PDA

View Full Version : Impact of coaches and owners are overrated



Clippersfan86
05-17-2011, 01:39 PM
Okay so before I delve into this let me state I DO believe they make a difference. I just feel it's very overrated even with Phil Jackson for example. The opinions of owners and coaches by fans are fickle ones most of the time. For example when the Thunder got pushed to the limits by an 8th seed a lot of people talked about how bad Scott Brooks is, he doesn't even coach, he runs Iso's all game etc. When the Thunder blew out the Grizzlies in game 7 he was suddenly the greatest coach right now.

In general it's funny to me how if you're winning you have a great coach.. the minute you start losing that same coach is bad and the main target for criticism. Phil Jackson is said to be the best coach of all time and I can't really disagree but how much does he really coach? How much has he had to with Shaq, Kobe, Pippen and Jordan? I mean in my eyes this coaching era belonged to Gregg Popovich. It's the players affecting the W's and L's 90 percent of the time or more. Same goes for owners so let's use Jerry Buss as the example. He's often considered the greatest owner in the NBA right? Why is he getting props for the Lakers recent titles when it was his kids, Phil Jackson and even Kobe making all the calls with personnel? Hell Jerry West was the one who got Kobe, not Jerry Buss.

The point of my thread is to express how lame it is when people act like coaches or owners make a substantial difference. In some extremes they may but at the end of the day it's all on the players performance that determines where a franchise can go. In extreme cases you actually have FO's like the Bulls dynasty where THEY are so intent on being in control and being respected that they destroy a dynasty.

Clippersfan86
05-17-2011, 01:43 PM
Also forgot to add this part but... look at the Grizzlies owner Michael Eisley. For a long time he was considered the worst owner in the NBA next to Donald Sterling. Now Grizzlies make a huge run and have a great squad and he's being proactive in signing all his players, dealing with the media in a proud way etc. The whole culture of Memphis was changed by the PLAYERS and also by Lionel Hollins who's a good coach.

People get so caught up on "Clippers will never change with Sterling" but this example shows the ignorance of that statement. When Clippers were in the playoffs in 06 Sterling mellowed out a lot. He was spending time with players, at all the games.. and enjoying his product.

Owners are going to be as good as their product on the floor usually. Not everyone is Mark Cuban where they believe in their bad product and turn a franchise around immediately. Most owners like all businessmen would be happy when their product is selling and more engaged in anything around their product. I think the blame owners receive is too much and I'm not saying this because my teams owner is the worst in sports (I hate Sterling like everyone else).

If a currently bad team contends next season nobody is going to mention how bad their owner, coach or FO supposedly is because it's counterproductive to their agenda. Like the Grizzlies this year as I said. Their FO and owner is considered one of the worst in sports yet that's been pushed under the rug for now.

Baller1
05-17-2011, 01:55 PM
Not to be a dick, but this thread is ironic coming from a Clippers fan.

But honestly, I actually kinda thought coaching was overrated for a little while as well. But look at the Bulls, Thibs and Ron Adams have completely turned that team into a powerhouse. Yes, Rose improved. Yes, the made some nice offseason additions. But the true turnaround should be credited to the coaching staff.

Clippersfan86
05-17-2011, 02:03 PM
Not to be a dick, but this thread is ironic coming from a Clippers fan.

But honestly, I actually kinda thought coaching was overrated for a little while as well. But look at the Bulls, Thibs and Ron Adams have completely turned that team into a powerhouse. Yes, Rose improved. Yes, the made some nice offseason additions. But the true turnaround should be credited to the coaching staff.

I understand why It would seem to be agenda driven man but I was upfront on the motives and DID mention the Clips as an example I wanted to use. I was thinking about the Grizzlies owner because I read an article about him "changing" and it made me think did he really just change randomly? Or did the players around him change the entire franchise which made him more engaged with his product? 06 we got a small glimpse of this "changed" Donald Sterling. He was going to all the games, talking to media and seeming to be a very nice guy. Once we started losing he went back into recluse mode.

