines the baseline and potential of a squad, and a coach is what determines how close to the ceiling that squad can get. But because of the nature of the game, the power talent does play compared to sports like the NFL, that baseline is higher relative to talent, and the ceiling closer.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 12:00 pm to brmark70816
quote:
PG: 14/15-Evans/Cole> 17/18-Rondo/Clark
SG: 14/15-Gordon/Holiday> 17/18-Holiday/Moore
SF: 14/15-Pondexter/Cunningham> 17/18-Cunningham/Miller
PF: 14/15-Davis/Anderson> 17/18-Davis/Diallo
C: 14/15-Asik/Ajinca<< 17/18-Cousins/Ajinca
14-15 Davis < 17-18 Davis
Posted on 10/10/17 at 12:58 pm to Number 31
quote:
14-15 Davis < 17-18 Davis
You need a few more <<<< for 17-18 Davis. Have you gotten to watch any preseason action? I've been very impressed with his improved handle and ability to attack the rim from the 3 point line. Check out this short clip of a pass he made in practice today. LINK 17-18 Davis would handily beat 14-15 Davis one on one.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 1:10 pm to TigerinATL
No, I have not (have looked for them on FS1), and thanks for the link. 
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 10/10/17 at 1:33 pm to TigerinATL
Muchos gracias amigo.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News