Knicks · My bet is Kerr takes GS job. (page 4)

I would also agree with the people saying SVG is not necessarily better. When you compare two coaches who have coached for about the same period of time you can use winning a metric. SVG obviously had more experience but he too doesn't have an offensive system or philosophy. Not sure he would be very different from Mark Jackson. I guess it depends on what the Warriors are trying to do.

If you are hiring a head coach without a system you might as well get ready for more ISO Melo 1 on 5

Should've just kept Woodson

If that was directed at me I was simply suggesting that I can't say SVG is better than Kerr. You can't compare a known quantity against an unknown and conclude the known one is better. There seems to be no basis for that conclusion. I would actually prefer to see Kerr rather than SVG or JVG here because of points made by other posters as well as your last post preceding mine.

gunsnewing wrote:If you are hiring a head coach without a system you might as well get ready for more ISO Melo 1 on 5

Should've just kept Woodson

you need more... you neee a system or a stlye of play. You need players with skills that fit into that style of play. You need a GM that will work to get you those players instead of just forcing talet that may not fit on you. We have not seen that since.... seriously, even Riley and Checketts fough. When have the Knicks had any level of synergy there?

fishmike wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:If you are hiring a head coach without a system you might as well get ready for more ISO Melo 1 on 5

Should've just kept Woodson

you need more... you neee a system or a stlye of play. You need players with skills that fit into that style of play. You need a GM that will work to get you those players instead of just forcing talet that may not fit on you. We have not seen that since.... seriously, even Riley and Checketts fough. When have the Knicks had any level of synergy there?

You need a good coach to develope a style of play base on your players strong suit..Triangle hasn't worked yet in the NBA without Phil and a couple of the best players on the planet..

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:If you are hiring a head coach without a system you might as well get ready for more ISO Melo 1 on 5

Should've just kept Woodson

you need more... you neee a system or a stlye of play. You need players with skills that fit into that style of play. You need a GM that will work to get you those players instead of just forcing talet that may not fit on you. We have not seen that since.... seriously, even Riley and Checketts fough. When have the Knicks had any level of synergy there?

You need a good coach to develope a style of play base on your players strong suit..Triangle hasn't worked yet in the NBA without Phil and a couple of the best players on the planet..

I think the only time you do that is if you aquire a player that merits that level of catering too. Like if your lucky enough to draft Ewing you then built a half court team anchored around his high % scoring in the post and his defense.

The triangle isnt nitchy... its simply about spacing. The spacing is so you cant double. The point was you either have to deal with Shaq/Kobe/MJ/Pip one on one, OR you get shooters with open looks if you commit to doubling. Either way your putting guys in a good position.

fishmike wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:If you are hiring a head coach without a system you might as well get ready for more ISO Melo 1 on 5

Should've just kept Woodson

you need more... you neee a system or a stlye of play. You need players with skills that fit into that style of play. You need a GM that will work to get you those players instead of just forcing talet that may not fit on you. We have not seen that since.... seriously, even Riley and Checketts fough. When have the Knicks had any level of synergy there?

You need a good coach to develope a style of play base on your players strong suit..Triangle hasn't worked yet in the NBA without Phil and a couple of the best players on the planet..

I think the only time you do that is if you aquire a player that merits that level of catering too. Like if your lucky enough to draft Ewing you then built a half court team anchored around his high % scoring in the post and his defense.

The triangle isnt nitchy... its simply about spacing. The spacing is so you cant double. The point was you either have to deal with Shaq/Kobe/MJ/Pip one on one, OR you get shooters with open looks if you commit to doubling. Either way your putting guys in a good position.

When has the triangle worked when Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe running it?

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:The only reason I'll sign on to Kerr is because that's Phil's guy..I don't want to hear any excuses why Phil isn't successful...I'm not a believer in Phil's system however I'm a believer in Phil...If Kerr doesn't work out, no more of Phil's lackeys..The coaching job is Phil since he insist on running the triangle...