I've seen enough to where I believe coaches and owners have far less impact than people think. If you're talking about coaching kids coaches have incredible impact. If you're talking about coaching the best players in the world that have had thousands of hours of coaching, it's different. You watch NBA games.. how many coaches call plays every time down the floor? Teams like the Thunder rarely play call. See what I'm saying? It's the players running the show on the court.

Also agree with you that some coaches like Lionel Hollins and Thibs this season made great impact. There is an exception to every rule man. I'm not saying coaches= 0 impact.. I'm saying most of the time the impact is exaggerated. If you want an ultimate example of initial impact look at Lawrence Frank of the Nets.

My exception for an owner is Mark Cuban. He immediately turned a franchise around when buying them. He's an exception though because he's the only owner that involved and passionate about his team. He has his hand in all Mavericks deals to a greater extent than most owners. He also has a personal friendship with all of his players and coaches.

Baller1
05-17-2011, 02:10 PM
I think it just depends, because I can see both sides of the argument.

There's the situation on Chicago that I mentioned where coaching made a huge difference, and Thibs and Adams deserve a lot of credit.

Then there's my Thunder, where Brooks is a piece of **** coach getting unprecedented glory. It's clear as day to any logical fans that OKC is winning spite of Brooks, not because of him.

So I definitely see what you're saying, but in this case it solely depends on the situation in my opinom.

Clippersfan86
05-17-2011, 02:17 PM
I think it just depends, because I can see both sides of the argument.

There's the situation on Chicago that I mentioned where coaching made a huge difference, and Thibs and Adams deserve a lot of credit.

Then there's my Thunder, where Brooks is a piece of **** coach getting unprecedented glory. It's clear as day to any logical fans that OKC is winning spite of Brooks, not because of him.

So I definitely see what you're saying, but in this case it solely depends on the situation in my opinom.

Fair enough. Was just my observation/opinion. Not saying it's a law or undisputed. :) Btw the Mavs have been to the WCF with 3 different coaches this era right? Don Nelson, Avery Johnson and Carlisle? If so it's a great example of what I'm trying to express here that the players have the most impact.

Baller1
05-17-2011, 02:29 PM
Fair enough. Was just my observation/opinion. Not saying it's a law or undisputed. :) Btw the Mavs have been to the WCF with 3 different coaches this era right? Don Nelson, Avery Johnson and Carlisle? If so it's a great example of what I'm trying to express here that the players have the most impact.

I know what you're trying to say dude. I actually started a similar thread like this a few months back about coaching. But I started to disagree with my own claim as the season went on. I wasn't necessarily wrong, but I wasn't right either.

To me, it all just depends on the situation. Let's see if I can express my thoughts...

Great coaches are noticed for obvious reasons such as winning multiple championships, consistently winning, and getting the most out of their teams. Then there's the terrible coaches that also get noticed for obvious reasons such as many losing seasons, hindering the players' talents, and having a team play worse than their potential.

Then there's coaches that are just there. They do what they're supposed to; they don't make the team any better, yet they don't necessarily make the team any worse. They basically succeed with the players they are given, and then they fail with the players in the same regard.

That's my take on it, if that makes sense.

Clippersfan86
05-17-2011, 02:34 PM
I know what you're trying to say dude. I actually started a similar thread like this a few months back about coaching. But I started to disagree with my own claim as the season went on. I wasn't necessarily wrong, but I wasn't right either.

To me, it all just depends on the situation. Let's see if I can express my thoughts...

Great coaches are noticed for obvious reasons such as winning multiple championships, consistently winning, and getting the most out of their teams. Then there's the terrible coaches that also get noticed for obvious reasons such as many losing seasons, hindering the players' talents, and having a team play worse than their potential.

Then there's coaches that are just there. They do what they're supposed to; they don't make the team any better, yet they don't necessarily make the team any worse. They basically succeed with the players they are given, and then they fail with the players in the same regard.

