He has no coaching experience and is jumping into the furnace in a city he is not familiar with. Triangle? The Answer Man don't care about no steenkin' triangle. We need a coach who can step in, manage a transition season (2014), direct a season of dramatic turnover (2015) and LEAD a season that everyone expects a deep playoff run (2016).
Please state a persuasive case for him so I can feel better.
We should bring Michael Woodson back
misterearl wrote:He has no coaching experience and is jumping into the furnace in a city he is not familiar with. Triangle? The Answer Man don't care about no steenkin' triangle. We need a coach who can step in, manage a transition season (2014), direct a season of dramatic turnover (2015) and LEAD a season that everyone expects a deep playoff run (2016).Please state a persuasive case for him so I can feel better.
Ditto...
This team needs a leader of men...
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/20344...
Next question..Is Phil doing his due diligence of analysis or is he just hooking up his boys?? or people who he is familiar with???
you had no problem advocating mark jackson for coach way back when and he had no experience. what's the difference.
Yea what's the difference?
nyk4ever wrote:you had no problem advocating mark jackson for coach way back when and he had no experience. what's the difference.
Well the idea was to start anew and rebuild..The way I saw it was Mark would have gotten two years under his wing before the free agent signings..That would have given him time to get his legs under him..I have since change my tune on Mark Jackson..He isn't an X and O's man..He is motivational only..I thought he would be both...
Listen, I like the Phil hire, and I want him to succeed..But it doesn't mean I won't question his moves..I'm also hearing Derrick Fisher is/was being courted...He doesn't want to coach, he wants a front office job...He might be our next GM...So ,tell me; Odom, Kerr, Fisher, Gasol, am I the only one with questions??
holfresh wrote:nyk4ever wrote:you had no problem advocating mark jackson for coach way back when and he had no experience. what's the difference.
Well the idea was to start anew and rebuild..The way I saw it was Mark would have gotten two years under his wing before the free agent signings..That would have given him time to get his legs under him..I have since change my tune on Mark Jackson..He isn't an X and O's man..He is motivational only..I thought he would be both...
d'antoni came here with full knowledge that we would be doing roster flush for two entire seasons. the idea was that 2010-2011 that building a winner would begin in earnest once we got rid of the bloated contracts that walsh inherited from your pal.
tell me something-- and i would have been in favor of his hire over d'antoni's who had a proven track record-- would you have been trashing jackson for those two years as well?
holfresh wrote:Listen, I like the Phil hire, and I want him to succeed..But it doesn't mean I won't question his moves..I'm also hearing Derrick Fisher is/was being courted...He doesn't want to coach, he wants a front office job...He might be our next GM...So ,tell me; Odom, Kerr, Fisher, Gasol, am I the only one with questions??
Nothing wrong with nepotism if he wants a non backstabbing inner circle.
If I wanted to fill new positions in my company, the first thing I would do is reach out to people that I have successfully worked with before.
dk7th wrote:holfresh wrote:nyk4ever wrote:you had no problem advocating mark jackson for coach way back when and he had no experience. what's the difference.
Well the idea was to start anew and rebuild..The way I saw it was Mark would have gotten two years under his wing before the free agent signings..That would have given him time to get his legs under him..I have since change my tune on Mark Jackson..He isn't an X and O's man..He is motivational only..I thought he would be both...
d'antoni came here with full knowledge that we would be doing roster flush for two entire seasons. the idea was that 2010-2011 that building a winner would begin in earnest once we got rid of the bloated contracts that walsh inherited from your pal.
tell me something-- and i would have been in favor of his hire over d'antoni's who had a proven track record-- would you have been trashing jackson for those two years as well?
From day one, I never thought MDA was the type of coach that would have success in NY...I thought the Knicks had a defensive team oriented fan base...MDA never coached defense...MDA was a starphuck name to grab attention..If we were truly going after LeBron and and got him...Knowing what you know about MDA, he doesn't do anything outside his system and he had his type of players..How do u justify a PG having the ball more than LeBron running a pick and roll offense??...
holfresh wrote:dk7th wrote:holfresh wrote:nyk4ever wrote:you had no problem advocating mark jackson for coach way back when and he had no experience. what's the difference.
Well the idea was to start anew and rebuild..The way I saw it was Mark would have gotten two years under his wing before the free agent signings..That would have given him time to get his legs under him..I have since change my tune on Mark Jackson..He isn't an X and O's man..He is motivational only..I thought he would be both...
d'antoni came here with full knowledge that we would be doing roster flush for two entire seasons. the idea was that 2010-2011 that building a winner would begin in earnest once we got rid of the bloated contracts that walsh inherited from your pal.
tell me something-- and i would have been in favor of his hire over d'antoni's who had a proven track record-- would you have been trashing jackson for those two years as well?
From day one, I never thought MDA was the type of coach that would have success in NY...I thought the Knicks had a defensive team oriented fan base...MDA never coached defense...MDA was a starphuck name to grab attention..If we were truly going after LeBron and and got him...Knowing what you know about MDA, he doesn't do anything outside his system and he had his type of players..How do u justify a PG having the ball more than LeBron running a pick and roll offense??...
okay so why do you wait this long to start making sense?
as to your last question, this is where you wipeout on the diamond slope, and here's why: lebron can play any position and run any offense-- he's just that good. the notion was to have lebron run the point.
now before you start throwing up your hands in disgust or laughing derisively, clearly lebron is not steve nash or vice versa-- but both have proven to be offensive geniuses.
conclusion: i would have had NO issue with lebron running the offense-- as a point guard-- and please note the word "as"... not "from" as in "from the point guard position."
Phil will be the guiding light for whoever the coach is. Like Riley with spoeltra. It really doesn't matter who the coach is as long as both are on the same page.