I get why GS and the Lakers want Kerr..It's the easy choice...What can GS management say after firing a guy who got us to the playoffs two consecutive times in 20 years??..Well we got the guy who the best mind in Basketball was going after...A great organization like the Lakers thought he was the next big thing, we all were wrong...This is Buss will say it Kerr doesn't work out..Well Phil is a Laker great and he too thought Kerr was the next thing...

You don't seem to be giving him a chance. Let's see how he does ... why are you so sure that he will fail?

I'm a believer in how a coach relates to players and can therefore motivate them...You have seen them the last 20 years or so..Phil, Riley, Doc, POP, etc...Kerr doesn't have that personality, but it's a guess from what little I have seen him over the years...I think a great coach has to be able to turn on the light in a player like Melo to get him to play better ball...Kerr to me doesn't have that swagger...I could be wrong tho...

The fact that he will want the Knick job to be "led" by Phil is another red flag...

Did Any of the great coach's have that "Swagger" before they won multiple rings? Riley was a role player and announcer before he was an assistant then slivered his way to the big chair.

How does Holfresh make any assesment of Kerr as a coach over the greatest coach in the history of the NBA? From analyzing broadcasts?

Phil Jax was a pot smoking role player and I could never have imagined he'd have more rings then Red Auerbach. Larry Brown was a really good college player but could not crack the NBA and came up in the ABA.

Kerr has many common traits as some of the games best coaches. Phil Jax becomes president of an organization and the first person he wants is Steve Kerr. Maybe Phil comes here and now has second thoughts because Holfresh not seeing the swagger?

If you want championship cred, you gotta get Phil, Pop, Doc or Carlisle. Otherwise the rest are "retreads".

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:If you are hiring a head coach without a system you might as well get ready for more ISO Melo 1 on 5

Should've just kept Woodson

you need more... you neee a system or a stlye of play. You need players with skills that fit into that style of play. You need a GM that will work to get you those players instead of just forcing talet that may not fit on you. We have not seen that since.... seriously, even Riley and Checketts fough. When have the Knicks had any level of synergy there?

You need a good coach to develope a style of play base on your players strong suit..Triangle hasn't worked yet in the NBA without Phil and a couple of the best players on the planet..

I think the only time you do that is if you aquire a player that merits that level of catering too. Like if your lucky enough to draft Ewing you then built a half court team anchored around his high % scoring in the post and his defense.

The triangle isnt nitchy... its simply about spacing. The spacing is so you cant double. The point was you either have to deal with Shaq/Kobe/MJ/Pip one on one, OR you get shooters with open looks if you commit to doubling. Either way your putting guys in a good position.

When has the triangle worked when Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe running it?

It worked with Pippen (without Jordan) and it worked with Kobe (without shaq)

If kobe was successful in it (without shaq) then Melo could probably be successful as well. They are extremely similar when it comes to offensive production. And Pippen alone was not all world.

Nalod wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:The only reason I'll sign on to Kerr is because that's Phil's guy..I don't want to hear any excuses why Phil isn't successful...I'm not a believer in Phil's system however I'm a believer in Phil...If Kerr doesn't work out, no more of Phil's lackeys..The coaching job is Phil since he insist on running the triangle...

I get why GS and the Lakers want Kerr..It's the easy choice...What can GS management say after firing a guy who got us to the playoffs two consecutive times in 20 years??..Well we got the guy who the best mind in Basketball was going after...A great organization like the Lakers thought he was the next big thing, we all were wrong...This is Buss will say it Kerr doesn't work out..Well Phil is a Laker great and he too thought Kerr was the next thing...

You don't seem to be giving him a chance. Let's see how he does ... why are you so sure that he will fail?

I'm a believer in how a coach relates to players and can therefore motivate them...You have seen them the last 20 years or so..Phil, Riley, Doc, POP, etc...Kerr doesn't have that personality, but it's a guess from what little I have seen him over the years...I think a great coach has to be able to turn on the light in a player like Melo to get him to play better ball...Kerr to me doesn't have that swagger...I could be wrong tho...

