Knicks · Steve Kerr, really? (page 5)

misterearl wrote:holfresh - to your point(s), Phil Jackson's talent was not his system, it was Michael Jordan improvisation of impossible shots and Kobe and Shaq on speaking terms.

The prime responsibility of Phil as roster builder is more important than his role as the triangle strategy police.

How about the year that Phil almost won it all without Jordan? Speaks volumes for his "system"

At the NBA level most teams are actually a lot closer in talent than it seems. The thing that separates teams is the quality of the franchise from top to bottom. Do they have a culture that breeds winning BB? Phil wants to create an environment like he had everywhere else in his career. Winning environments regardless of the talent level. We all know it takes talent to win, but you also need a winning culture so that when you plug in new players they come into a situation that is fertile and nurturing. They know how they're expected to perform.

We've had talent before, but over the last decade we haven't had a real winning culture like the best teams in the league have. For once it would be great to be respected as a well run franchise like the Spurs. Phil is trying to build that here. So if he hires Kerr I would expect that he feels Kerr understands all of the things Phil demands of his teams and will fit into that team philosophy. We need real BB minds to take charge of this franchise.

Mission Impossible

At the NBA level most teams are actually a lot closer in talent than it seems.

It seems that you either make the playoffs, or you don't. If that is the divide, then all playoff teams are created equal. You are lottery? Then you suck.

nixluva - I respect your passion, but rather than using vapid Fox News generalities, employing words like "most" or "some", why not clear the air and get more precise?

The Knicks corporate culture has engendered a top-heavy management style where the financial suits in charge dominate the sports related decision making. That dates back to the days of Gulf and Western. That approach has created a business model of immediate return instead of long range plan. Unlike the celtics fast break or the San Antonio "share the ball" mentality, the Knicks went for name recognition to sell seats on Broadway. We were just another dramatic production, with rumors fed by the press.

The hiring if Phil Jackson is an opportunity for the suits (the Dolan family and Cablevision) to take a back seat to one person who is entrusted to finally bring a vision and the authority to implement it.

The earth has shifted in its orbit and dogs are sleeping with cats.

Uncle Phil has the keys to the car, the garage remote and the executive rest room. That is all. For him to install a winning culture he has to win. Period. If he does not win, the hire of any coach is insignificant.

Which brings us to Steve Kerr. His job, should he decide to accept it, is to work with a roster that has yet to be defined, change the mindset of every holdover, and convince the yutes that wearing the orange and blue is a good thing. He must make the playoffs in year one, or the Knicks still suck. No culture change.

Year two, he must persuade the shiny free agents that simply making the playoffs is not enough, to exceed the expectations of the holdovers who may have made the playoffs the previous season and take the next step towards respect with a playoffs series win, or two. Anything less is failure. No winning culture.

Year three, championship ring.

Piece of cake.

Jordan sucked before phil jax he dropped buckets but couldnt win in a peanut race

"Steve kerr, Really?"

You want George Karl? JErry Sloan? Another retread?

Phil will go with Fish, Rambis or Kerr from what I can see.

IronWillGiroud wrote:Jordan sucked before phil jax he dropped buckets but couldnt win in a peanut race

Jordan sucked, Melo sucks, Chandler sucks....You really need to take a long break from the board. You add nothing....

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I think Kerr will be an awful coach- he just doesn't seem to have charisma, leadership, intelligence or experience. I've never liked him in any of his roles.

Phil said Mj made a mistake with the bobcats in just hiring people who agreed with him- hope he's not making the same mistake.

He had enough intelligence and foresight to give MDA an ultimatum (hire a defensive coach or get fired) while everyone else was holding MDA up on a pedestal. What are you basing your assessment of Kerr on?

Is that really groundbreaking stuff though??..To understand you aren't winning rings without defense??

Groundbreaking? No! But the fact that he made an actual BB decision from the seat of a GM gives him more merit and a better resume than MJax when he was hired.....Not to mention the 5 rings....

I think most agree that Mark Jackson was destined for coaching...Kerr coaching is a surprise to most...

I think Jordan and Duncan are wining those rings Kerr or no Kerr..

Care to elaborate on the bolded? Is it because MJax was a pg? Kerr looks like a choir boy so he doesn't have the look?

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I think Kerr will be an awful coach- he just doesn't seem to have charisma, leadership, intelligence or experience. I've never liked him in any of his roles.

Phil said Mj made a mistake with the bobcats in just hiring people who agreed with him- hope he's not making the same mistake.

He had enough intelligence and foresight to give MDA an ultimatum (hire a defensive coach or get fired) while everyone else was holding MDA up on a pedestal. What are you basing your assessment of Kerr on?

Is that really groundbreaking stuff though??..To understand you aren't winning rings without defense??

Groundbreaking? No! But the fact that he made an actual BB decision from the seat of a GM gives him more merit and a better resume than MJax when he was hired.....Not to mention the 5 rings....

