PDA

View Full Version : Memphis Fires Coach Dave Joerger



Mr. Baller
05-07-2016, 10:07 AM
Via woj

What the ****? He did a great job with that team, I don't get it. 2 good coaches now on the market

North Yorker
05-07-2016, 10:11 AM
I think Memphis is going to blow it up this offseason.

warfelg
05-07-2016, 10:16 AM
I think Memphis is going to blow it up this offseason.

It's got that feeling.

IndyRealist
05-07-2016, 10:30 AM
And your new coach of the Indiana Pacers...

kdspurman
05-07-2016, 11:04 AM
And your new coach of the Indiana Pacers...

I thought Larry wanted someone more offensive minded?

HandsOnTheWheel
05-07-2016, 11:15 AM
I think Memphis is going to blow it up this offseason.

+1

That's the only valid explanation here.

ATX
05-07-2016, 11:57 AM
Vogel is their head candidate.

IndyRealist
05-07-2016, 11:58 AM
I thought Larry wanted someone more offensive minded?

Bird does. There's no way he takes Joerger.

Scoots
05-07-2016, 12:02 PM
Dave lost his job because Frank is on the market.

TheNumber37
05-07-2016, 12:07 PM
If you're Frank Vogel, explain why the job in Memphis is appealing.

They just got swept by the Spurs, they Have Zbo, Gasol and are trying to bring Conley back

What is enticing about this job for Frank?

HandsOnTheWheel
05-07-2016, 12:15 PM
They're citing internal conflict between Joeger and the Grizzlies FO.

IndyRealist
05-07-2016, 12:42 PM
Geoff Calkins: Joerger is interested in Sacramento. Was interested in Minnesota before that. So Griz thought they had to let him go but, holy crap. via Twitter geoff_calkins

Essentially they're saying Joerger was looking to jump ship, so they went ahead and cut him loose because he wasn't committed to the Grizzlies.

ewing
05-07-2016, 12:46 PM
everybody fire your coach

likemystylez
05-07-2016, 01:05 PM
They're citing internal conflict between Joeger and the Grizzlies FO.

imagine that.... im starting to think the problem might be the grizz front office. first hollins and now joeger

kobebabe
05-07-2016, 01:36 PM
You don't fire a coach who took a team with so many injuries in a tough WC to playoffs unless there is something sinister happening behind closed doors.

Scoots
05-07-2016, 01:44 PM
You don't fire a coach who took a team with so many injuries in a tough WC to playoffs unless there is something sinister happening behind closed doors.

Winning coaches are fired all the time and we keep acting surprised. McHale, Blatt, Vogel, Joerger, Brooks, Thibs, even Bickerstaff ... and I'm sure I missed some.

aman_13
05-07-2016, 02:17 PM
There are no surprises anymore

JasonJohnHorn
05-07-2016, 02:30 PM
Memphis is mental.

First they fire Hollins after he helps to define that team and takes them as far as anybody could have reasonably expected them to go, then they replace him with a coach that does the same. Despite the fact that their best player (Gasol) was out for like half the season, and despite the fact that they lost Conley toward the end of the year, he still managed to get them into the playoffs.

Not saying he's COY material (not that that matters since George Karl got fired the year he won it last), but no reason to fire this guy.


On top of it, they have a horrible situation going forward and will have a hell of a time finding a quality coach that wants to take on that situation. Z-Bo has started his decline, Tony Allen ain't not spring chicken either, they may be losing their second best player to free agency (Conley) and will likely lose two key role players to free agency as well (VC + Barnes). And Gasol is more trade bait than a building block at his age.

They only bright side to the seasons is that they got Lance Stephenson playing well, but they only got him locked in for one more year.


It's like teams fire coaches just so they can be in the news or something.

EDIT: Reports came out saying this was about Joerger asking for permission to talk to other teams after butting heads with management. In this case, it seems like Joerger actually got what he wanted, and on top of it will be able to collect to pay cheques at once. So plus for him.