The fact that he will want the Knick job to be "led" by Phil is another red flag...

Did Any of the great coach's have that "Swagger" before they won multiple rings? Riley was a role player and announcer before he was an assistant then slivered his way to the big chair.

How does Holfresh make any assesment of Kerr as a coach over the greatest coach in the history of the NBA? From analyzing broadcasts?

Phil Jax was a pot smoking role player and I could never have imagined he'd have more rings then Red Auerbach. Larry Brown was a really good college player but could not crack the NBA and came up in the ABA.

Kerr has many common traits as some of the games best coaches. Phil Jax becomes president of an organization and the first person he wants is Steve Kerr. Maybe Phil comes here and now has second thoughts because Holfresh not seeing the swagger?

If you want championship cred, you gotta get Phil, Pop, Doc or Carlisle. Otherwise the rest are "retreads".

Like what??..Not being a prick, I really want to know...

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:If you are hiring a head coach without a system you might as well get ready for more ISO Melo 1 on 5

Should've just kept Woodson

you need more... you neee a system or a stlye of play. You need players with skills that fit into that style of play. You need a GM that will work to get you those players instead of just forcing talet that may not fit on you. We have not seen that since.... seriously, even Riley and Checketts fough. When have the Knicks had any level of synergy there?

You need a good coach to develope a style of play base on your players strong suit..Triangle hasn't worked yet in the NBA without Phil and a couple of the best players on the planet..

I think the only time you do that is if you aquire a player that merits that level of catering too. Like if your lucky enough to draft Ewing you then built a half court team anchored around his high % scoring in the post and his defense.

The triangle isnt nitchy... its simply about spacing. The spacing is so you cant double. The point was you either have to deal with Shaq/Kobe/MJ/Pip one on one, OR you get shooters with open looks if you commit to doubling. Either way your putting guys in a good position.

When has the triangle worked when Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe running it?

It worked with Pippen (without Jordan) and it worked with Kobe (without shaq)

If kobe was successful in it (without shaq) then Melo could probably be successful as well. They are extremely similar when it comes to offensive production. And Pippen alone was not all world.

These were still good teams in my opinion, triangle or no triangle...And Pippen's Bulls got knocok off by the Knicks didn't they??....It didn't work when it was just Kobe, no Gasol..

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:If you are hiring a head coach without a system you might as well get ready for more ISO Melo 1 on 5

Should've just kept Woodson

you need more... you neee a system or a stlye of play. You need players with skills that fit into that style of play. You need a GM that will work to get you those players instead of just forcing talet that may not fit on you. We have not seen that since.... seriously, even Riley and Checketts fough. When have the Knicks had any level of synergy there?

You need a good coach to develope a style of play base on your players strong suit..Triangle hasn't worked yet in the NBA without Phil and a couple of the best players on the planet..

I think the only time you do that is if you aquire a player that merits that level of catering too. Like if your lucky enough to draft Ewing you then built a half court team anchored around his high % scoring in the post and his defense.

The triangle isnt nitchy... its simply about spacing. The spacing is so you cant double. The point was you either have to deal with Shaq/Kobe/MJ/Pip one on one, OR you get shooters with open looks if you commit to doubling. Either way your putting guys in a good position.

When has the triangle worked when Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe running it?

It worked with Pippen (without Jordan) and it worked with Kobe (without shaq)

If kobe was successful in it (without shaq) then Melo could probably be successful as well. They are extremely similar when it comes to offensive production. And Pippen alone was not all world.

These were still good teams in my opinion, triangle or no triangle...And Pippen's Bulls got knocok off by the Knicks didn't they??....It didn't work when it was just Kobe, no Gasol..

Pippens team if not for Hugh Hollins would probably have won it all - pretty impressive.

