PDA

View Full Version : So is Kerr really good, Mark Jackson really bad?



blahblahyoutoo
06-17-2015, 12:40 AM
or somewhere in the middle?

sure, you could say kerr had a lot of help with bench coaches.
and you can say jackson helped develop the players, but it also felt like they were underachieving under his leadership.
but i don't think one of the best regular seasons in the history of the league and a championship is a fluke. such accomplishments lead me to believe kerr was doing something really right, or jackson was doing something really wrong.

the only thing for certain is that kerr sure is feeling good about not taking the knicks offer.

Bostonjorge
06-17-2015, 12:49 AM
Yes Kerr made James quit.

zn23
06-17-2015, 12:55 AM
I've said this all season, signing Kerr was the best move they made and we saw his adjustments when the team went down 2-1 against the Cavs.

Everyone wants to give Jackson credit for developing the team but the reality was they weren't getting better under him. The most games they won with Jackson was 51 last season and they didn't change much from the season before. Their defense got better, but that was mainly because of free agent acquisitions and Green's development. As far as Offensive Efficiency they were ranked 10th in 2013 and 2014. They go from 47 to 51 to 67 with Kerr and you're trying to tell me Jackson deserves credit that? Under Kerr they were no.1 ranked in Off Efficiency and no.1 ranked in defense.

Jackson was way out of his league. He was infamous for not calling timeouts when his team started to lose momentum, and eventually the other team would build up a 20 point lead before he would call one.

bgdreton
06-17-2015, 12:59 AM
Who cares we the Champs!

slaker619
06-17-2015, 01:13 AM
Kerr kept the team loose, but Gentry the real coach of that team, and Jackson did well, but no front office support probably would've won it with him at the helm too

NetsPaint
06-17-2015, 01:30 AM
Maybe Curry just had more recipes this season.

JNA17
06-17-2015, 01:35 AM
You all forget the real coach of that team.

Luke Walton. He won the Warriors title.

likemystylez
06-17-2015, 01:44 AM
if the warriors had ANYbody who didnt want to run isolation all the time and wanted to allow one of the best passing teams in the league to move the ball- they had a good chance at getting to the finals the last 2 or 3 yrs. mark jackson was a horrible coach.... and as you can see- no other team has made him any offers. Hes a good coach if your goa is to win 10-15 less games than your talent should be winning. hes a good coach to tank with

blahblahyoutoo
06-17-2015, 01:52 AM
Kerr kept the team loose, but Gentry the real coach of that team, and Jackson did well, but no front office support probably would've won it with him at the helm too

Agreed. No one else made offers to Gentry cuz this be a racist league. White man holding the black man down as usual.

#blacklivesmatter
#handsupdontshoot

raiderposting
06-17-2015, 01:56 AM
Agreed. No one else made offers to Gentry cuz this be a racist league. White man holding the black man down as usual.

#blacklivesmatter
#handsupdontshoot

Well it's really hard when you treat your team like you're church members. Not a knock on religion at all since I believe God but he made some guys obviously feel uncomfortable especially bogut since he was an atheist.

CityofChaos
06-17-2015, 01:56 AM
Following the Warriors the past 3 seasons you can tell the difference between Jackson and Kerr. Jackson did NOT value ball movement or mixing subs with starters. He favored an up and down style of play but less ball movement and more isolation. Kerr valued ball movement and defense.

Jackson did not value his assistant coaches. He butted heads with Mike Malone and got Brian Scalabrine and Darren Erman fired while Kerr not only built strong relationships with his assistants (Luke Walton, Jarron Collins, Alvin Gentry, Nick U-Ren), but also valued their opinions

kubernetes
06-17-2015, 03:49 AM
You could write a case study about Kerr vs Jackson and successful management techniques.

Kerr is open to ideas from everyone and anyone, including the video guy, and he openly gives credit to such people. He hired the best asst coaches he could find, because duh. That's excellent management.

Jackson hired people dumber and less capable than himself because... I dunno, maybe he couldn't stand the idea of not being the smartest guy in the org. Also, can you imagine Jackson sitting Lee and Iguodala in favor of Green and Barnes?

