PDA

View Full Version : Doc Rivers Set a Bad Precedent With the Coach/GM Role



Clippersfan86
06-29-2014, 01:24 AM
Doc was given full power right off the bat to run the Clippers front office AND coach. He refused to allow the Clippers trade unless he was guaranteed the front office position (which he's been bad at BTW). I didn't like it when it happened and was even more ticked off when he was made the official president of team operations two weeks ago, despite no experience running a friend office. The Clippers made him the highest paid coach/exec in the NBA. I personally don't feel it's possible to do so much work and still maintain the efficiency required. Today we are hearing that Kidd demanded a similar role and as a result the front office basically rightfully told him to go to hell in Brooklyn. This last summer we saw Stan Van Gundy get that role, along with John Calipari who was offered ungodly money for the role by the Cavs, neither of which had front office experience.

My point is that I feel this is bad for the NBA going forward. GM/president vs coaching is very different job and both are extremely hands on. Front offices will support it to cut costs and consolidate positions, coaches will demand it due to more power. Even the Spurs, the best run team in the league don't have Pop as a full blown president/GM, but rather the assistant.

Thoughts on this new trend? Do you agree it will be detrimental to the league long term?

Quinnsanity
06-29-2014, 01:54 AM
All the while, we're currently cultivating a crop of young, new age, statistically-minded GMs who pretty much all cut their teeth in the Houston, San Antonio or Oklahoma City organizations. It's a really interesting contrast. I suspect the Sam Hinkies and the Rob Hennigans of the world are going to enjoy destroying the Stan Van Gundys and Jason Kidds in trades.

PowerHouse
06-29-2014, 02:44 AM
Its just something the Clippers like to do. Mike Dunleavy was also a Head Coach/GM.

slashsnake
06-29-2014, 03:00 AM
Thoughts on this new trend? Do you agree it will be detrimental to the league long term?

I'd give it a few years before saying it was a good or bad decision.

As for it being detrimental, I don't think so, if it fails, other teams won't be as likely to do it.

beasted86
06-29-2014, 08:39 AM
Pat Riley was the one who set the precedent in basically the fashion as Doc, traded to a new team and granted expanded power...

The difference is he coached many more Finals teams and was able to build different style teams through coaching to show his versatility of working with different types of rosters. He also worked far more seasons to prove his worth at coach+GM before they expanded his role to president also.

Doc needs more time and to really handle his first free agency this summer before we can even start to get a grasp on his style and ability and judge him.

FOXHOUND
06-29-2014, 10:15 AM
Pop was the GM for the Spurs before he was the coach, and he made himself the coach in 1997 and remained as the GM until 2003. It's been done a few times as coach/president, like PowerHouse said Mike Dunleavy on the Clippers. Having final say isn't a bad thing, the teams still have the GM and other front office guys doing most of the leg work before Doc even gets to say yes or no.

I like it, I think it's the best way for a coach and GM to truly be in sync and ensures that the coach will have the roster he wants and needs to do his job well. Some teams will take big gambles, like Detroit and Cleveland it seems taking these gambles to attract coaches there that wouldn't accept the job without it, but that's no different than making odd coaching/front office hires anyways. I mean, what exactly were John Hollinger's credentials before Memphis hired him?

Crunch Time
06-29-2014, 10:21 AM
Phil Jackson pretty much ran the Lakers FO during his tenure until Papa Buss passed away and Jimbaco took over.

Chronz
06-29-2014, 10:22 AM
GM's are always talking about the struggle of integrating new age concepts with their Coaches, teams can bypass that altogether by having them be 1 and the same. If that coach is open to all different concepts, he will succeed. This precedent was set by another former Celtic, Red.

Clippersfan86
06-29-2014, 10:55 AM
So forgot about Riley doing it a few years back in Miami. Wasn't that with young Wade? Then if I recall it became a bit much and he stepped down? As mentioned though Riley earned it. Guys like Doc, Kidd, Van Gundy, Calipari haven't proven jack in an NBA front office. As a couple of you guys said though, only time will tell.

Chronz
06-29-2014, 11:00 AM
So forgot about Riley doing it a few years back in Miami. Wasn't that with young Wade? Then if I recall it became a bit much and he stepped down? As mentioned though Riley earned it. Guys like Doc, Kidd, Van Gundy, Calipari haven't proven jack in an NBA front office. As a couple of you guys said though, only time will tell.

Nah way before Wade. Think back to the Zo era, possibly right before that with Glen Rice, I cant really remember either.

torocan
06-29-2014, 11:14 AM
There is one major advantage to being both the GM and the Head Coach, and that's not having to worry about "playing" for your job.

So many Head Coaches make boneheaded player decisions because they want to win every regular season game or because the Star will go behind their back and try to get them fired.

And many GM's make boneheaded decisions because they don't fully understand how the players integrate onto their current roster in terms of culture and skillset, or they're too busy sucking up to the biggest contract on the roster, or they're trying to grab the limelight and pad the resume.