Still... sounds silly to fire him when they could have gotten out of paying him and simply let him sign with somebody else, or traded his rights for a second-round pick.

naps
05-07-2016, 03:07 PM
I was very shocked to hear it at first because he did a fantastic job with this team but then again people are reporting that he wanted out twice in last 3 years. I guess that makes sense now.
This is still very crazy though. Has there ever been another year where seven head coaches got fired?

Chronz
05-07-2016, 04:15 PM
Memphis is mental.

First they fire Hollins after he helps to define that team and takes them as far as anybody could have reasonably expected them to go, then they replace him with a coach that does the same. Despite the fact that their best player (Gasol) was out for like half the season, and despite the fact that they lost Conley toward the end of the year, he still managed to get them into the playoffs.

Not saying he's COY material (not that that matters since George Karl got fired the year he won it last), but no reason to fire this guy.


On top of it, they have a horrible situation going forward and will have a hell of a time finding a quality coach that wants to take on that situation. Z-Bo has started his decline, Tony Allen ain't not spring chicken either, they may be losing their second best player to free agency (Conley) and will likely lose two key role players to free agency as well (VC + Barnes). And Gasol is more trade bait than a building block at his age.

They only bright side to the seasons is that they got Lance Stephenson playing well, but they only got him locked in for one more year.


It's like teams fire coaches just so they can be in the news or something.
Dude relax and actually assess. No, firing Hollins was absolutely the right move, besides holding back his talent, he was clashing with the organization and disrespecting their moves even though they actually improved the team (like jettisoning Gay).

And they lost him because he wants to go somewhere else, apparently hes been asking permission to find new teams for 2-3 years now so why would you keep someone who so desperately wants to leave you?


Dont turn into JVG and come to the defense of every old school coach

Im curious what they do with Lance tho, he played very well but then he stopped getting minutes. He either got hurt or he clashed with management. Wouldn't be surprised if they opt out on him.

DboneG
05-07-2016, 04:43 PM
I'm surprised! There's a lot of strange moves going around the NBA these days. I can't get a grip on this one...like someone said in a early post. Maybe Memphis is going to blow/break the team up, and go a different direction.

Tony Allen...on the old side. He's not that shut down defender he was a few years back. Don't have much offense.

Chris Andersen...old, can't bring energy like he use to. Don't have much offense.

Matt Barnes...on the old side. Can't get it done on either end of the floor. Hard nose player. He's ok.

Vince Carter...old.

Zach Randolph...old Zack is a very good ball player. Question mark here? I don't know if I would dump him or trade him. He's been great for the organization. But, he's old.

Lance Stephenson....erratic. You just don't know what you are going to get with this guy. He played well for Memphis. He has talent.

Mike Conley ...needs to step his game up! Mike has to shoot more! Mike has to hit more 3's.

Marc Gasol...a keeper. Don't know if he wants to stay. Signed a 5yr. deal.


Memphis needs help!! The top name free agents aren't looking at Memphis IMO.

JasonJohnHorn
05-07-2016, 04:58 PM
Dude relax and actually assess. No, firing Hollins was absolutely the right move, besides holding back his talent, he was clashing with the organization and disrespecting their moves even though they actually improved the team (like jettisoning Gay).

And they lost him because he wants to go somewhere else, apparently hes been asking permission to find new teams for 2-3 years now so why would you keep someone who so desperately wants to leave you?


Dont turn into JVG and come to the defense of every old school coach

Im curious what they do with Lance tho, he played very well but then he stopped getting minutes. He either got hurt or he clashed with management. Wouldn't be surprised if they opt out on him.

Just edited my post. Turns out Joerger was asking permission to talk to other teams because he was butting heads with management. If that were the case, then this seems like Joerger got what he wanted. That said... the Grizz could have not only avoided paying him the remainder of his contract, but also trade his rights for a second rounder. So they chose to pay to get the right to say they fired him.


As to Hollins, I stand by that. I'm not arguing he's an elite coach, but he's a good coach (notwithstanding his performance in BK, which is strictly related to the talent on the floor and not his ability). I get that he may have butted heads with management, but if Joerger is also butting heads, then you have to ask yourself who the problem is: the coaches, or the management.