And I agree. Kobe without Gasol is just a bad team. No system is going to work when all you have is a super chucker.

fishmike wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:If you are hiring a head coach without a system you might as well get ready for more ISO Melo 1 on 5

Should've just kept Woodson

you need more... you neee a system or a stlye of play. You need players with skills that fit into that style of play. You need a GM that will work to get you those players instead of just forcing talet that may not fit on you. We have not seen that since.... seriously, even Riley and Checketts fough. When have the Knicks had any level of synergy there?

You need a good coach to develop a style of play base on your players strong suit..Triangle hasn't worked yet in the NBA without Phil and a couple of the best players on the planet..

I think the only time you do that is if you aquire a player that merits that level of catering too. Like if your lucky enough to draft Ewing you then built a half court team anchored around his high % scoring in the post and his defense.

The triangle isnt nitchy... its simply about spacing. The spacing is so you cant double. The point was you either have to deal with Shaq/Kobe/MJ/Pip one on one, OR you get shooters with open looks if you commit to doubling. Either way your putting guys in a good position.

It's not catering to, it's figuring out what roles best suits your team like Miami figured out that the team was better when Bron ran the point and not Wade...Like Pop figure out that he needed a new style to give Parker more freedom as Duncan aged...Like Doc figured out that letting Rondo make the decisions was better than letting Pierce make the decision with the ball...It's still a team game..

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:If you are hiring a head coach without a system you might as well get ready for more ISO Melo 1 on 5

Should've just kept Woodson

you need more... you neee a system or a stlye of play. You need players with skills that fit into that style of play. You need a GM that will work to get you those players instead of just forcing talet that may not fit on you. We have not seen that since.... seriously, even Riley and Checketts fough. When have the Knicks had any level of synergy there?

You need a good coach to develope a style of play base on your players strong suit..Triangle hasn't worked yet in the NBA without Phil and a couple of the best players on the planet..

I think the only time you do that is if you aquire a player that merits that level of catering too. Like if your lucky enough to draft Ewing you then built a half court team anchored around his high % scoring in the post and his defense.

The triangle isnt nitchy... its simply about spacing. The spacing is so you cant double. The point was you either have to deal with Shaq/Kobe/MJ/Pip one on one, OR you get shooters with open looks if you commit to doubling. Either way your putting guys in a good position.

When has the triangle worked when Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe running it?

It worked with Pippen (without Jordan) and it worked with Kobe (without shaq)

If kobe was successful in it (without shaq) then Melo could probably be successful as well. They are extremely similar when it comes to offensive production. And Pippen alone was not all world.

These were still good teams in my opinion, triangle or no triangle...And Pippen's Bulls got knocok off by the Knicks didn't they??....It didn't work when it was just Kobe, no Gasol..

What team or offense worked with "just" one player. I don't think that is a triangle issue.

holfresh wrote:

Nalod wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:The only reason I'll sign on to Kerr is because that's Phil's guy..I don't want to hear any excuses why Phil isn't successful...I'm not a believer in Phil's system however I'm a believer in Phil...If Kerr doesn't work out, no more of Phil's lackeys..The coaching job is Phil since he insist on running the triangle...

I get why GS and the Lakers want Kerr..It's the easy choice...What can GS management say after firing a guy who got us to the playoffs two consecutive times in 20 years??..Well we got the guy who the best mind in Basketball was going after...A great organization like the Lakers thought he was the next big thing, we all were wrong...This is Buss will say it Kerr doesn't work out..Well Phil is a Laker great and he too thought Kerr was the next thing...

You don't seem to be giving him a chance. Let's see how he does ... why are you so sure that he will fail?

I'm a believer in how a coach relates to players and can therefore motivate them...You have seen them the last 20 years or so..Phil, Riley, Doc, POP, etc...Kerr doesn't have that personality, but it's a guess from what little I have seen him over the years...I think a great coach has to be able to turn on the light in a player like Melo to get him to play better ball...Kerr to me doesn't have that swagger...I could be wrong tho...

The fact that he will want the Knick job to be "led" by Phil is another red flag...

Did Any of the great coach's have that "Swagger" before they won multiple rings? Riley was a role player and announcer before he was an assistant then slivered his way to the big chair.