I think most agree that Mark Jackson was destined for coaching...Kerr coaching is a surprise to most...

I think Jordan and Duncan are wining those rings Kerr or no Kerr..

Care to elaborate on the bolded? Is it because MJax was a pg? Kerr looks like a choir boy so he doesn't have the look?

No, everyone talked about Mark Jackson becoming a coach while he was playing..Everyone said that he had the makeup and qualities of a good coach..People said the same things about Kidd..No one said this about Kerr..Kerr seem like a quiet dude who said very little..He wasn't a big orchestrator of any offense on any team he played for..His role was well defined, a spot up shooter..Jackson was deemed to be a coach on the floor at times, like Kidd..

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I think Kerr will be an awful coach- he just doesn't seem to have charisma, leadership, intelligence or experience. I've never liked him in any of his roles.

Phil said Mj made a mistake with the bobcats in just hiring people who agreed with him- hope he's not making the same mistake.

He had enough intelligence and foresight to give MDA an ultimatum (hire a defensive coach or get fired) while everyone else was holding MDA up on a pedestal. What are you basing your assessment of Kerr on?

Is that really groundbreaking stuff though??..To understand you aren't winning rings without defense??

Groundbreaking? No! But the fact that he made an actual BB decision from the seat of a GM gives him more merit and a better resume than MJax when he was hired.....Not to mention the 5 rings....

I think most agree that Mark Jackson was destined for coaching...Kerr coaching is a surprise to most...

I think Jordan and Duncan are wining those rings Kerr or no Kerr..

Care to elaborate on the bolded? Is it because MJax was a pg? Kerr looks like a choir boy so he doesn't have the look?

No, everyone talked about Mark Jackson becoming a coach while he was playing..Everyone said that he had the makeup and qualities of a good coach..People said the same things about Kidd..No one said this about Kerr..Kerr seem like a quiet dude who said very little..He wasn't a big orchestrator of any offense on any team he played for..His role was well defined, a spot up shooter..Jackson was deemed to be a coach on the floor at times, like Kidd..

a lot of players that Kerr was teammates with have expressed super high bball IQ with regards to Steve. We shall see how it pans out.

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I think Kerr will be an awful coach- he just doesn't seem to have charisma, leadership, intelligence or experience. I've never liked him in any of his roles.

Phil said Mj made a mistake with the bobcats in just hiring people who agreed with him- hope he's not making the same mistake.

He had enough intelligence and foresight to give MDA an ultimatum (hire a defensive coach or get fired) while everyone else was holding MDA up on a pedestal. What are you basing your assessment of Kerr on?

Is that really groundbreaking stuff though??..To understand you aren't winning rings without defense??

Groundbreaking? No! But the fact that he made an actual BB decision from the seat of a GM gives him more merit and a better resume than MJax when he was hired.....Not to mention the 5 rings....

I think most agree that Mark Jackson was destined for coaching...Kerr coaching is a surprise to most...

I think Jordan and Duncan are wining those rings Kerr or no Kerr..

Care to elaborate on the bolded? Is it because MJax was a pg? Kerr looks like a choir boy so he doesn't have the look?

No, everyone talked about Mark Jackson becoming a coach while he was playing..Everyone said that he had the makeup and qualities of a good coach..People said the same things about Kidd..No one said this about Kerr..Kerr seem like a quiet dude who said very little..He wasn't a big orchestrator of any offense on any team he played for..His role was well defined, a spot up shooter..Jackson was deemed to be a coach on the floor at times, like Kidd..

People that talk don't necessarily know.

Would you have thought that Jeff Hornacek would be this type?

Mike Woodson, really?

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I think Kerr will be an awful coach- he just doesn't seem to have charisma, leadership, intelligence or experience. I've never liked him in any of his roles.

Phil said Mj made a mistake with the bobcats in just hiring people who agreed with him- hope he's not making the same mistake.

He had enough intelligence and foresight to give MDA an ultimatum (hire a defensive coach or get fired) while everyone else was holding MDA up on a pedestal. What are you basing your assessment of Kerr on?

Is that really groundbreaking stuff though??..To understand you aren't winning rings without defense??

Groundbreaking? No! But the fact that he made an actual BB decision from the seat of a GM gives him more merit and a better resume than MJax when he was hired.....Not to mention the 5 rings....

I think most agree that Mark Jackson was destined for coaching...Kerr coaching is a surprise to most...

I think Jordan and Duncan are wining those rings Kerr or no Kerr..

Care to elaborate on the bolded? Is it because MJax was a pg? Kerr looks like a choir boy so he doesn't have the look?

No, everyone talked about Mark Jackson becoming a coach while he was playing..Everyone said that he had the makeup and qualities of a good coach..People said the same things about Kidd..No one said this about Kerr..Kerr seem like a quiet dude who said very little..He wasn't a big orchestrator of any offense on any team he played for..His role was well defined, a spot up shooter..Jackson was deemed to be a coach on the floor at times, like Kidd..

People that talk don't necessarily know.