Bottom line here, for me, is results. I know there are nuances to this, and other factors (who you are competing against; who is on your roster; what teams are having an up year/down year, ect), but at the end of the day, with the same core players, Memphis has failed to win as many games as when Hollins was there, and have failed to push as deep into the playoffs as he did. If you aim to get rid of a coach to improve your team, that certainly did not happen in the case of firing Hollins. This isn't to suggest I think the team would have done better with him the last three years; I don't. The team as it stands was on its current trajectory regardless of who their coach was. But Hollins was doing as much as could be fairly expected with that roster. Keep in mind that people have essentially given up on Z-Bo, and Hollins got a lot of mileage out of him. Yes, Gasol has had his best numbers under Joerger, but he made the All-Star team under Hollins, and won a DPOY award under his guidance. His scoring numbers have gone up in part because Z-Bo's have come down, and Rudy T is gone, so he's taken on a bigger role in that respect, but his percentages were higher under Hollins. So is he a 'better scorer', or simply getting more shots? He also put up his best rebounding numbers under Hollins, and his best passing stats (about the same but with lower turnovers). Z-Bo had his best rebounding numbers under Hollins, and made the All-Star team, and saw his highest percentages since his sophomore year in the NBA. Conley putting up his best numbers under Joerger, but he's also in his prime now and was just coming into his own under Hollins and improving each year. Tony Allen has looked pretty much the same year after year, though he has gotten a little more efficient. Mayo did look better under Carlisle than Hollins, but I'll gladly concede that Carlisle is the better coach.

I don't see that Hollins was holding anybody back, and even if certain players are putting up better individual numbers post-Hollins, the team did better under Hollins, and basketball is a team sport. You measure success by wins, not by whether your players posted their his personal averages in a given category. now I'm suggest that is what you are arguing, but I am unsure as to what you mean by suggesting that he was holding players back. It's not like Rudy Gay has blown up since leaving Memphis; if anything, he's become less relevant.


I do get upset when I see coaches go through a revolving door. I think it's bad for the league and bad for the game. Fans want to see how well a their team can do, and if you pull something like what the Pistons were doing, or what the Lakers, the Knicks, or the Kings have been doing, where there are sometimes TWO coaches in a given year, fans will never get to see players develop in a given system. Teams won't build a culture. When players are learning a new system every year, or every other year, only the most talented players will do well individually, and even they won't do well as a team.

There are exceptions. Jackson for Kerr was clearly the right move. Collins for Jackson turned out pretty well in hindsight, though it seemed questionable at the time. But if coaches like Chuck Daly were treated like coaches today, nobody would even remember his name. If Jerry Sloan was fired every time he missed the playoffs or got knocked out of the first round, he's have coached 8 different teams instead of coaching one team for two decades (though he did coach the Bulls for a season or two).

In the east, only two coaches have been with their team longer that 3 seasons, and only 4 longer than 2 seasons. That is a problem. In the West, only three coaches have a tenure longer than three years. There is an issue with that. It's a cultural problem in the league. So I do take issue with it when talented coaches, or coaches who are doing a good job, lose their job.


I understand that sometimes a coach might be winning with a team but not maximizing their performance (Mark Jackson), or might be winning, but doesn't get along with the players (Blatt). But when over half the coaches in the league have been with their team two years OR LESS, there is an issue.

Redrum187
05-07-2016, 05:25 PM
I thought he did the best with what he had left on his team... :confused:

Chronz
05-07-2016, 05:39 PM
That said... the Grizz could have not only avoided paying him the remainder of his contract, but also trade his rights for a second rounder. So they chose to pay to get the right to say they fired him.
Too much spite if true. He must be staying out West or something.


As to Hollins, I stand by that. I'm not arguing he's an elite coach, but he's a good coach (notwithstanding his performance in BK, which is strictly related to the talent on the floor and not his ability). I get that he may have butted heads with management, but if Joerger is also butting heads, then you have to ask yourself who the problem is: the coaches, or the management.

