Knicks · Tom Thibodeau 90 percent likely to be new coach of knicks. per cnnsi.com Jonathan Macri (page 4)

franco12 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Are we as fans to think we know if Thibs would detract from a player coming here vs. a super agent? I mean guys, yah really think Rose would prioritize Thibs need to coach as a friend vs. the many good points bought up might be a detriment?
Regarding Thibs defensive rating, does anyone think he might have known all this too? That maybe the issue was the players in part? That he could not reach them? We talking about mostly Wiggins and KAT.
Maybe “Hey Thibs, if you got back in the NBA what would you do different?” “What is it about Minny thats just messed up?”
Maybe as a coach he got the bulls to excel beyond their expectation. Noah we know was really not an intense worker. Rose had massive ego issues and then injuries, and Butler wanted out after Thibs left. Seems to me that the issues in Chicago and Minny were not cured when he left.
I’m not saying he was not at fault, but you had unique circumstances at both places and yet some of you assume all that replicates. Its also assumed Thibs does not evolve himself.
At the very worst did he leave those franchises in better shape then when he got there? Were they poised to get to the next level but he in all actuality have taken them as high as they could go. By doing so “burned them out”?

We tried this already with Fizdale, who I liked when we added him, and I liked last year,

But Miller's success where Fizdale failed proved me wrong.

I think those of us who are against Thibs feel like he will end up just like Fizdale.

Was Fiz's bar so low that anything above it has Miller having "success"?

I'm in the boat that Miller has been a breathe of fresh air after Fiz but after the initial bump it seems like the Knicks are treading water again.

fishmike wrote:

MS wrote:This is there big name hire, Thibs?

He was awful with the wolves and had full control of the team. He ran his players into the ground in Chicago and I don’t think he’s going to excite free agents. He’s a good coach and tremendous defensively, but I’m a pass here.

Honesty btw him and Miller I like what Mike brings. This roster is terrible and he’s done a good job of keeping it together.

Everyone says THibs was awful with the Wolves. Why do people keep saying this? They had 47 wins under Thibs and havent seen anything close before or afte that. Wake up.

If we are going to talk about Thibs job in Minn can we be accurate and truthful? He brought in Jimmy Butler and won 47 games. Turns out that KAT doesnt play defense, doesnt want to, and his happy scoring and now hanging with his best bro DRuss while losing tons of games and getting paid. THAT and the fact that KAT is untradable drove Buttler nuts and sunk the team. Butler didnt want to be there and KAT didnt want Thibs there. Did you know Tracy McGrady did the same to Doc Rivers in Orlando and got Rivers fired from that coaching gig? Imagine if Doc Rivers wasnt rehired because he ran those guys into the ground and didnt work well with TMac...

Please... Thibs is a good coach and has done well in his two NBA stints.

People here see Mike Miller's 13-22 and think he's Vince phucking Lombardi. I like the guy too. Not much perspective here tho!

"Miller by the allstar break after a 4-18 start helped the knicks match last seasons win total with 27 games to play!!!"..............
If JVG says that, it sounds real good. Its a nice statement. Good for Miller, bad for Fiz.
Bad for Mrs. Fiz who thought David was gonna have the career Spolestra is having.
Wish I knew the process by which Fiz was hired and not Bud. Was it Dolan? Mills? Was it the Fiz charisma over Bud's pragmatic image?
Did Bud want more control over roster? Bud as hired in the duel role in ATL out of SAS lost his non coaching title and then had new ownership.

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Are we as fans to think we know if Thibs would detract from a player coming here vs. a super agent? I mean guys, yah really think Rose would prioritize Thibs need to coach as a friend vs. the many good points bought up might be a detriment?
Regarding Thibs defensive rating, does anyone think he might have known all this too? That maybe the issue was the players in part? That he could not reach them? We talking about mostly Wiggins and KAT.
Maybe “Hey Thibs, if you got back in the NBA what would you do different?” “What is it about Minny thats just messed up?”
Maybe as a coach he got the bulls to excel beyond their expectation. Noah we know was really not an intense worker. Rose had massive ego issues and then injuries, and Butler wanted out after Thibs left. Seems to me that the issues in Chicago and Minny were not cured when he left.
I’m not saying he was not at fault, but you had unique circumstances at both places and yet some of you assume all that replicates. Its also assumed Thibs does not evolve himself.
At the very worst did he leave those franchises in better shape then when he got there? Were they poised to get to the next level but he in all actuality have taken them as high as they could go. By doing so “burned them out”?

We tried this already with Fizdale, who I liked when we added him, and I liked last year,

But Miller's success where Fizdale failed proved me wrong.

I think those of us who are against Thibs feel like he will end up just like Fizdale.