Would you have thought that Jeff Hornacek would be this type?

Hornacek hasn't won anything yet, Kidd hasn't won anything yet...

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Uptown wrote:

smackeddog wrote:I think Kerr will be an awful coach- he just doesn't seem to have charisma, leadership, intelligence or experience. I've never liked him in any of his roles.

Phil said Mj made a mistake with the bobcats in just hiring people who agreed with him- hope he's not making the same mistake.

He had enough intelligence and foresight to give MDA an ultimatum (hire a defensive coach or get fired) while everyone else was holding MDA up on a pedestal. What are you basing your assessment of Kerr on?

Is that really groundbreaking stuff though??..To understand you aren't winning rings without defense??

Groundbreaking? No! But the fact that he made an actual BB decision from the seat of a GM gives him more merit and a better resume than MJax when he was hired.....Not to mention the 5 rings....

I think most agree that Mark Jackson was destined for coaching...Kerr coaching is a surprise to most...

I think Jordan and Duncan are wining those rings Kerr or no Kerr..

Care to elaborate on the bolded? Is it because MJax was a pg? Kerr looks like a choir boy so he doesn't have the look?

No, everyone talked about Mark Jackson becoming a coach while he was playing..Everyone said that he had the makeup and qualities of a good coach..People said the same things about Kidd..No one said this about Kerr..Kerr seem like a quiet dude who said very little..He wasn't a big orchestrator of any offense on any team he played for..His role was well defined, a spot up shooter..Jackson was deemed to be a coach on the floor at times, like Kidd..

People that talk don't necessarily know.

Would you have thought that Jeff Hornacek would be this type?

Hornacek hasn't won anything yet, Kidd hasn't won anything yet...

Kidd and Hornacek sure look like very smart hires, don't they? Why is it so hard to give them credit?

How about Steve Clifford who has a great shot at COY?

Tune into the wizards-bulls game if you want to hear the commentary of the future coach of the Knicks next season.

Dagger wrote:Tune into the wizards-bulls game if you want to hear the commentary of the future coach of the Knicks next season.

he's definitely auditioning.

Dagger wrote:Tune into the wizards-bulls game if you want to hear the commentary of the future coach of the Knicks next season.

your impressions? he sounds persuasive.

Once a Knick. Always a Knick

tj23 wrote:Mike Woodson, really?

Many believe Jackson will want to install a head coach familiar with the Triangle offense that was a staple of all of his championship teams, and Cleamons knows it as well as anyone. Whether in a head coaching role or as an assistant, he may be the active coach most qualified to teach it.

But even if the offense isn’t a consideration, the relationship is. For Jackson to put his stamp on the Knicks, he’ll need to have a coach in place he can trust to give him honest feedback about what’s truly going on with the team’s players — making the choice to add Cleamons in some capacity perhaps too easy to pass up. - Brett Poliakoff

What rumor writer gave Steve Kerr the edge over Jim Cleamons?

Once a Knick. Always a Knick

tj23 wrote:Mike Woodson, really?

Cleamons, the former Knicks starting point guard, and Jackson were teammates in New York in the late 1970’s. From there, Cleamons became Jackson’s right-hand man on the bench for nine of the Zen Master’s 11 coaching titles — four with the Bulls and all five with the Lakers.

Why does Steve Kerr get the edge over Jim Cleamons?

misterearl wrote:Once a Knick. Always a Knick

tj23 wrote:Mike Woodson, really?

Cleamons, the former Knicks starting point guard, and Jackson were teammates in New York in the late 1970’s. From there, Cleamons became Jackson’s right-hand man on the bench for nine of the Zen Master’s 11 coaching titles — four with the Bulls and all five with the Lakers.

Why does Steve Kerr get the edge over Jim Cleamons?

It's in the opinion of Phil Jackson who he thinks would make a better Head Coach. Phil knows all of his players and assistants better than anyone. If he feels Kerr would be better then that's who he'll go with. Cleamons can help as a top assistant and that might be his best attribute. We can't know that but Phil does and that's all that matters.

misterearl wrote:Once a Knick. Always a Knick

tj23 wrote:Mike Woodson, really?

Cleamons, the former Knicks starting point guard, and Jackson were teammates in New York in the late 1970’s. From there, Cleamons became Jackson’s right-hand man on the bench for nine of the Zen Master’s 11 coaching titles — four with the Bulls and all five with the Lakers.

Why does Steve Kerr get the edge over Jim Cleamons?

Clemons would be a retread. He already failed in Denver. He will never garner the proper respect from the players whereas. I think hiring Cleamons as lead assistant is a great idea. Kerr will really benefit from a staff consisting of Phil's guys

Uptown wrote:

IronWillGiroud wrote:Jordan sucked before phil jax he dropped buckets but couldnt win in a peanut race

Jordan sucked, Melo sucks, Chandler sucks....You really need to take a long break from the board. You add nothing....

How many playoffs series does Jordan win before Phil?