The difference is Joerger hasn't criticized the direction of the team or made outright ignorant statements the way Hollins has (that more PnR and less ISO gave his team less versatility, even though they became a MUCH better team because of the moves, as have others upon ridding themselves of Gay). I wont ignore his failures in Brooklyn, the expectations were minimal and he still ran archaic sets the way he did in Memphis, its similar to why Mitchel wont be brought back in Minny. Just because you have bad talent doesn't give you the excuse to hold it back. Also, Hollins was ridiculously slow to adapt in playoff series. I've literally seen ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from him that makes me believe hes anything but awful. Dont give him credit for establishing the grit and grind when you excuse his other failures due to "talent", that could just as easily be blinding you with his success. Especially when you consider Joerger was actually the guy behind their defensive success. I dont think he should get credit for something any bum could have accomplished, Joerger definitely accomplished more and its why he will move on while Hollins is never heard from again.



Bottom line here, for me, is results. I know there are nuances to this, and other factors (who you are competing against; who is on your roster; what teams are having an up year/down year, ect), but at the end of the day, with the same core players, Memphis has failed to win as many games as when Hollins was there, and have failed to push as deep into the playoffs as he did.
You forgot to mention matchups, its quite possible a superior team lost in the first round if they simply aligned with another team that was as good, Clips vs Spurs for example, both squads were FAR better than Memphis, so spare me the arbitrary advancement, Id rather have the better team than the luck of the draw in terms of team building so results will never be gauged blindly by win-loss records. I mean, why would I when the year you want to bring up was a result of trades that he opposed? If he would have had it his way, the Grizz would have never won as much. And lets not act like Joerger inherited the same talent, same names? Sure, but the talent was far different as was who they faced come playoffs. Instead of an injured Clips team, an injured Thunder team and then getting SWEPT by the only real team they faced, Joerger faced far greater obstacles and overachieved.


If you aim to get rid of a coach to improve your team, that certainly did not happen in the case of firing Hollins.

It most certainly did, unless your foolish enough to gauge results blindly.



This isn't to suggest I think the team would have done better with him the last three years; I don't. The team as it stands was on its current trajectory regardless of who their coach was. But Hollins was doing as much as could be fairly expected with that roster. Keep in mind that people have essentially given up on Z-Bo, and Hollins got a lot of mileage out of him. Yes, Gasol has had his best numbers under Joerger, but he made the All-Star team under Hollins, and won a DPOY award under his guidance. His scoring numbers have gone up in part because Z-Bo's have come down, and Rudy T is gone, so he's taken on a bigger role in that respect, but his percentages were higher under Hollins. So is he a 'better scorer', or simply getting more shots? He also put up his best rebounding numbers under Hollins, and his best passing stats (about the same but with lower turnovers). Z-Bo had his best rebounding numbers under Hollins, and made the All-Star team, and saw his highest percentages since his sophomore year in the NBA. Conley putting up his best numbers under Joerger, but he's also in his prime now and was just coming into his own under Hollins and improving each year. Tony Allen has looked pretty much the same year after year, though he has gotten a little more efficient. Mayo did look better under Carlisle than Hollins, but I'll gladly concede that Carlisle is the better coach.

You went off on a tangent that makes no sense to me. There are FAR more variables that go into production levels than you list here, but its game time (we let the commercials mount) so I wont touch on it now. Point being, they were a better team because the talent declined yet they remained a power and actually played better come playoffs. Just because they didn't advance doesn't mean **** if the other team was injured and missing MVP caliber guys due to injury or unavailability.


I don't see that Hollins was holding anybody back, and even if certain players are putting up better individual numbers post-Hollins, the team did better under Hollins, and basketball is a team sport. You measure success by wins, not by whether your players posted their his personal averages in a given category. now I'm suggest that is what you are arguing, but I am unsure as to what you mean by suggesting that he was holding players back. It's not like Rudy Gay has blown up since leaving Memphis; if anything, he's become less relevant.

LOL, the TEAM did better because management refused to listen to the old school idiot who had very little to do with the biggest reason the team had any success. Why would I credit the dunce who lacked the foresight and was forced into a gamestyle that he didn't approve of? LMFAO, cmon dude.