How does Holfresh make any assesment of Kerr as a coach over the greatest coach in the history of the NBA? From analyzing broadcasts?

Phil Jax was a pot smoking role player and I could never have imagined he'd have more rings then Red Auerbach. Larry Brown was a really good college player but could not crack the NBA and came up in the ABA.

Kerr has many common traits as some of the games best coaches. Phil Jax becomes president of an organization and the first person he wants is Steve Kerr. Maybe Phil comes here and now has second thoughts because Holfresh not seeing the swagger?

If you want championship cred, you gotta get Phil, Pop, Doc or Carlisle. Otherwise the rest are "retreads".

Like what??..Not being a prick, I really want to know...

Riley was an announcer before he became a coach. Was a role player. Phil was a role player. Both came from championship pedigree. Riley played for Adolph Rupp, and won a chip under Sharmen with the Lakers. Phil was a role player. Larry Brown under Dean Smith, olympian, could not crack NBA, did well in the ABA, then became a coach.

Kerr is seen as smart guy, good communicater, understands ownership (owns 1% of Suns) as he consulted for Sarvers purchase of Suns and was his GM. Did not coach because his kids were younger. Was not higly recruited but got to start under Lute Olsen in Arizona. Redshirted after his junior year to rehab a knee. Got drafted in the 2nd round and stuck in the NBA for years. The rest you know.

Its not on me to sell Holfresh and you don't have to agree. I see a guy with good resume of resilence and achievement in life, on the court and off.

Its not for me to sell you on him, but if he is Phil's man that speaks volumes in my book.

yellowboy90 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:If you are hiring a head coach without a system you might as well get ready for more ISO Melo 1 on 5

Should've just kept Woodson

you need more... you neee a system or a stlye of play. You need players with skills that fit into that style of play. You need a GM that will work to get you those players instead of just forcing talet that may not fit on you. We have not seen that since.... seriously, even Riley and Checketts fough. When have the Knicks had any level of synergy there?

You need a good coach to develope a style of play base on your players strong suit..Triangle hasn't worked yet in the NBA without Phil and a couple of the best players on the planet..

I think the only time you do that is if you aquire a player that merits that level of catering too. Like if your lucky enough to draft Ewing you then built a half court team anchored around his high % scoring in the post and his defense.

The triangle isnt nitchy... its simply about spacing. The spacing is so you cant double. The point was you either have to deal with Shaq/Kobe/MJ/Pip one on one, OR you get shooters with open looks if you commit to doubling. Either way your putting guys in a good position.

When has the triangle worked when Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe running it?

It worked with Pippen (without Jordan) and it worked with Kobe (without shaq)

If kobe was successful in it (without shaq) then Melo could probably be successful as well. They are extremely similar when it comes to offensive production. And Pippen alone was not all world.

These were still good teams in my opinion, triangle or no triangle...And Pippen's Bulls got knocok off by the Knicks didn't they??....It didn't work when it was just Kobe, no Gasol..

What team or offense worked with "just" one player. I don't think that is a triangle issue.

No team or offense works with just one player...I don't think the triangle is the solution...

Nalod wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Nalod wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:The only reason I'll sign on to Kerr is because that's Phil's guy..I don't want to hear any excuses why Phil isn't successful...I'm not a believer in Phil's system however I'm a believer in Phil...If Kerr doesn't work out, no more of Phil's lackeys..The coaching job is Phil since he insist on running the triangle...

I get why GS and the Lakers want Kerr..It's the easy choice...What can GS management say after firing a guy who got us to the playoffs two consecutive times in 20 years??..Well we got the guy who the best mind in Basketball was going after...A great organization like the Lakers thought he was the next big thing, we all were wrong...This is Buss will say it Kerr doesn't work out..Well Phil is a Laker great and he too thought Kerr was the next thing...

You don't seem to be giving him a chance. Let's see how he does ... why are you so sure that he will fail?