A person who is the GM and the Coach is forced to weigh both of these situations. And while ideally you want 2 highly competent people in both positions, you're reducing a point of friction by reducing it to 1 person. As long as the person is trusting enough to delegate responsibilities to people who are more competent than they are, then they can do very well.

Will Kidd be successful? Who knows.

However, it's been done by teams before and been successful. This isn't a "precedent" by any stretch of the imagination.

beasted86
06-29-2014, 11:25 AM
Nah way before Wade. Think back to the Zo era, possibly right before that with Glen Rice, I cant really remember either.

Yes, back in 94 when the team had Glen Rice and Steve Smith as its main pieces. Riley took over and rebuilt the team and changed the identity.

blahblahyoutoo
06-29-2014, 11:31 AM
Doc isn't even that good of a coach tbh.

Hawkamania
06-29-2014, 11:40 AM
All the while, we're currently cultivating a crop of young, new age, statistically-minded GMs who pretty much all cut their teeth in the Houston, San Antonio or Oklahoma City organizations. It's a really interesting contrast. I suspect the Sam Hinkies and the Rob Hennigans of the world are going to enjoy destroying the Stan Van Gundys and Jason Kidds in trades.

Yeah, I'd say you about summed it up.

flea
06-29-2014, 12:03 PM
Doc isn't even that good of a coach tbh.

To me he's one of the best players' coaches, and if I were a GM I wouldn't want a players' coach. There's all this talk of rallying the troops and stuff, but they get outclassed when it matters by coaches who are more than just yes-men to their players. Doc wasn't a good coach until he had 3 HOFers who understood their roles and fit together perfectly. I mean it's not hard to coach a team to gel when they have one of the best versatile scorers of his generation, a top 3-5 shooter in history, and one of the best passing bigs who did his work away from the basket.

Crunch Time
06-29-2014, 12:51 PM
Doc isn't even that good of a coach tbh.

He's not really an X-O type of coach, more of a rallying his troops kind of guy.

Clippersfan86
06-29-2014, 02:29 PM
Chronz/Heat fans wasn't there a time Riley was strongly considering a dual role when SVG was fired? Maybe that's what I was thinking? Thanks for info Chronz.

Doc has been a pretty damn mediocre GM so far and I'm worried. He was promoted to president and demoted long time Clippers guy Gary Sacks who was runner up exec of the year two years ago and is known as a bright front office guy. Then he promotes his friend/assistant coach to Sacks rank despite zero front office experience. This kind of stuff shouldnt be allowed

Chronz
06-29-2014, 02:35 PM
I second that. We need Doc the Coach more than Doc the exec.

ewing
06-29-2014, 02:40 PM
IDC, i do think that a coach should always be looking to win right now and a GM needs to have a longer range view. It does present a little bit of a conflict of interest but :shrug:

THE MTL
06-29-2014, 03:11 PM
Isiah Thomas had the president/coach role as well for the Knicks ::crickets crickets::

THE MTL
06-29-2014, 03:14 PM
Rivers won a championship and worked as a head coach for over a decade! He also walked into an organization where the FO hasn't done anything in 30 years!! Kidd has been a coach for one year and he is just average at it! There is a big difference

Corey
06-29-2014, 06:50 PM
Big difference between a veteran head coach with a title under his belt and a rookie head coach coming off a disappointing season.

FOXHOUND
06-29-2014, 09:48 PM
He's not really an X-O type of coach, more of a rallying his troops kind of guy.

Doc's teams have been elite in points per possession on out of bounds plays for years, so he definitely knows his X's and O's.

lpdunks8
06-29-2014, 11:03 PM
Ummmm... http://www.nba.com/spurs/bios/gregg-popovich

topdog
06-29-2014, 11:09 PM
I love how Kidd goes on a power trip... but I'll just say that I'd rather have SVG run my FO and coach than Dumars and whatever flavor of the month you want to start the season with.

Clippersfan86
06-29-2014, 11:14 PM
Ummmm... http://www.nba.com/spurs/bios/gregg-popovich

Buford.

FYL_McVeezy
06-29-2014, 11:18 PM
Nah way before Wade. Think back to the Zo era, possibly right before that with Glen Rice, I cant really remember either.
Late 90's right after he resigned from the Knicks job via Fax.

FOXHOUND
06-29-2014, 11:27 PM
Buford.

Pop became the Spurs GM in 1994 and the coach in 1996/97. In 2002 he relinquished his GM duties to R.C. Buford, who was serving as the teams head scout.