I do get upset when I see coaches go through a revolving door. I think it's bad for the league and bad for the game. Fans want to see how well a their team can do, and if you pull something like what the Pistons were doing, or what the Lakers, the Knicks, or the Kings have been doing, where there are sometimes TWO coaches in a given year, fans will never get to see players develop in a given system. Teams won't build a culture. When players are learning a new system every year, or every other year, only the most talented players will do well individually, and even they won't do well as a team.

Well, when the guy you have as a coach isn't the defensive catalyst and is actively lobbying against your moves (despite them being for the greater good of the team) you're really left with no choice, especially given his playoff blunders with rotations. Even in victory he was slow to adapt, Clips should've never pushed them to 6 for example, given the injuries to Blake.


There are exceptions. Jackson for Kerr was clearly the right move. Collins for Jackson turned out pretty well in hindsight, though it seemed questionable at the time. But if coaches like Chuck Daly were treated like coaches today, nobody would even remember his name. If Jerry Sloan was fired every time he missed the playoffs or got knocked out of the first round, he's have coached 8 different teams instead of coaching one team for two decades (though he did coach the Bulls for a season or two).

I dont see how it was questionable, Doug relied on MJ to do everything and didn't approve of the championship proven system that management was trying to install. Doug is a great comparison, both guys are old school and are more of "Ill stand up for my guys and let them isolate as much as they want" types. I dont agree with your opinion, Daly was the architect of his eras best defensive philosophy against the leagues best player, he was FAR more influential in his teams success than a dunce like Hollins. Sloan got basically ANY player to run the flex and his teams had a tendency to hustle. As opposed to Hollins, who enabled Gay's lax transition defense to allow the greatest comeback in playoff history as he lost to an injured Clips team despite having HCA for the series. Dude was a straight up joke that series, any halfway competent coach finishes us off in 5, 6 at the max. He was given more talent than he knew what to do with, just because the talent declined doesn't mean the next coach didn't do a better job, especially given all we know about the situation with management. Dude doesn't understand the game.


In the east, only two coaches have been with their team longer that 3 seasons, and only 4 longer than 2 seasons. That is a problem. In the West, only three coaches have a tenure longer than three years. There is an issue with that. It's a cultural problem in the league. So I do take issue with it when talented coaches, or coaches who are doing a good job, lose their job.

Depends on the situation but yeah that is too much.


I understand that sometimes a coach might be winning with a team but not maximizing their performance (Mark Jackson), or might be winning, but doesn't get along with the players (Blatt). But when over half the coaches in the league have been with their team two years OR LESS, there is an issue.

Blatt was an example of both, if not for his assistant coach and star player saving him from his own ineptitude, they wouldn't have been as successful. I dont think its a problem so much as cores not staying together longer. We could say both are problems but the game moves on.

Chronz
05-07-2016, 05:54 PM
I thought he did the best with what he had left on his team... :confused:
He did, and people have noticed. I doubt the guy has been actively lobbying to interview with other teams if they didnt recognize his success. That said, I think hes a middling coach, the only reason the team did so much better with him was due more to his open mindedness with analytics and staff building. When the guy you're replacing is a bad coach, simply going to average is a nice boost.

The reason Hollins got the boot was because he was trying to take credit for everything and blaming people up stairs for failure, despite the opposite actually proving to be true. Neither side is perfect, but between the 2, Hollins was easily the worst.

That said, people have told me that a seemingly bad coach can thrive in a different situation so maybe I shouldn't be so quick to judge, personalities meshing has to matter above all, but Im speaking strictly from the T&T (Tactician/Tactfulness) perspective.

Mike Dumbleavy didn't get his moniker for no reason, dude tried to explain the math and forgot the equation. Its like seeing a grown *** man forgetting how to count change in simple cash transactions. Thats a bad look for ANY team

JasonJohnHorn
05-07-2016, 08:01 PM
Too much spite if true. He must be staying out West or something.


