PDA

View Full Version : Should a 'contender' hire a coach with no experience?



JasonJohnHorn
06-11-2013, 09:41 PM
With rumours of Jason Kidd landing the head coaching gig in BK, I got to thinking: Has a playoff team ever hired a head coach with no coaching experience?

It is true that as a 19 year vet, Kidd has experience coaching and mentoring younger players and teammates, but he's always been able to go out onto the floor and lead by example. Mentoring, though is shares common elements with coaching, is also not the same a coaching. Coaching requires a more comprehensive skill set.

Most former players turned coaches get assistant coaching experience first. The ones who go straight to a head coaching gig usually do a lot of commentary first, or they take over a lottery team. I don't think a playoff team, or a 'contender' (if you might cal the Nets that), would ever hire a guy with no head coaching experience.

Would you hire a guy with no head coaching experience to take over a team you think should be contending? Would you say, bring in Stockton to take over the Lakers should they retain Howard, or the Clippers? Would you Give Grant Hill a job coaching the Heat or the Knicks (if they were looking to make a coaching change, which they aren't).

I think Kidd would make a solid coach, don't get me wrong, but I think the Nets have the pieces to win now and that they need somebody who has the experience and proven ability to lead these guys straight away. I would not be surprised if Kidd could pull this off in his first season, but I also see that as a long shot. Bringing him in as an assistant would be a great idea. Groom him for the head coaching spot. But it is clear the ownership in BK means to win now, and I'm not sure Kidd's resume fits the bill.

Would you hire a HOF player as a head coach for a playoff/contending team if that player had not coaching experience?

Slug3
06-11-2013, 09:45 PM
If they want to lose then yes they should.

D-Leethal
06-11-2013, 09:50 PM
If he's the right man for the job they should.

D-Leethal
06-11-2013, 09:51 PM
Larry Bird won 58 games his first year as a rookie coach at the age of 41. Didn't take long for Mark Jax to make a huge impact on his team with zero experience. Do people really think going to the booth for a couple years does anything to better prepare these guys?

D-Leethal
06-11-2013, 09:52 PM
Larry Bird won 58 games his first year as a rookie coach at the age of 41. Didn't take long for Mark Jax to make a huge impact on his team with zero experience. Do people really think going to the booth for a couple years does anything to better prepare these guys?

JerseyPalahniuk
06-11-2013, 10:13 PM
Ignore whatever DMF or wavey say about this. Initially, I just cracked up when I saw Kidd was trying to coach. I thought Billy King might offer him an assistant position but now as you pointed out, the rumors are becoming more and more concrete by the day. He might become our head coach by Friday (or immediately after Shaw's interview tomrorow).

As for the experience, that was my (and other Nets fans at Netsdaily.com) biggest worry. He has the IQ no doubt but look at Magic Johnson or Isiah Thomas. Both incredible Hall of Fame point guards that were TERRIBLE coaches.

Kidd's success all comes down to what Assistant coach lineup he brings with him. One strong "rumor" is that he will pursue Lawrence Frank as a lead assistant. That would definitely strengthen his case as he's an excellent "X's and O'x" guy, especially on defense. While his Detroit record was awful, Celtics fans should appreciate his role as defensive assistant on the Celtics. He'll need quite a few more experienced coaches to help him out though. I don't think he quite understands the incredibly stressful position that is to be a head coach in the NBA.

And as you pointed out, we are "contenders" - not necessarily for a Title yet with our roster but we are no longer scrubs. Expectations are elevated at this point. It's 2nd round or bust as a Nets fan and probably ECF or bust for Prokhorov.

Weird having your all-time favorite player and savior of your franchise try to lead them into new territories yet again. Got a good (and back of mind bad) feeling about this.

EDIT: I voted "no" to the question at hand. But it's weird for me to say no to Kidd, especially in this unique situation. This could either be a dream or I could end up wanted to get Kidd fired (Ahhhhhh)

JerseyPalahniuk
06-11-2013, 10:13 PM
If this does really happen, this video is perfect for the occasion Nets fans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H8WqryOSD0

IndyRealist
06-11-2013, 11:09 PM
The Nets are a contender? There are only 3-4 real contenders each year. It'd be less if we didn't have conferences.