Kerr and Gentry deserve serious credit for the offense too. Jackson's offense featured a ton of ugly ISO ball. Kerr's Warriors actually are not tied to any rigid ideology on offense. There are Triangle concepts, PnRs from the SSOL, the Spurs' dribble drive motion, and pretty much everything and anything that works. Personally, I think that's the future: a bunch of high BBIQ guys who can run any number of different offensive schemes at any time. How do you defend against a team like that?

JasonJohnHorn
06-17-2015, 09:34 AM
I think the improvement the Warriors made could fairly be expected. Looking at how young these guys are:

Curry
Thompson
Green
Barnes

These are their key players, and they are all ENTERING their prime, so to see them each improve upon last season, and in turn to see the team drastically improve, is really no surprise. I don't think their success means that Jackson is 'bad'. He was a great coach. He helped those same players improve every year.

When Carlisle got canned from Detroit and they won it all the next year, people didn't assume that Carlisle was bad. He'd done a great job. Jackson did a great job. He left that team in fantastic shape. They had the best three-year run the franchise had seen since the 70's.

Is Kerr better? He is certainly better suited for the roster in terms of offense, but Jackson still did a great job.

People forget exactly how good a job Jackson did. Would the Warriors have won it all with Jackson this year? I think there would be a very good chance of that, but I think Kerr was better suited and got more out of the team than Jackson would have.

Kerr seems to be in tune with advance stats and understand the value of the 3-point shot and spreading the floor and going small. Jackson obviously had more of the old school thought where you include a lot of post play with Lee and Bogut.

But Jackson still did a great job. You put him in Charlotte, and Jackson would do better in Charlotte than Kerr. You put them in both in OKC, and Kerr would do better.

nycericanguy
06-17-2015, 09:44 AM
Having Jackson do the play by play in these finals was awkward...lol.

The team that fired him winning it all the next year with a rookie coach...

blahblahyoutoo
06-17-2015, 08:27 PM
I think the improvement the Warriors made could fairly be expected. Looking at how young these guys are:

Curry
Thompson
Green
Barnes

These are their key players, and they are all ENTERING their prime, so to see them each improve upon last season, and in turn to see the team drastically improve, is really no surprise. I don't think their success means that Jackson is 'bad'. He was a great coach. He helped those same players improve every year.

When Carlisle got canned from Detroit and they won it all the next year, people didn't assume that Carlisle was bad. He'd done a great job. Jackson did a great job. He left that team in fantastic shape. They had the best three-year run the franchise had seen since the 70's.

Is Kerr better? He is certainly better suited for the roster in terms of offense, but Jackson still did a great job.

People forget exactly how good a job Jackson did. Would the Warriors have won it all with Jackson this year? I think there would be a very good chance of that, but I think Kerr was better suited and got more out of the team than Jackson would have.

Kerr seems to be in tune with advance stats and understand the value of the 3-point shot and spreading the floor and going small. Jackson obviously had more of the old school thought where you include a lot of post play with Lee and Bogut.

But Jackson still did a great job. You put him in Charlotte, and Jackson would do better in Charlotte than Kerr. You put them in both in OKC, and Kerr would do better.

not exactly disagreeing with you, but the bolded paragraph is somewhat contradictory.

is mark jackson responsible for improving the players, or is it just players getting better naturally because of experience and self progress?
what's kerr's role in player improvement?

torocan
06-18-2015, 12:32 PM
Jackson is a good coach but hit his ceiling. He's unfortunately somewhat dogmatic in his approach to coaching and game play. It's part of why he suffered from internal power struggles with both management and his own coaching staff. It also becomes apparent when he does his in game analysis.

Kerr is more of a process coach. He hires the smartest guys and then listens to them. And he's open to unorthodox ideas and strategies whether it's from management, players or his assistant coaches.

Kerr will always have a higher ceiling since he's willing to rely on the strengths of everyone around him.

Scoots
06-18-2015, 12:50 PM
Jackson is about Jackson ... it can work, but that's not the way to bet.