Knicks · Hire Mark Jackson (page 4)
misterearl wrote:Plain and Simplesure there is... synergy with the GM. Every head coach in the NBA and assistant for that matter has a great basketball mind or something to bring to the table. Those jobs arent a dime a dozen. The most important thing is the relationship with the GM. That even trumps the relationship with the players. If Kerr makes mistakes its fine if he's following the plan. If MJ makes mistakes and its his plan that fails and not Phils well poof... we have problems.franco12 - there is not a single item, in any coaching criteria, that Steve Kerr holds an advantage over Mark Jackson.
The Answer Man double dog dares anyone to list one, and back it with facts.
Personally my #1 reason for really wanting Phil here is he's Phil's #1 choice. I dont want any backup plans. Amare and MElo were a backup plan. That hasnt paid many dividends.
dk7th wrote:jrodmc wrote:dk7th wrote:the knicks can't afford to hire a homophobe to coach in NYC. it's never going to happen.Really? We could afford the IT and Marbles debacle because they just do interns and Marketing execs? But a homophobe is going to cost too much in NYC?
Stick to Melohate. You're more readable.
we could "afford" the IT and turdbury debacle?!? say what?!? has the phrase "PR nightmare" resonated with you? mark jackson is UNHIRE-ABLE in the most socially-progressive city in the USA.
you can't be that obtuse and socially inept, yet....
Welcome to UltimateKnicks.com. As a newbie to the site, you must not have read how sensitive our management is to "PR nightmares", especially since our troll owner seems to thrive on them. Or maybe you'd just like to read over all the "IT's Back!" threads in the past years since the debacle?
Cali is the country's center of social conservativism, and that's why a Christian sociopath who doesn't embrace homosexuality is HIRE-ABLE there, is that your laser-focused, socially astute point here? Go read a book. Soon. Explain H2O on the Knick payroll then, genius.
Tell me more about Melo's level of obliviousness.
jrodmc wrote:dk7th wrote:jrodmc wrote:dk7th wrote:the knicks can't afford to hire a homophobe to coach in NYC. it's never going to happen.Really? We could afford the IT and Marbles debacle because they just do interns and Marketing execs? But a homophobe is going to cost too much in NYC?
Stick to Melohate. You're more readable.
we could "afford" the IT and turdbury debacle?!? say what?!? has the phrase "PR nightmare" resonated with you? mark jackson is UNHIRE-ABLE in the most socially-progressive city in the USA.
you can't be that obtuse and socially inept, yet....
Welcome to UltimateKnicks.com. As a newbie to the site, you must not have read how sensitive our management is to "PR nightmares", especially since our troll owner seems to thrive on them. Or maybe you'd just like to read over all the "IT's Back!" threads in the past years since the debacle?
Cali is the country's center of social conservativism, and that's why a Christian sociopath who doesn't embrace homosexuality is HIRE-ABLE there, is that your laser-focused, socially astute point here? Go read a book. Soon. Explain H2O on the Knick payroll then, genius.
Tell me more about Melo's level of obliviousness.
houston is part of dolan's detritus. he will be marginalized. only way mark jackson becomes part of the knicks is dolan doing the wrong thing again.
you are in hell but it is of your own creation and insistence.
misterearl wrote:Plain and Simplefranco12 - there is not a single item, in any coaching criteria, that Steve Kerr holds an advantage over Mark Jackson.
The Answer Man double dog dares anyone to list one, and back it with facts.
No, its not plain and simple at all.
Your question is loaded. Nobody could ever list a coaching criteria that Kerr holds an advantage in because DUM DUM DUM! Hes never coached!
Once Kerr has coached a couple years then this question would begin to make sense and a comparison could be made. Thus it makes no sense to compare the two candidates in this manner.
Mark Jackson was hired with zero coaching experience once.
H1AND1 wrote:misterearl wrote:Plain and Simplefranco12 - there is not a single item, in any coaching criteria, that Steve Kerr holds an advantage over Mark Jackson.
The Answer Man double dog dares anyone to list one, and back it with facts.
