View Full Version : Greater asset, superior management or coaching?

12-11-2014, 03:22 PM
I honestly feel like Doc the GM has wasted whatever gains Doc the coach has contributed to my Clips. You look around the league and you will find that the best GM's are able to draft or sign young prospects that can at least contribute to an NBA bench. Whereas Doc finds retreads and dead legs to bolster a bench that would have been great, if this were 2009.

Hedo Turkoglu is still playing SF for us ffs, and I love that hes found his stroke but the guys knees buckle when faced against hard close outs. Hell last year they buckled when nobody was guarding him (http://www.si.com/sites/default/files/2014/02/hedo-test-3.gif). Hes sort of our version of a Diaw(homeless version) and hes actually one of the better pieces we have. What I would do for a single swingman that can play, feels like we havent had one since Maggette.

Think of this as more of a Daryl Morey vs Doc Rivers type of comparison. If you look at what Morey or GM's of his ilk have done with team building, they make finding rotation caliber players look easy, I mean if LAC had suffered the magnitude of injuries that Houston has, we would be completely out of the playoff picture and they have McHale coaching them. Doc is so thick headed that he convinced himself that losing a first rounder was worth being able to sign an injured CDR. I love that he brought in Ekpe Udoh (finally someone with potential) but he never plays the guy.

So whats more important, great management with a knack for talent evaluation and finding diamonds in the rough, or a great coach.

12-11-2014, 03:48 PM
Superior management would be my pick quite easily. The coach can only do so much with bad talent and that is on management to bring them in. I don't think brooks or spo or Mchale are great coaches but good players can make up for that (I know that arguably not a sign of great gm but an example of good players lifting a coach). Off the top of my head I can't think of a great coach bringing teams with inept management who cant find talent very far.

Flip is kind of the opposite to what you have listed for us. I like the moves he has made as gm but not a real fan of his coaching (loves mid to long range shots but not 3's or defending 3's). Now he needs to continue this but the trade back last year to get bazz and dieng really was something new for this team (normally we keep the higher pick and get say Wes johnson). Then holding out with love for the right package instead of just sending him at draft time like most were calling for. If he can continue to bring in talented players I am not so concerned with who is coaching at the moment. If he was sucking it up as gm and ruining drafts like khan and Mchale did I would be pissed.

12-11-2014, 06:04 PM

Any coach needs talent to be successful

12-11-2014, 06:17 PM
Definitely management
It's the main reason we didn't get to see Vince and tmac stay together
they could have made any coach look good

12-11-2014, 06:46 PM
Management. Great management determines the consistency of talent and the success of acquiring top level coaching.

Popovich started as the GM of the Spurs in 1994 after Peter Holt bought the team. He then took on the Head Coach position in 1996 as well before he eventually hired his own replacement (RC Buford) in 2002. Popovich had some luck in that he started as a Head Coach with Robinson (who signed in 1989), but it was Popovich in the GM role that played a significant role in surrounding Robinson with talent.

And once they had Duncan, Popovich has been working closely with Buford ever since. Together they have built and rebuilt the Spurs roster year after year.

Yes, without Duncan as the #1 pick the outcome wouldn't have been the same, but it also doesn't happen without the talent surrounding Duncan or without Popovich leaving his office to take his place on the sidelines.

And it starts from Peter Holt hiring Popovich as his GM.

12-12-2014, 01:55 AM
Definitely management
It's the main reason we didn't get to see Vince and tmac stay together
they could have made any coach look good
or get a few fired

12-12-2014, 01:57 AM
Management by far. After all, you think that Phil Jackson could earn those 11 titles himself? :D

12-12-2014, 01:58 AM
Management. Don't understand a debate otherwise.

12-12-2014, 01:58 AM
Management, management, management.

(The series of posts above me in this thread, lays it out pretty good.)

Raps18-19 Champ
12-12-2014, 01:58 AM

Heat showed that you don't need great coaching to win titles. Management is needed to get those players you need to win.

12-12-2014, 02:12 AM
Management cause controls player and even coach at times(Fisher/Jackson).

12-12-2014, 02:22 AM
Management cause controls player and even coach at times(Fisher/Jackson).
all of the time unless the gm is the coach