I'm a believer in how a coach relates to players and can therefore motivate them...You have seen them the last 20 years or so..Phil, Riley, Doc, POP, etc...Kerr doesn't have that personality, but it's a guess from what little I have seen him over the years...I think a great coach has to be able to turn on the light in a player like Melo to get him to play better ball...Kerr to me doesn't have that swagger...I could be wrong tho...

The fact that he will want the Knick job to be "led" by Phil is another red flag...

Did Any of the great coach's have that "Swagger" before they won multiple rings? Riley was a role player and announcer before he was an assistant then slivered his way to the big chair.

How does Holfresh make any assesment of Kerr as a coach over the greatest coach in the history of the NBA? From analyzing broadcasts?

Phil Jax was a pot smoking role player and I could never have imagined he'd have more rings then Red Auerbach. Larry Brown was a really good college player but could not crack the NBA and came up in the ABA.

Kerr has many common traits as some of the games best coaches. Phil Jax becomes president of an organization and the first person he wants is Steve Kerr. Maybe Phil comes here and now has second thoughts because Holfresh not seeing the swagger?

If you want championship cred, you gotta get Phil, Pop, Doc or Carlisle. Otherwise the rest are "retreads".

Like what??..Not being a prick, I really want to know...

Riley was an announcer before he became a coach. Was a role player. Phil was a role player. Both came from championship pedigree. Riley played for Adolph Rupp, and won a chip under Sharmen with the Lakers. Phil was a role player. Larry Brown under Dean Smith, olympian, could not crack NBA, did well in the ABA, then became a coach.

Kerr is seen as smart guy, good communicater, understands ownership (owns 1% of Suns) as he consulted for Sarvers purchase of Suns and was his GM. Did not coach because his kids were younger. Was not higly recruited but got to start under Lute Olsen in Arizona. Redshirted after his junior year to rehab a knee. Got drafted in the 2nd round and stuck in the NBA for years. The rest you know.

Its not on me to sell Holfresh and you don't have to agree. I see a guy with good resume of resilence and achievement in life, on the court and off.

Its not for me to sell you on him, but if he is Phil's man that speaks volumes in my book.

Phil earned his stripes coaching in the CBA winning Championships there with the Patroons...Wasn't Riley on Westhead's bench when Magic wanted to be traded or else??...LB coached and was successful before landing an NBA gig..So the fact that none of Phil's disciples is coaching and has bombed as coaches doesn't give you pause...Kerr failed as a GM...

holfresh wrote:

Nalod wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Nalod wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:The only reason I'll sign on to Kerr is because that's Phil's guy..I don't want to hear any excuses why Phil isn't successful...I'm not a believer in Phil's system however I'm a believer in Phil...If Kerr doesn't work out, no more of Phil's lackeys..The coaching job is Phil since he insist on running the triangle...

I get why GS and the Lakers want Kerr..It's the easy choice...What can GS management say after firing a guy who got us to the playoffs two consecutive times in 20 years??..Well we got the guy who the best mind in Basketball was going after...A great organization like the Lakers thought he was the next big thing, we all were wrong...This is Buss will say it Kerr doesn't work out..Well Phil is a Laker great and he too thought Kerr was the next thing...

You don't seem to be giving him a chance. Let's see how he does ... why are you so sure that he will fail?

I'm a believer in how a coach relates to players and can therefore motivate them...You have seen them the last 20 years or so..Phil, Riley, Doc, POP, etc...Kerr doesn't have that personality, but it's a guess from what little I have seen him over the years...I think a great coach has to be able to turn on the light in a player like Melo to get him to play better ball...Kerr to me doesn't have that swagger...I could be wrong tho...

The fact that he will want the Knick job to be "led" by Phil is another red flag...

Did Any of the great coach's have that "Swagger" before they won multiple rings? Riley was a role player and announcer before he was an assistant then slivered his way to the big chair.

How does Holfresh make any assesment of Kerr as a coach over the greatest coach in the history of the NBA? From analyzing broadcasts?