No, its not plain and simple at all.
Your question is loaded. Nobody could ever list a coaching criteria that Kerr holds an advantage in because DUM DUM DUM! Hes never coached!
Once Kerr has coached a couple years then this question would begin to make sense and a comparison could be made. Thus it makes no sense to compare the two candidates in this manner.
Mark Jackson was hired with zero coaching experience once.
i said this earlier in the thread. all earl did was talk about how great of a coach jax would be before he ever coached a game in his life. now all the sudden kerr is coming out of the announce booth and it's a detriment that he has no coaching experience. earl has an agenda and it's likely what nalod said earlier in the thread.. probably has to do with what part of queens jax is from.
dk7th wrote:i thinks it's strange that a point guard is not an x's and o's guy. it's like a former catcher who doesn't know how to manage a team.
Agreed...I'm assuming that because of what I have seen on TV and what others have stated...But all that said, If Curry is the go to guy and he is the point then how many different X's and O's u need for that??..
nyk4ever wrote:H1AND1 wrote:misterearl wrote:Plain and Simplefranco12 - there is not a single item, in any coaching criteria, that Steve Kerr holds an advantage over Mark Jackson.
The Answer Man double dog dares anyone to list one, and back it with facts.
No, its not plain and simple at all.
Your question is loaded. Nobody could ever list a coaching criteria that Kerr holds an advantage in because DUM DUM DUM! Hes never coached!
Once Kerr has coached a couple years then this question would begin to make sense and a comparison could be made. Thus it makes no sense to compare the two candidates in this manner.
Mark Jackson was hired with zero coaching experience once.
i said this earlier in the thread. all earl did was talk about how great of a coach jax would be before he ever coached a game in his life. now all the sudden kerr is coming out of the announce booth and it's a detriment that he has no coaching experience. earl has an agenda and it's likely what nalod said earlier in the thread.. probably has to do with what part of queens jax is from.
It's different...I too wanted Jackson back in 2008..My reasoning was that although a new guy, he would have 2 years under his wing before going after LeBron..At that point if he didn't pan out you can make a decision to bring in a more seasoned coach...But with Kerr as the new head coach and Melo in his prime, there is little room for error...Next year hopefully we add another piece to help make us compete..Not too much room for error if Kerr doesn't do well...There is a lot riding on this...The only thing that can salvage a bad coaching job by Kerr, if we do get the pieces in place, is if Phil himself steps into that role...
in other words, we are grooming a rookie coach with a vet squad that has a narrow window for success..How long does it take him to get up to speed as a coach??
holfresh wrote:nyk4ever wrote:H1AND1 wrote:misterearl wrote:Plain and Simplefranco12 - there is not a single item, in any coaching criteria, that Steve Kerr holds an advantage over Mark Jackson.
The Answer Man double dog dares anyone to list one, and back it with facts.
No, its not plain and simple at all.
Your question is loaded. Nobody could ever list a coaching criteria that Kerr holds an advantage in because DUM DUM DUM! Hes never coached!
Once Kerr has coached a couple years then this question would begin to make sense and a comparison could be made. Thus it makes no sense to compare the two candidates in this manner.
Mark Jackson was hired with zero coaching experience once.
i said this earlier in the thread. all earl did was talk about how great of a coach jax would be before he ever coached a game in his life. now all the sudden kerr is coming out of the announce booth and it's a detriment that he has no coaching experience. earl has an agenda and it's likely what nalod said earlier in the thread.. probably has to do with what part of queens jax is from.
It's different...I too wanted Jackson back in 2008..My reasoning was that although a new guy, he would have 2 years under his wing before going after LeBron..At that point if he didn't pan out you can make a decision to bring in a more seasoned coach...But with Kerr as the new head coach and Melo in his prime, there is little room for error...Next year hopefully we add another piece to help make us compete..Not too much room for error if Kerr doesn't do well...There is a lot riding on this...The only thing that can salvage a bad coaching job by Kerr, if we do get the pieces in place, is if Phil himself steps into that role...
don't disagree with ya holfresh. the thing is, we all know phil wants a triangle coach, so what's the point of even hoping for other guys? phil is going to be pulling the strings from above and isn't going to hire a coach that clashes with his idealogy. even though kerr will be a neophyte (thanks clyde) he'll have a great mentor watching his every move and likely in practice with him. i have no idea what kind of coach kerr will be, but i think if phil is this interested in him, then we have to anticipate he must have a pretty good idea on coaching strategy.