JerseyPalahniuk
06-11-2013, 11:39 PM
The Nets are a contender? There are only 3-4 real contenders each year. It'd be less if we didn't have conferences.

Pretty sure it was a very loose definition, more so "playoff" team than actual contender.

Method28
06-12-2013, 02:41 AM
This topic would also apply if the Clips sign Brian Shaw

Rockice_8
06-12-2013, 08:51 AM
If he got a guy like Larry Brown or Hollins or Frank to sit next to him as top assistant then why not. You can find examples of great players doing well and some doing poorly. There is no trend so hiring Kidd is not a good or bad move really it's unknown.

Why not take a chance on a guy with that kind of BBIQ?

Swashcuff
06-12-2013, 10:30 AM
Larry Bird won 58 games his first year as a rookie coach at the age of 41. Didn't take long for Mark Jax to make a huge impact on his team with zero experience. Do people really think going to the booth for a couple years does anything to better prepare these guys?

Every single great player that has been asked what do you need to be a contender in this league answers all have one thing in common. You need a great coach, you need a proven coach, a guy who has been there and done that. Shaq, Barkley, Webber, Kerr, Barry, Miller and Steve Smith all echoed the exact same sentiments a just a couple weeks ago when asked that question. We've heard Parker and Duncan say it in this post season, we've heard it from Paul Pierce in years gone by as well of a host of other players over the years quite honestly too much to remember.

The impact a coach has on his team is unmeasurable, you're not going to throw any old John Doein the mix for a team and command immediate respect and get superstar players to automatically buy into everything you're teaching. Usually contending teams have a superstar or two on board, he doesn't need to be a multiple title winner or even have a bright and shiny NBA career (coach K) but he needs to at least have a proven track record.

Of course there are rare instances where a guy like Spolstera or Doc had the right group of players to make it work but for the most part we've seen the true contenders having the most proven coaches in the league.

JasonJohnHorn
06-12-2013, 06:45 PM
This topic would also apply if the Clips sign Brian Shaw

Shaw has been coaching in the league for several season though... it's a little different. He has a a wealth of experience.

JasonJohnHorn
06-12-2013, 06:48 PM
Larry Bird won 58 games his first year as a rookie coach at the age of 41. Didn't take long for Mark Jax to make a huge impact on his team with zero experience. Do people really think going to the booth for a couple years does anything to better prepare these guys?

I think working the booth does help. When you work the game the players/coaches commentating are expected to do in-game analysis. It is great experience. Night in and night out, looking at one team over the course of a season and how they match up with other teams. Making mid game analysis and break downs. It' s great experience for prepping for games and making adjustments and analysis. Watching the game is very different from playing the game. A guy in the game sees what he does and a little of what other guys do. A coach has to watch everything. I'm not saying doing colour commentary makes a good coach, but it helps prepare for some key apsects of the job.

Larry Bird did do well his first couple of seasons, but he is also the exception to the rule. Most first eyar coaches don't do particularly well. You also reference Mark Jackson, but he had a lot of experience in the booth with a great coach in JVG and he lead the Warriors into the lottery his first season.

SportsFanatic10
06-12-2013, 06:52 PM
you never know until you give him a chance i guess, it's definitely risky though. i hope they hire kidd just because i want to see how he does, but if i were them i'd probably at least get him to be an assistant for a season or so.

2-ONE-5
06-12-2013, 10:20 PM
nets arent a contender

ohreally
06-12-2013, 10:42 PM
I think working the booth does help. When you work the game the players/coaches commentating are expected to do in-game analysis. It is great experience. Night in and night out, looking at one team over the course of a season and how they match up with other teams. Making mid game analysis and break downs. It' s great experience for prepping for games and making adjustments and analysis. Watching the game is very different from playing the game. A guy in the game sees what he does and a little of what other guys do. A coach has to watch everything. I'm not saying doing colour commentary makes a good coach, but it helps prepare for some key apsects of the job.

Larry Bird did do well his first couple of seasons, but he is also the exception to the rule. Most first eyar coaches don't do particularly well. You also reference Mark Jackson, but he had a lot of experience in the booth with a great coach in JVG and he lead the Warriors into the lottery his first season.

Good post. Color commentary does add to the resume, and it also shows your knowledge and analytical skills from the sidelines. In Jackson's case, he is also a minister, and there is lots of transferable experience there as well.