Phil Jax was a pot smoking role player and I could never have imagined he'd have more rings then Red Auerbach. Larry Brown was a really good college player but could not crack the NBA and came up in the ABA.

Kerr has many common traits as some of the games best coaches. Phil Jax becomes president of an organization and the first person he wants is Steve Kerr. Maybe Phil comes here and now has second thoughts because Holfresh not seeing the swagger?

If you want championship cred, you gotta get Phil, Pop, Doc or Carlisle. Otherwise the rest are "retreads".

Like what??..Not being a prick, I really want to know...

Riley was an announcer before he became a coach. Was a role player. Phil was a role player. Both came from championship pedigree. Riley played for Adolph Rupp, and won a chip under Sharmen with the Lakers. Phil was a role player. Larry Brown under Dean Smith, olympian, could not crack NBA, did well in the ABA, then became a coach.

Kerr is seen as smart guy, good communicater, understands ownership (owns 1% of Suns) as he consulted for Sarvers purchase of Suns and was his GM. Did not coach because his kids were younger. Was not higly recruited but got to start under Lute Olsen in Arizona. Redshirted after his junior year to rehab a knee. Got drafted in the 2nd round and stuck in the NBA for years. The rest you know.

Its not on me to sell Holfresh and you don't have to agree. I see a guy with good resume of resilence and achievement in life, on the court and off.

Its not for me to sell you on him, but if he is Phil's man that speaks volumes in my book.

Phil earned his stripes coaching in the CBA winning Championships there with the Patroons...Wasn't Riley on Westhead's bench when Magic wanted to be traded or else??...LB coached and was successful before landing an NBA gig..So the fact that none of Phil's disciples is coaching and has bombed as coaches doesn't give you pause...Kerr failed as a GM...

Yes, those guys earn their strips in junior positions. Riley slithered his way to the bench but Larry got top gigs in the ABA pretty much right away.

Good points BTW. There is also a pretty good history of guys jumping in and learning from teh head position. Im not seeing a champoinship contending team right away in NY. To me, Kidd faced far greater pressure than Kerr would. None is apples to apples as we know. How do you feel about Rambis? His first stint was a disaster but it was a bad situation he walked into. Personally I'd rather see a guy fail and learn from the experience if he has the goods otherwise. Failure is a great teacher!

Kerr's record of GM? I really have not looked too deep into all the decisons he made:

Via Hoopshype http://hoopshype.com/general_managers/st...

Best transaction: Traded guards Raja Bell and Sean Singletary and forward Boris Diaw to the Charlotte Bobcats for guard Jason Richardson, forward Jared Dudley and a 2010 second-round pick on December 10, 2008

Worst transaction: Traded center Shaquille O'Neal to the Cleveland Cavaliers for guard Aleksandar Pavlovic, center Ben Wallace, a future conditional second-round pick and cash on June 25, 2009

Obviously he was no MDA fan and his record of GM attempting to transition the franshise was not great. One would hope the experience helped gain insight and knowledge.

holfresh wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:If you are hiring a head coach without a system you might as well get ready for more ISO Melo 1 on 5

Should've just kept Woodson

you need more... you neee a system or a stlye of play. You need players with skills that fit into that style of play. You need a GM that will work to get you those players instead of just forcing talet that may not fit on you. We have not seen that since.... seriously, even Riley and Checketts fough. When have the Knicks had any level of synergy there?

You need a good coach to develope a style of play base on your players strong suit..Triangle hasn't worked yet in the NBA without Phil and a couple of the best players on the planet..

I think the only time you do that is if you aquire a player that merits that level of catering too. Like if your lucky enough to draft Ewing you then built a half court team anchored around his high % scoring in the post and his defense.

The triangle isnt nitchy... its simply about spacing. The spacing is so you cant double. The point was you either have to deal with Shaq/Kobe/MJ/Pip one on one, OR you get shooters with open looks if you commit to doubling. Either way your putting guys in a good position.

When has the triangle worked when Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe running it?