Was Fiz's bar so low that anything above it has Miller having "success"?

I'm in the boat that Miller has been a breathe of fresh air after Fiz but after the initial bump it seems like the Knicks are treading water again.

With few divas on the team and no issues with vets and contracts its an easy team to coach. Its good bunch of guys.
Dotson will be fine even if we let him walk, someone will pay him 2mm a year at the very least. Trier is in a bit of a pickle as I think we would have released him if he could land elsewhere.

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Are we as fans to think we know if Thibs would detract from a player coming here vs. a super agent? I mean guys, yah really think Rose would prioritize Thibs need to coach as a friend vs. the many good points bought up might be a detriment?
Regarding Thibs defensive rating, does anyone think he might have known all this too? That maybe the issue was the players in part? That he could not reach them? We talking about mostly Wiggins and KAT.
Maybe “Hey Thibs, if you got back in the NBA what would you do different?” “What is it about Minny thats just messed up?”
Maybe as a coach he got the bulls to excel beyond their expectation. Noah we know was really not an intense worker. Rose had massive ego issues and then injuries, and Butler wanted out after Thibs left. Seems to me that the issues in Chicago and Minny were not cured when he left.
I’m not saying he was not at fault, but you had unique circumstances at both places and yet some of you assume all that replicates. Its also assumed Thibs does not evolve himself.
At the very worst did he leave those franchises in better shape then when he got there? Were they poised to get to the next level but he in all actuality have taken them as high as they could go. By doing so “burned them out”?

We tried this already with Fizdale, who I liked when we added him, and I liked last year,

But Miller's success where Fizdale failed proved me wrong.

I think those of us who are against Thibs feel like he will end up just like Fizdale.

Was Fiz's bar so low that anything above it has Miller having "success"?

I'm in the boat that Miller has been a breathe of fresh air after Fiz but after the initial bump it seems like the Knicks are treading water again.

I dont get it. Miller's been good. Suddenly though he's the next Maurice NDour and we are a wretched organization for not seeing this is a key piece moving forward.

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Are we as fans to think we know if Thibs would detract from a player coming here vs. a super agent? I mean guys, yah really think Rose would prioritize Thibs need to coach as a friend vs. the many good points bought up might be a detriment?
Regarding Thibs defensive rating, does anyone think he might have known all this too? That maybe the issue was the players in part? That he could not reach them? We talking about mostly Wiggins and KAT.
Maybe “Hey Thibs, if you got back in the NBA what would you do different?” “What is it about Minny thats just messed up?”
Maybe as a coach he got the bulls to excel beyond their expectation. Noah we know was really not an intense worker. Rose had massive ego issues and then injuries, and Butler wanted out after Thibs left. Seems to me that the issues in Chicago and Minny were not cured when he left.
I’m not saying he was not at fault, but you had unique circumstances at both places and yet some of you assume all that replicates. Its also assumed Thibs does not evolve himself.
At the very worst did he leave those franchises in better shape then when he got there? Were they poised to get to the next level but he in all actuality have taken them as high as they could go. By doing so “burned them out”?

We tried this already with Fizdale, who I liked when we added him, and I liked last year,

But Miller's success where Fizdale failed proved me wrong.

I think those of us who are against Thibs feel like he will end up just like Fizdale.

Was Fiz's bar so low that anything above it has Miller having "success"?

I'm in the boat that Miller has been a breathe of fresh air after Fiz but after the initial bump it seems like the Knicks are treading water again.

I dont get it. Miller's been good. Suddenly though he's the next Maurice NDour and we are a wretched organization for not seeing this is a key piece moving forward.

There were some great background stories on Miller when he first got the job. My favorite was that JVG asked him to be on his staff because when he was scouting the g league he was so impressed by how prepared Miller’s team was. I think we have seen some of that with the Knicks. The dam can’t shoot but the d is generally good and keeps them in games. They also are a different team when Payton is at the point. I think Miller has earned another year. I have a lot of concerns about Thibs. I also am concerned about a president committing to a coach before he has a gm. I also am concerned that choice is coming from a pool of guys that the pres has a relationship with if what is bein reported is true. The Knicks have used this approach before and it failed miserably. This is just a rumor and I hope it isn’t true. Macri is awesome but his last bomb was that the Knicks would accommodate DSJ’s trade request.