Sssmush
06-30-2014, 12:01 AM
Doc was given full power right off the bat to run the Clippers front office AND coach. He refused to allow the Clippers trade unless he was guaranteed the front office position (which he's been bad at BTW). I didn't like it when it happened and was even more ticked off when he was made the official president of team operations two weeks ago, despite no experience running a friend office. The Clippers made him the highest paid coach/exec in the NBA. I personally don't feel it's possible to do so much work and still maintain the efficiency required. Today we are hearing that Kidd demanded a similar role and as a result the front office basically rightfully told him to go to hell in Brooklyn. This last summer we saw Stan Van Gundy get that role, along with John Calipari who was offered ungodly money for the role by the Cavs, neither of which had front office experience.

My point is that I feel this is bad for the NBA going forward. GM/president vs coaching is very different job and both are extremely hands on. Front offices will support it to cut costs and consolidate positions, coaches will demand it due to more power. Even the Spurs, the best run team in the league don't have Pop as a full blown president/GM, but rather the assistant.

Thoughts on this new trend? Do you agree it will be detrimental to the league long term?

They are the Clippers.

lpdunks8
06-30-2014, 01:23 AM
Buford.

Pop is the President of Spurs basketball and Buford is the GM.
Doc is the President of Clippers basketball and Dave Wohl is the GM.

It's the same set-up.

Clippersfan86
06-30-2014, 04:14 AM
Pop became the Spurs GM in 1994 and the coach in 1996/97. In 2002 he relinquished his GM duties to R.C. Buford, who was serving as the teams head scout.

We've discussed this. I'm aware of the fact that for a few years he was doing both and still has a front office position. It's not the same thing. He started as a GM. I'm talking about coaches trying to become GM's, especially ones with no experience. Pop earned his way, paid his dues and is far from the norm to begin with.

Clippersfan86
06-30-2014, 04:17 AM
Pop is the President of Spurs basketball and Buford is the GM.
Doc is the President of Clippers basketball and Dave Wohl is the GM.

It's the same set-up.

One earned it, the other didn't. I wasn't implying Doc is the first to ever do it... but since the Clippers gave him the role last summer, this summer immediately following.. you have 3 or 4 coaches asking for or demanding it, which we've never seen.

TylerSL
06-30-2014, 04:56 AM
Nah way before Wade. Think back to the Zo era, possibly right before that with Glen Rice, I cant really remember either.

Riley took over the team in 1995 as GM/HC and held both roles until 2003, and again 05-08.

ellisgw
06-30-2014, 10:59 AM
Pop is the President of Spurs basketball and Buford is the GM.
Doc is the President of Clippers basketball and Dave Wohl is the GM.

It's the same set-up.

where do you get information from? Fox news?

RC buford is the president

It amazing that people don't have 20 seconds to look up what they do

http://www.nba.com/spurs/bios/index

kdspurman
06-30-2014, 11:44 AM
where do you get information from? Fox news?

RC buford is the president

It amazing that people don't have 20 seconds to look up what they do

http://www.nba.com/spurs/bios/index

Actually in your link, I think you misread.

RC- "President of Sports Franchises "

Pop- "Head Coach/ President of Spurs Basketball"


RC is the GM.

But i see what CF86 is talking about in this particular thread.

JasonJohnHorn
06-30-2014, 02:39 PM
Pop was the GM first, then the coach and did both for a while with great success.

Can a coach do the work of a gm and a coach? I don't think so. It is a lot of work. A great GM is going to be watching a ton of basketball games, overseas, college and NBA as well as the D-League.

I don't see how you can do that and scout the teams you are going to be coaching against.

That said, I have no problem with a team giving a coach higher standing than the GM. too often GM's and coaches are not on the same page.We saw that with the Bulls and Phil Jackson, and then again with the Lakers and Phil Jackson.

If a coach has a GM in place and a scouting staff, and he has an assistant coach or two that scouts the teams they will be playing, then I believe a guy can oversea that, but no guy can do all that work alone.


Coaches, though, know what players fit in their system. What we saw with the Lakers/DH12 debacle is a GM and a coach who were not on the same page. If the GM is in charge, then when the team fails, he blames the coach and player,s even if he is at fault, but if the coach is in charge, then the GM is more invested in ensuring that they have a reciprocal relationship.

The relationship between the GM and the coach has cost a lot of teams. Moves like this solve that power struggle because it makes it clear who is in charge. The problem is, not everybody is good at both.

Pop pulled if off, but Pop is one-in-a-million.

Ware_Spencer
06-30-2014, 10:37 PM
I love the new trend. I am tired of watching coaches get fired over and over and blamed and used at the scapegoat when the GM made horrible moves.
The coach should be the President/Coach if they really are that good. And let them pick a GM that fits their philosophy. To Coach just has final say. They are the ones putting "theories" into reality. Let them see the big picture and higher a GM who fits what they need to do the day to day GM stuff.
I think it is great. Some teams it doesn't make sense if you are rebuilding and hiring a young coach. But for the teams needing some stability it will be great for. As a lot of GM's are the ones making horrible unstable decisions and the coaches are blamed.
Great combination of teams with both options. I don't think there is a wrong or right. Depends more on the position and the state of the team.