It worked with Pippen (without Jordan) and it worked with Kobe (without shaq)

If kobe was successful in it (without shaq) then Melo could probably be successful as well. They are extremely similar when it comes to offensive production. And Pippen alone was not all world.

These were still good teams in my opinion, triangle or no triangle...And Pippen's Bulls got knocok off by the Knicks didn't they??....It didn't work when it was just Kobe, no Gasol..

What team or offense worked with "just" one player. I don't think that is a triangle issue.

No team or offense works with just one player...I don't think the triangle is the solution...

Hakeem Olajuwan won his first title with an assortment of role players. But they had a minimum of three shooters on the floor at all times. Simple system. But as fishmike pointed out, it was all about spacing.

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:If you are hiring a head coach without a system you might as well get ready for more ISO Melo 1 on 5

Should've just kept Woodson

you need more... you neee a system or a stlye of play. You need players with skills that fit into that style of play. You need a GM that will work to get you those players instead of just forcing talet that may not fit on you. We have not seen that since.... seriously, even Riley and Checketts fough. When have the Knicks had any level of synergy there?

You need a good coach to develope a style of play base on your players strong suit..Triangle hasn't worked yet in the NBA without Phil and a couple of the best players on the planet..

I think the only time you do that is if you aquire a player that merits that level of catering too. Like if your lucky enough to draft Ewing you then built a half court team anchored around his high % scoring in the post and his defense.

The triangle isnt nitchy... its simply about spacing. The spacing is so you cant double. The point was you either have to deal with Shaq/Kobe/MJ/Pip one on one, OR you get shooters with open looks if you commit to doubling. Either way your putting guys in a good position.

When has the triangle worked when Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe running it?

It worked with Pippen (without Jordan) and it worked with Kobe (without shaq)

If kobe was successful in it (without shaq) then Melo could probably be successful as well. They are extremely similar when it comes to offensive production. And Pippen alone was not all world.

These were still good teams in my opinion, triangle or no triangle...And Pippen's Bulls got knocok off by the Knicks didn't they??....It didn't work when it was just Kobe, no Gasol..

Pippens team if not for Hugh Hollins would probably have won it all - pretty impressive.

And I agree. Kobe without Gasol is just a bad team. No system is going to work when all you have is a super chucker.

who's super chucker? kobe, a first ballot HOF

knicks1248 wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

mreinman wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

holfresh wrote:

fishmike wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:If you are hiring a head coach without a system you might as well get ready for more ISO Melo 1 on 5

Should've just kept Woodson

you need more... you neee a system or a stlye of play. You need players with skills that fit into that style of play. You need a GM that will work to get you those players instead of just forcing talet that may not fit on you. We have not seen that since.... seriously, even Riley and Checketts fough. When have the Knicks had any level of synergy there?

You need a good coach to develope a style of play base on your players strong suit..Triangle hasn't worked yet in the NBA without Phil and a couple of the best players on the planet..

I think the only time you do that is if you aquire a player that merits that level of catering too. Like if your lucky enough to draft Ewing you then built a half court team anchored around his high % scoring in the post and his defense.

The triangle isnt nitchy... its simply about spacing. The spacing is so you cant double. The point was you either have to deal with Shaq/Kobe/MJ/Pip one on one, OR you get shooters with open looks if you commit to doubling. Either way your putting guys in a good position.

When has the triangle worked when Jordan, Pippen, Shaq, and Kobe running it?

It worked with Pippen (without Jordan) and it worked with Kobe (without shaq)

If kobe was successful in it (without shaq) then Melo could probably be successful as well. They are extremely similar when it comes to offensive production. And Pippen alone was not all world.

These were still good teams in my opinion, triangle or no triangle...And Pippen's Bulls got knocok off by the Knicks didn't they??....It didn't work when it was just Kobe, no Gasol..

Pippens team if not for Hugh Hollins would probably have won it all - pretty impressive.

And I agree. Kobe without Gasol is just a bad team. No system is going to work when all you have is a super chucker.

who's super chucker? kobe, a first ballot HOF

And a super chucker.