What you guys want is two different philosophies which will never work
He's been following the league very closely, knows the strengths and weaknesses of tons of players through your the league from broadcasting. He also does the commentating for 2k and it would be sick to have the guy talking during my games to be the coach of the Knicks
.
misterearl wrote:He has no coaching experience and is jumping into the furnace in a city he is not familiar with. Triangle? The Answer Man don't care about no steenkin' triangle. We need a coach who can step in, manage a transition season (2014), direct a season of dramatic turnover (2015) and LEAD a season that everyone expects a deep playoff run (2016).Please state a persuasive case for him so I can feel better.
Well the Terry Stotts, Mark Jackson, Steve Clifford, Mike Budenholzer, Jason Kidd, David Joerger
All in 1st year got their teams in NBA playoffs with nil/zip/0 NBA or pro head coach expertise.
New NBA has coaches whom going to sink OR swim to success,
Thus Steve Kerry is a bright guy & like Phil J., Kerr aint taking the job to fail OR get a paycheck
Kerr if took job his premise is he will SUCCEED.
That is what I would think
gunsnewing wrote:We should bring Michael Woodson back
Woodson Tone' Loc would agree sadly with that
holfresh wrote:nyk4ever wrote:you had no problem advocating mark jackson for coach way back when and he had no experience. what's the difference.
Well the idea was to start anew and rebuild..The way I saw it was Mark would have gotten two years under his wing before the free agent signings..That would have given him time to get his legs under him..I have since change my tune on Mark Jackson..He isn't an X and O's man..He is motivational only..I thought he would be both...
my bad holfresh, i was honestly directing that at earl.
i agree with your post though, especially jax. i am surprised he's come under so much scrutiny out in GS though. the players love playing for him though, so that means something. some weird stuff going on there though for sure.
i am for kerr, but i could care less who it is, as long as philjax gets what he wants and puts a plan im all for it.
dk7th wrote:holfresh wrote:dk7th wrote:holfresh wrote:nyk4ever wrote:you had no problem advocating mark jackson for coach way back when and he had no experience. what's the difference.
Well the idea was to start anew and rebuild..The way I saw it was Mark would have gotten two years under his wing before the free agent signings..That would have given him time to get his legs under him..I have since change my tune on Mark Jackson..He isn't an X and O's man..He is motivational only..I thought he would be both...
d'antoni came here with full knowledge that we would be doing roster flush for two entire seasons. the idea was that 2010-2011 that building a winner would begin in earnest once we got rid of the bloated contracts that walsh inherited from your pal.
tell me something-- and i would have been in favor of his hire over d'antoni's who had a proven track record-- would you have been trashing jackson for those two years as well?
From day one, I never thought MDA was the type of coach that would have success in NY...I thought the Knicks had a defensive team oriented fan base...MDA never coached defense...MDA was a starphuck name to grab attention..If we were truly going after LeBron and and got him...Knowing what you know about MDA, he doesn't do anything outside his system and he had his type of players..How do u justify a PG having the ball more than LeBron running a pick and roll offense??...
okay so why do you wait this long to start making sense?
as to your last question, this is where you wipeout on the diamond slope, and here's why: lebron can play any position and run any offense-- he's just that good. the notion was to have lebron run the point.
now before you start throwing up your hands in disgust or laughing derisively, clearly lebron is not steve nash or vice versa-- but both have proven to be offensive geniuses.
conclusion: i would have had NO issue with lebron running the offense-- as a point guard-- and please note the word "as"... not "from" as in "from the point guard position."
I think it would be a travesty to try to fit a talent like LeBron into simply a pick and roll offense...Imagine Michael Jordan running a pick a roll every time down court...Also, u run he risk of running the point or whoever is running the point into the ground...Over a 82 game season, it will wear a player out...
I don't want to run this thread into another topic...
None of the guys Phil is looking at have experience and it's a concern...
The whole experience thing is a bit overrated. You either have the talent to lead men or you don't. What did all those years of experience do or Woodson? He still made mistakes that a rookie High School coach would make. Some people are just High BB IQ and understand people. Those are things that can make for a successful Coach despite a lack of experience. Talent has many forms. Some people have physical talent and others have mental talent. I'll leave it up to Phil to decide who has the right mental make up to coach this team day to day.
Also Phil is going to be instrumental in making sure the staff is stocked with knowledgeable assistants. This will still be very much a Phil Jackson styled team even if he's not on the bench. Most GM's or Presidents don't have that kind of experience to offer their coach. They can't offer any insight in how to be a multiple championship coach as Phil does. Plus Kerr already believes in and understands Phil's way of doing things. I love how there's so much doubt about something that hasn't happened yet, but even more so that some think they understand better than Phil what it takes to be a successful head coach.
As a parent I know that I knew the strengths and weaknesses of each of my children and i'm sure that Phil knows which of his players showed the most acumen to be a good head coach. Whoever he picks will fully represent him and I doubt he'll take that decision lightly. Phil doesn't do losing. He takes his time with EVERYTHING he does and usually only takes on situations where he sees a way he can win. Phil is also a grinder, which he doesn't get credit for. People think he's some beach bum but forget that he toiled in the CBA for 3 years honing his skills before becoming an assistant for Collins in 1987. I trust that Phil will look at every angle before making any decision. Unlike previous Knicks GM's or Presidents, Phil can explain to you his approach to every aspect of the game. That's not someone who is just gonna wing it or sign a friend just cuz he's a friend.
When in life has Steve Kerr ever stuck you as a leader of men??..Every interview I have heard with Steve Kerr about the great players he played with, he was always awe struck by their motivation and drive..And if it you think experience isn't important, why is it instrumental for Phil to have knowledgable(experienced) assistants around him??