The difference is Joerger hasn't criticized the direction of the team or made outright ignorant statements the way Hollins has (that more PnR and less ISO gave his team less versatility, even though they became a MUCH better team because of the moves, as have others upon ridding themselves of Gay). I wont ignore his failures in Brooklyn, the expectations were minimal and he still ran archaic sets the way he did in Memphis, its similar to why Mitchel wont be brought back in Minny. Just because you have bad talent doesn't give you the excuse to hold it back. Also, Hollins was ridiculously slow to adapt in playoff series. I've literally seen ABSOLUTELY NOTHING from him that makes me believe hes anything but awful. Dont give him credit for establishing the grit and grind when you excuse his other failures due to "talent", that could just as easily be blinding you with his success. Especially when you consider Joerger was actually the guy behind their defensive success. I dont think he should get credit for something any bum could have accomplished, Joerger definitely accomplished more and its why he will move on while Hollins is never heard from again.



Hollins got work right away, he just got a crap gig. Like I said, I'm not arguing that Hollins is a great coach, but I think he is a decent coach, and judging from any measure of team success, you can't argue that they got better after he was fired. There record hasn't been as good, and they haven't gone as deep into the playoffs. Admittedly, post-seasons match ups were kind to them a couple of seasons with injuries, but they saw more success with Hollins than anybody.

As for criticizing the direction of the team, coaches do that all the time. I remember Chuck Daly having a fit in public when the Pistons drafted William Bedford because he didn't think the Pistons needed a center. Sometimes when a guy is traded, and the teammates were close, coaches will say things like that to make sure they have good standing in the locker room. In all honesty, though, I had not heard about Hollins complaining in public about the move, and I think you are right about that. That kind of stuff shouldn't be played out in the press. But that said, he still did well with that roster, and did better with it than that roster has done since.



You forgot to mention matchups, its quite possible a superior team lost in the first round if they simply aligned with another team that was as good, Clips vs Spurs for example, both squads were FAR better than Memphis, so spare me the arbitrary advancement, Id rather have the better team than the luck of the draw in terms of team building so results will never be gauged blindly by win-loss records. I mean, why would I when the year you want to bring up was a result of trades that he opposed? If he would have had it his way, the Grizz would have never won as much. And lets not act like Joerger inherited the same talent, same names? Sure, but the talent was far different as was who they faced come playoffs. Instead of an injured Clips team, an injured Thunder team and then getting SWEPT by the only real team they faced, Joerger faced far greater obstacles and overachieved.

The playoff match-ups is what I was referring to when I mentioned variables. I should have made that clear. Again, though the Griz haven't seen as many wins in the regular season since Hollins left, and though they haven't seen as much success in the post season, I don't think that means Joerger in an inferior coach. I think he's done a fine job; but at the same time, one can't argue that Hollins was holding them back when they won as many games as the ought to have and went as deep in the playoffs as can fairly be expected.


It most certainly did, unless your foolish enough to gauge results blindly.

I don't see how this team improved. They won less games with the same core, even after adding Barnes and Carter and a couple other guys. Whatever direction the front office was taking things in, they didn't make things better; they've stagnated. Hollins, then, may have been right in complaining about the Gay trade. I think there likely weren't a lot of offers on the table, but the could have gotten more in return than Prince.




You went off on a tangent that makes no sense to me. There are FAR more variables that go into production levels than you list here, but its game time (we let the commercials mount) so I wont touch on it now. Point being, they were a better team because the talent declined yet they remained a power and actually played better come playoffs. Just because they didn't advance doesn't mean **** if the other team was injured and missing MVP caliber guys due to injury or unavailability.

If the talent declined, then the vision of the front office wasn't on point. I agree with what you are saying here; who you are playing against factors into your success. But that said, there is something to be said of results. Hollins got more wins in the regular season and in the post season. While the post seasons can be excused with a lucky match-up/injuries, the regular season is a long haul. Joerger has had healthy rosters prior to this season. Th Griz have not seen as many wins since Hollins was in place. Yes, there are other factors, but the bottom line is still the bottom line.



LOL, the TEAM did better because management refused to listen to the old school idiot who had very little to do with the biggest reason the team had any success. Why would I credit the dunce who lacked the foresight and was forced into a gamestyle that he didn't approve of? LMFAO, cmon dude.