That's my take on it, if that makes sense.

Good post. :clap:

Detroit's Time
05-17-2011, 04:05 PM
I agree they are overrated in the sense that it is the players who determine the execution of the plays and the outcome of the game. But one of the most important and also most difficult tasks a coach must manage is knowing how to mesh egos, demand respect of the locker room, and maintain a stable environment. One prime example is Kuester with the Pistons. The team was such a mess, he was a horrible communicator and ran out a different lineup every other night. Nobody knew their roles, and the team suffered as a result.

So I believe they are overrated in the sense of their influence on the outcome of a game, but they are very underrated when it comes to keeping the team together and cohesive.

SteveNash
05-17-2011, 04:16 PM
Larry Brown win increase over previous head coach in first or second year:
Carolina-22 game improvement.
Denver-28 game improvement.
New Jersey-23 game improvement.
San Antonio-25 game improvement.
LA Clippers-10 game improvement.
Indiana-11 game improvement.
Philadelphia-24 game improvement if 82 game season.
Detroit-4 game improvement, but won NBA finals.
Charlotte-12 game improvement.

Clippersfan86
05-17-2011, 04:23 PM
I agree they are overrated in the sense that it is the players who determine the execution of the plays and the outcome of the game. But one of the most important and also most difficult tasks a coach must manage is knowing how to mesh egos, demand respect of the locker room, and maintain a stable environment. One prime example is Kuester with the Pistons. The team was such a mess, he was a horrible communicator and ran out a different lineup every other night. Nobody knew their roles, and the team suffered as a result.

So I believe they are overrated in the sense of their influence on the outcome of a game, but they are very underrated when it comes to keeping the team together and cohesive.

Agree 100 percent. Good post man.

Kevj77
05-17-2011, 04:34 PM
Perhaps they get too much credit. As a Lakers fan I can tell you Phil made a huge difference. I saw the change between Del Harris and Phil Jackson lead teams with the same personel. Also from the Lakers team he took over after his year off that missed the playoffs without him with basicly the same personel.

asandhu23
05-17-2011, 05:37 PM
uh... Chris Cohan ****ed us loyal W's fans over for god knows how many years now. He intentionally traded every good roster we ever had during his era. He never let us be good and turned a great franchise into junk.

Baller1
05-17-2011, 05:46 PM
uh... Chris Cohan ****ed us loyal W's fans over for god knows how many years now. He intentionally traded every good roster we ever had during his era. He never let us be good and turned a great franchise into junk.

Sounds like Wally Walker. Single-handedly destroyed the Sonics in the late 90's/early 2000's.

championships
05-17-2011, 06:17 PM
Well for one, Those players wouldn't even be on the court for the team if the owner didn't want to pay them. You can have the best GM ever but it wouldn't matter if your owner is cheap and doesn't want to pay for the talent for your franchise to be successful.
So yeah the product on the court has quite a bit to do with the owner.
There is a whole lot goin on behind the scenes that we don't see when it comes to the coaches. Coaches draw up the plays, teach the players how to execute those plays in practice. Coach has to have the ability to handle each and every personality in that locker room and make sure everyone buys into that system.

I believe the coaches make their money for the things they do off of the court. They take each and every players talent and do their best to put that player in the best position to showcase his talents plus Figure the best match ups for the opposing team.

The coaches have to figure the rotations and combinations of starters and bench for every scenario that is being played out on the court.

championships
05-17-2011, 06:20 PM
Yes players have all the talent but the coach has to be able to know how to use it.

CowboysKB24
05-17-2011, 11:06 PM
Coaches are not overrated. Owners have a big impact on the draft and trades. Coaches are so important to the team, especially in the playoffs. They build the team, develop players, and make all the decisions on what plays to run on offense and defense. Coaching matters big time. They figure out the match ups and have to adjust their game plan each game.