View Full Version : Why don't Alpha Dogs coach more?

03-31-2014, 06:24 PM
There are exceptions, but for the most part, very few alpha dogs turn to coaching.

Michael Jordan? Never tried it. Magic? Half a season. Bird? Three solid seasons, then he quit. Bill Russell coached the Celtics to two championships when he played, but didn't coach much after that.

Most other alpha dogs don't even try. Karl Malone. Hakeem. David Robinson. Charles Barkley. Dr. J. Moses Malone.

Instead, it is Doc Rivers, Maurice Cheeks, Scott Brooks, and Sam Mitchell, Kevin McHale,and Avery Johnson.

Some of these guys were all-Stars, some were key cogs in a championship team or contender, but none can be called 'alpha dogs' during their playing days.

So why don't these guys excel as coaches? And some, like Kareem, actually want to coach but can never seem to get a chance.

Any theories out there?

03-31-2014, 06:27 PM
Because guys like that have things that can't be taught. They just have otherwordly talent and instinct, you can't impart that upon players. You want coaches to be great at the things that you can teach to players.

03-31-2014, 06:28 PM
Because they hate losing and it sucks they can't do nothing about except those 5 guys out on the floor. They're way to competitive.

Larry couldn't stand losing to the Lakers again like he did in 2000. (and 3rd straight time against Phil).

Kobe said he would never coach because he lacks the type of patience.

It already kills MJ the owner when the team loses, imagine if he's there on the sidelines coaching.

03-31-2014, 06:29 PM
most would be/are horrible at it.being a coach you need to aid in the development of players,understand the limitation of them,ect. and alpha dogs usually dont understand/have time for that,they are in "win at all cost,excel right now" mindset....they simply dont have the patience

03-31-2014, 06:51 PM
People with remarkable talent and gifts usually are unable to understand why others can NOT do the things that they do. Players with above average or lower talent tend to spend MORE time working on their craft and thinking about the game itself as they realize that Talent alone will NOT translate to success.

A player who is above average to average can empathize with those with average to above average talent, and appreciate the value of development and improvement. They are also MORE likely to be open to different ways of doing things than a player who is Exceptional. Exceptional players aren't expected to adjust their games to succeed. They are used to others adapting around them.

It's not so different than the most gifted human beings are often not the most successful, while those who are somewhat above average talent are more likely to be successful. They realize that they are NOT the smartest and most talented so they work HARDER to succeed to compensate.

This is also true in academics. If you ran down the Honor Role at your typical university you would find that far more many than not are above average or even average in talent. While many of the most "gifted" coast through school. They don't work nearly as hard because they don't need to, and as a result acquire poor work habits. They also value things like the Honor Role less since they know that it is easily achievable so it's not viewed as an accomplishment.

Look at things this way... if you could study 3 hours and STILL get an A, would that mean nearly as much to you as someone who needs to dedicate 15 hours to get that same A?

Exceptional talent brings many benefits. The ability to empathize with "the rest of us" is not one of them.

03-31-2014, 07:10 PM
Teaching is an art. Some of those great players just don't have the time, patience and comprehension to teach others what they know.

04-01-2014, 07:28 PM
PGs are the best coaches

04-01-2014, 08:02 PM
They have more control in the front office.

04-01-2014, 08:08 PM
PGs are the best coaches

i wouldnt say that:

not saying some of them arent great,just that i dont think it matters what position ex players turned coaches played

04-01-2014, 08:20 PM
Because the stars theses days are pampered *******, wouldn't be able to handle being yelled at.

04-01-2014, 08:51 PM
Because guys like that have things that can't be taught. They just have otherwordly talent and instinct, you can't impart that upon players. You want coaches to be great at the things that you can teach to players.

exactly. Its the same reason I don't really take much value in an ex-great players opinion regarding the league. They were on another level talent wise. Many times, they didn't spend as much time being cerebral and really perfecting the game, because it came so damn easy to them.

Hence why the best coaches and GMs are not ex-players most of the time in today's NBA.

04-01-2014, 08:54 PM
Hey Mike how can I score more? You shoot son.

Hey Russell how can I get more rebounds? Just go get it.

Big Zo
04-01-2014, 09:23 PM
Because animals can't speak, hence they can't coach.

04-02-2014, 05:46 AM
And not many alpha dogs have been good coaches. It's the savvy role players, not the elite talents, who make the best coaches. This worries me about Jason Kidd, although his being a point guard gives me more faith.

04-02-2014, 09:58 AM
Bill Russell coached the Celtics to two championships when he played, but didn't coach much after that.

Good post.

I want to set the record straight on Russell. He coached the D, Havlicek the O. Red and Bill were both very high on the importance of a black coach, so they didn't probably want to dilute that by bringing up Havlicek's role. Also they were both game day Coaches, a lot of the overall direction, scouting, and inputs went right to Red.

It's true in other sports. Ted Williams was a terrible Manager, and many HOF players never went near it. It's frustrating for these great players to manage players that are a fraction of what they were.

These days it might be money. After Tom Brady retires why would he want to put himself though all of that for peanuts when he can just hang out with the family, or become a politician (which he's mentioned).

04-02-2014, 10:04 AM
I heard a similar convo brought up on one of the sports channels on Sirius XM. Someone asked if Kobe would make a good coach. I didn't hear it all but the consensus was he wouldn't because of his personality. It fits a player perfectly but as a coach he might be too hard headed or something. They felt it might have been the same with Jordan and others.

04-02-2014, 03:27 PM
well I see a few reasons...

One, that is a LOT of work for not much money for an NBA star. Pop and Rivers make 6-7 million a year, these guys would start at what? 3 million? Kidd mades a tad over 2 million a year. Kobe is going to retire with 350 million dollars or so JUST from his NBA salaries. When 20 minutes with Nike can earn him that after he retires, why coach 82 games, pre-season, training camps, summer leagues, and spend the off-season working on making the team better? When a cushy job at TNT could pay him double that, why spend 80 hours a week dealing with spoiled kids risking pulling an Isiah Thomas on his legacy?

The other, which I always used when talking about football, is what is a star going to coach? We always see their frustration when they try. Magic can't coach someone nearly 7 foot tall on how to break down the defense off the dribble in the open court and whip the ball behind their back at a player they never looked at. Jordan can't coach someone on how to come down and just put a dagger in a team with a clutch shot. Guess what though. Jackson can tell you a lot of what he saw from his championship teams when he played from a bench perspective. Rivers can tell you what similarities he saw in Ewing, Moses Malone, and David Robinson when he played. I think role players get that perspective that coaches need.

04-02-2014, 03:29 PM
Lack of intelligence