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Are we as fans to think we know if Thibs would detract from a player coming here vs. a super agent? I mean guys, yah really think Rose would prioritize Thibs need to coach as a friend vs. the many good points bought up might be a detriment?
Regarding Thibs defensive rating, does anyone think he might have known all this too? That maybe the issue was the players in part? That he could not reach them? We talking about mostly Wiggins and KAT.
Maybe “Hey Thibs, if you got back in the NBA what would you do different?” “What is it about Minny thats just messed up?”
Maybe as a coach he got the bulls to excel beyond their expectation. Noah we know was really not an intense worker. Rose had massive ego issues and then injuries, and Butler wanted out after Thibs left. Seems to me that the issues in Chicago and Minny were not cured when he left.
I’m not saying he was not at fault, but you had unique circumstances at both places and yet some of you assume all that replicates. Its also assumed Thibs does not evolve himself.
At the very worst did he leave those franchises in better shape then when he got there? Were they poised to get to the next level but he in all actuality have taken them as high as they could go. By doing so “burned them out”?

We tried this already with Fizdale, who I liked when we added him, and I liked last year,

But Miller's success where Fizdale failed proved me wrong.

I think those of us who are against Thibs feel like he will end up just like Fizdale.

Was Fiz's bar so low that anything above it has Miller having "success"?

I'm in the boat that Miller has been a breathe of fresh air after Fiz but after the initial bump it seems like the Knicks are treading water again.

I dont get it. Miller's been good. Suddenly though he's the next Maurice NDour and we are a wretched organization for not seeing this is a key piece moving forward.

There were some great background stories on Miller when he first got the job. My favorite was that JVG asked him to be on his staff because when he was scouting the g league he was so impressed by how prepared Miller’s team was. I think we have seen some of that with the Knicks. The dam can’t shoot but the d is generally good and keeps them in games. They also are a different team when Payton is at the point. I think Miller has earned another year. I have a lot of concerns about Thibs. I also am concerned about a president committing to a coach before he has a gm. I also am concerned that choice is coming from a pool of guys that the pres has a relationship with if what is bein reported is true. The Knicks have used this approach before and it failed miserably. This is just a rumor and I hope it isn’t true. Macri is awesome but his last bomb was that the Knicks would accommodate DSJ’s trade request.

We don't have a GM? Say's who?
Says the media? I don't care what is written, Rose knows exactly who he will be hiring. We are not privy to the plan.
Perry might the guy, perry might have his next gig all lined up. Perry might be some special vice president kind of title.
H20 was promoted. Big news. now we read he was promoted last year. Maybe he is the GM?
Is Craig "Special Sauce" Robinson to be retained?
WE don't have answers because really nobody knows the questions either. Fact is, Rose is not even official.

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Are we as fans to think we know if Thibs would detract from a player coming here vs. a super agent? I mean guys, yah really think Rose would prioritize Thibs need to coach as a friend vs. the many good points bought up might be a detriment?
Regarding Thibs defensive rating, does anyone think he might have known all this too? That maybe the issue was the players in part? That he could not reach them? We talking about mostly Wiggins and KAT.
Maybe “Hey Thibs, if you got back in the NBA what would you do different?” “What is it about Minny thats just messed up?”
Maybe as a coach he got the bulls to excel beyond their expectation. Noah we know was really not an intense worker. Rose had massive ego issues and then injuries, and Butler wanted out after Thibs left. Seems to me that the issues in Chicago and Minny were not cured when he left.
I’m not saying he was not at fault, but you had unique circumstances at both places and yet some of you assume all that replicates. Its also assumed Thibs does not evolve himself.
At the very worst did he leave those franchises in better shape then when he got there? Were they poised to get to the next level but he in all actuality have taken them as high as they could go. By doing so “burned them out”?

We tried this already with Fizdale, who I liked when we added him, and I liked last year,

But Miller's success where Fizdale failed proved me wrong.

I think those of us who are against Thibs feel like he will end up just like Fizdale.

Was Fiz's bar so low that anything above it has Miller having "success"?

I'm in the boat that Miller has been a breathe of fresh air after Fiz but after the initial bump it seems like the Knicks are treading water again.

I dont get it. Miller's been good. Suddenly though he's the next Maurice NDour and we are a wretched organization for not seeing this is a key piece moving forward.

There were some great background stories on Miller when he first got the job. My favorite was that JVG asked him to be on his staff because when he was scouting the g league he was so impressed by how prepared Miller’s team was. I think we have seen some of that with the Knicks. The dam can’t shoot but the d is generally good and keeps them in games. They also are a different team when Payton is at the point. I think Miller has earned another year. I have a lot of concerns about Thibs. I also am concerned about a president committing to a coach before he has a gm. I also am concerned that choice is coming from a pool of guys that the pres has a relationship with if what is bein reported is true. The Knicks have used this approach before and it failed miserably. This is just a rumor and I hope it isn’t true. Macri is awesome but his last bomb was that the Knicks would accommodate DSJ’s trade request.