Coaches and GMs disagree all the time. He knew how to win with the guys he had, and the guys that were coming in on the trade didn't make a significant improvement to the roster. Obviously, given that the team has remained in decline, the GM isn't doing a very good job (I'm not saying he's doing a bad job as he is simply facing the same problem every GM in a small market must deal with).



Well, when the guy you have as a coach isn't the defensive catalyst and is actively lobbying against your moves (despite them being for the greater good of the team) you're really left with no choice, especially given his playoff blunders with rotations. Even in victory he was slow to adapt, Clips should've never pushed them to 6 for example, given the injuries to Blake.
I don't disagree with anything there. But at the end of the day, he still won the series. And that Clippers team still had the best player on the court, and the best rebounder on the court, and a strong supporting cast.



I dont see how it was questionable, Doug relied on MJ to do everything and didn't approve of the championship proven system that management was trying to install. Doug is a great comparison, both guys are old school and are more of "Ill stand up for my guys and let them isolate as much as they want" types.

I'm not a fan of iso, and I agree, Collins relied on it too much. In fact, that Cavs series, when he went into the press conference and was asked about the last play and he said (and I'm paraphrasing): "I just got the ball to Michael and let him do whatever he wanted." I think that was the reason for firing him. He should have swept that series.

But that said, that team improved every year under Collins. They got deeper in the playoffs. And the following year, they didn't get any deeper. Even with Phil, they still lost to the same team in the same round. One might argue it wasn't until Pippen and Grant had developed and they got supporting players like BJ that they were good enough to win.

As for the firing being questionable: yes, it was. It was the right move in hindsight: I won't argue that. But a lot of people were perturbed by the fact that this team had improved each year and yet the coach was fired. And let's not pretend that he was fired for the right reason. Jerry Krause fired him because he had an ego and didn't want a coach getting credit. keep in mind, Krause told Phil Jackson going into his final year that even if he went 82-0 and 16-0 in the playoffs, he was out of a job the next year. That was strictly ego. And it was the same with Collins. That's why Krause brought in an assistant with no experience instead of a coach with a reputation and resume; because he didn't want somebody stealing his credit (that didn't work out). And Collins questioned the move that saw Oakley traded because Jordan and Oakley were best friends, and Collins knew who was his bread and butter: Jordan. That is how coaches keep players on their side, which is important because it is a player's league.



I dont agree with your opinion, Daly was the architect of his eras best defensive philosophy against the leagues best player, he was FAR more influential in his teams success than a dunce like Hollins.

I wouldn't argue otherwise. My point is that today, if coaches don't get results, they get fired, and if Daly was held to the same standard, he'd have been out of a job before the Pistons won. That is all. Daly is one of the all-time great coaches in my mind. Far superior than Hollins.


Sloan got basically ANY player to run the flex and his teams had a tendency to hustle. As opposed to Hollins, who enabled Gay's lax transition defense to allow the greatest comeback in playoff history as he lost to an injured Clips team despite having HCA for the series. Dude was a straight up joke that series, any halfway competent coach finishes us off in 5, 6 at the max. He was given more talent than he knew what to do with, just because the talent declined doesn't mean the next coach didn't do a better job, especially given all we know about the situation with management. Dude doesn't understand the game.

I don't disagree with this. But my only question to you is: Do you think the Grizzlie could have, in any given season, gotten further than they did with a different coach? Sure... the might have lost in more games, or won in fewer, but do you think any coach could have gotten them further? I just don't think they were that talented a team.





Blatt was an example of both, if not for his assistant coach and star player saving him from his own ineptitude, they wouldn't have been as successful. I dont think its a problem so much as cores not staying together longer. We could say both are problems but the game moves on.


Blatt is one of the firings I was ok with. I thought he was a bad hiring to start with. I think Lue is a bad hiring as well. I think Thibs would have been better, but I get the impression LBJ wants to be the authority and that no coach worth his salt is going to give James as much control as he wants.

Thanks for your thoughts. Always enjoy reading them. Well... almost always ;-)

Saddletramp
05-07-2016, 09:52 PM
Joerger is great and all but Jesus Christ, guys. You're not getting paid per word.