Coaches are also marketing pieces.
AAAAAAnd...........The wrong combo of GM and coach won't work. Ask Larry Brown and Isiah. It was a stupid hire. Owner, President, GM and coach have to be on board.
Uptown wrote:Over the last decade and a half, The Knicks have been the poster child for front-office and head coaching turmoil. I still shake my head when I think about Chaney being escorted out the garden by the police....The hiring of Phil Jackson is supposed to be a sign that the Knicks finally get it. That we are finally on the right path and things are about to take a turn for the best. If recent reports about MJax are true, hiring him will be a signal that things around hasn't changed much at all...
+1
Thats why this has zero chance of happening and its surprising that there are people clamoring for this.
Nalod wrote:Kerr hired and fired two coach's in PHX. He made mistakes. He had to evaluate them as well. The experience becomes tangible.Coaches are also marketing pieces.
AAAAAAnd...........The wrong combo of GM and coach won't work. Ask Larry Brown and Isiah. It was a stupid hire. Owner, President, GM and coach have to be on board.
which 2 coaches are you talking about, I thought MDA resign, and wasn't he there before kerr?
Uptown wrote:Over the last decade and a half, The Knicks have been the poster child for front-office and head coaching turmoil. I still shake my head when I think about Chaney being escorted out the garden by the police....The hiring of Phil Jackson is supposed to be a sign that the Knicks finally get it. That we are finally on the right path and things are about to take a turn for the best. If recent reports about MJax are true, hiring him will be a signal that things around hasn't changed much at all...
Not to be an advocate to hire Jackson but how does his hiring mean there will be turmoil in the front office or if Doc Rivers become available then he isn't an option either??..It's Kerr or no one else???..Well I hope we get him....
Phils wants someone that he can control and mold. Jax could not control Doc and it would probably lead to turmoil, especially if they did not win.
D Fisher would be a high candidate.
holfresh wrote:dk7th wrote:i thinks it's strange that a point guard is not an x's and o's guy. it's like a former catcher who doesn't know how to manage a team.Agreed...I'm assuming that because of what I have seen on TV and what others have stated...But all that said, If Curry is the go to guy and he is the point then how many different X's and O's u need for that??..
Larry Bird wasn't much of an X's and O's guy when he started, Jason Kidd isn't much of an X' s and O's guy now and I'm not sure how much of an X's and O's guy Kerr will be in the near future. That's just one of those things you have to deal with when you bring in a coach with no bench experience. That said, I'm see no reason why Mark Jackson couldn't coach here as long as you had an experienced assistants like Cleamons and and Cartwright. That said, Phil is the prez and he has to be comfortable we with his choice. The unusual thing about this coaching search is that Kerr is the only candidate whose name has been thrown around. It's hard to get an idea of the qualities Phil is looking for without knowing all the names on his list.
knicks1248 wrote:Nalod wrote:Kerr hired and fired two coach's in PHX. He made mistakes. He had to evaluate them as well. The experience becomes tangible.Coaches are also marketing pieces.
AAAAAAnd...........The wrong combo of GM and coach won't work. Ask Larry Brown and Isiah. It was a stupid hire. Owner, President, GM and coach have to be on board.
which 2 coaches are you talking about, I thought MDA resign, and wasn't he there before kerr?
I thought he pushed MDA out the door. Hired and Fired Porter, hired Gentry. Porter was to deliver a defensive mindset but it was awful. Gentry was back to more run and gun.
Failure is a good teacher. IM sure he walked away from the process the wiser. At some point Kerr was done with Sarver and I think he Was "Fired" from his GM duties. What I have learned is many times its the owners who set the directive and while Kerr was Sarvers advisor and likely influenced him in setting the directive, the financial Markets were faultering and maybe Sarver freaked out as things were scarey back then. Maybe he cut costs and got impatient with the team, or the prospects of not being able to fund a "rebuild". I don't know but owners have influence and somtimes the GM is just doing his job. More times than not they get the blame. Sometimes its justified, sometimes not.
Its why I blame Isiah for his tenure but give Walsh a pass. I interpret Donnies tenure of clearing cap and by doing so had to make counterproductive roster moves to attain the financial benefit. Then Dolan gets a boner because Melo is heading to the Nets and panics by over paying. Leborn didn't come for a variety of reasons. Its old news and not rehashing the debate but just discusing my view the owner can be a heavy influence on the teams construction.
One can admire the Heat in many ways but the relationship Aronson has had with Riley for the last 18 years is what got them thru some lean years which set up rebuilds and overcome mistakes (drafting Beas). Jerry Buss was a great owner and in 20 years only had West and Kupchak (whom they groomed)as Gm's! SAS has great leadership.
Bulls built a dynasty with Krause having the leaway to move Collins and hire newbie PJax. Krause was an egomaniac and it was his undoing over time but it was a gutsy move. Dolan needs to let phil do his thing and eventually put people in place.
Nalod believes the best of franchises have great leadership and the higher up you go the better. Since Dolan is limited, PHil Jax is the best money can buy in terms of credibility, pristige and a reputation. Question is can he deliver?
Stay tuned.
BigDaddyG wrote:holfresh wrote:dk7th wrote:i thinks it's strange that a point guard is not an x's and o's guy. it's like a former catcher who doesn't know how to manage a team.Agreed...I'm assuming that because of what I have seen on TV and what others have stated...But all that said, If Curry is the go to guy and he is the point then how many different X's and O's u need for that??..
Larry Bird wasn't much of an X's and O's guy when he started, Jason Kidd isn't much of an X' s and O's guy now and I'm not sure how much of an X's and O's guy Kerr will be in the near future. That's just one of those things you have to deal with when you bring in a coach with no bench experience. That said, I'm see no reason why Mark Jackson couldn't coach here as long as you had an experienced assistants like Cleamons and and Cartwright. That said, Phil is the prez and he has to be comfortable we with his choice. The unusual thing about this coaching search is that Kerr is the only candidate whose name has been thrown around. It's hard to get an idea of the qualities Phil is looking for without knowing all the names on his list.
You can be a gifted PG and not be an "X's and O's" guy the same way someone like Someone can be a chess master or a genius poker player or a musician and never have taken a class or studied formally. Some people have a preternatural talent for certain activities and yet they cannot explain the formal underpinnings of their field.
I imagine some PG's just "know" somehow how to run a team, how to read defenses, and when to shoot and when to pass without actually consciously being able to explain how they know that. A formally trained coach of a pg who has been trained formally could break it all down with X's and O's and in the end could be just as good as someone who just gets it but just becauase someone is accomplished at some skill does not mean they know the science behind it.
holfresh wrote:Uptown wrote:Over the last decade and a half, The Knicks have been the poster child for front-office and head coaching turmoil. I still shake my head when I think about Chaney being escorted out the garden by the police....The hiring of Phil Jackson is supposed to be a sign that the Knicks finally get it. That we are finally on the right path and things are about to take a turn for the best. If recent reports about MJax are true, hiring him will be a signal that things around hasn't changed much at all...Not to be an advocate to hire Jackson but how does his hiring mean there will be turmoil in the front office or if Doc Rivers become available then he isn't an option either??..It's Kerr or no one else???..Well I hope we get him....
Who said Kerr and no on else? I'm just not an advocate of hiring Jackson especially if all of the reports coming out of Oakland are true. Hiring Doc, however, would be another sign that we are serious about building a championship organization....Phil and Doc both have a championship pedigree and both exhibit a championship attitude. I think Doc did a great in the face of turmoil surrouding his team....If available we need to snatch him up immediately....