I do like what you are getting at. Maybe Miller doesn't yet have the juice card to deal with Randle?

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/PJacksonsBrain/status/1232340312573476866?s=20

Click here to view the Tweet

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Are we as fans to think we know if Thibs would detract from a player coming here vs. a super agent? I mean guys, yah really think Rose would prioritize Thibs need to coach as a friend vs. the many good points bought up might be a detriment?
Regarding Thibs defensive rating, does anyone think he might have known all this too? That maybe the issue was the players in part? That he could not reach them? We talking about mostly Wiggins and KAT.
Maybe “Hey Thibs, if you got back in the NBA what would you do different?” “What is it about Minny thats just messed up?”
Maybe as a coach he got the bulls to excel beyond their expectation. Noah we know was really not an intense worker. Rose had massive ego issues and then injuries, and Butler wanted out after Thibs left. Seems to me that the issues in Chicago and Minny were not cured when he left.
I’m not saying he was not at fault, but you had unique circumstances at both places and yet some of you assume all that replicates. Its also assumed Thibs does not evolve himself.
At the very worst did he leave those franchises in better shape then when he got there? Were they poised to get to the next level but he in all actuality have taken them as high as they could go. By doing so “burned them out”?

We tried this already with Fizdale, who I liked when we added him, and I liked last year,

But Miller's success where Fizdale failed proved me wrong.

I think those of us who are against Thibs feel like he will end up just like Fizdale.

Was Fiz's bar so low that anything above it has Miller having "success"?

I'm in the boat that Miller has been a breathe of fresh air after Fiz but after the initial bump it seems like the Knicks are treading water again.

I dont get it. Miller's been good. Suddenly though he's the next Maurice NDour and we are a wretched organization for not seeing this is a key piece moving forward.

There were some great background stories on Miller when he first got the job. My favorite was that JVG asked him to be on his staff because when he was scouting the g league he was so impressed by how prepared Miller’s team was. I think we have seen some of that with the Knicks. The dam can’t shoot but the d is generally good and keeps them in games. They also are a different team when Payton is at the point. I think Miller has earned another year. I have a lot of concerns about Thibs. I also am concerned about a president committing to a coach before he has a gm. I also am concerned that choice is coming from a pool of guys that the pres has a relationship with if what is bein reported is true. The Knicks have used this approach before and it failed miserably. This is just a rumor and I hope it isn’t true. Macri is awesome but his last bomb was that the Knicks would accommodate DSJ’s trade request.

I do like what you are getting at. Maybe Miller doesn't yet have the juice card to deal with Randle?

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/PJacksonsBrain/status/1232340312573476866?s=20

Click here to view the Tweet

and for all the stories about Thibs "running guys into the ground" (which I dont disagree with, but many coaches do it) there are stories of players who adored him and not just Rose/Noah/Taj

Mike Miller wasnt even a winning college coach:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Mille...

He absolutely has NOT earned a shot at next year. He's 13-22! When he's got a 500 record and a couple players breaking out in his system lets talk.

This is battered Knick fan syndrome. ITs been so long since we have seen ANY coaching. Folks are just thirsty.

Just for the record I am NOT pro-Thibs and/or anti-Miller.

Thibs has been a good coach in the league. Not great but good and most certainly NOT bad.
Miller was great for us in the G league and has stabilized the team as an interim coach. I dont know how or why people think that makes him a shoe-in to be the perm HC

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

fishmike wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Are we as fans to think we know if Thibs would detract from a player coming here vs. a super agent? I mean guys, yah really think Rose would prioritize Thibs need to coach as a friend vs. the many good points bought up might be a detriment?
Regarding Thibs defensive rating, does anyone think he might have known all this too? That maybe the issue was the players in part? That he could not reach them? We talking about mostly Wiggins and KAT.
Maybe “Hey Thibs, if you got back in the NBA what would you do different?” “What is it about Minny thats just messed up?”
Maybe as a coach he got the bulls to excel beyond their expectation. Noah we know was really not an intense worker. Rose had massive ego issues and then injuries, and Butler wanted out after Thibs left. Seems to me that the issues in Chicago and Minny were not cured when he left.
I’m not saying he was not at fault, but you had unique circumstances at both places and yet some of you assume all that replicates. Its also assumed Thibs does not evolve himself.
At the very worst did he leave those franchises in better shape then when he got there? Were they poised to get to the next level but he in all actuality have taken them as high as they could go. By doing so “burned them out”?

We tried this already with Fizdale, who I liked when we added him, and I liked last year,

But Miller's success where Fizdale failed proved me wrong.

I think those of us who are against Thibs feel like he will end up just like Fizdale.

Was Fiz's bar so low that anything above it has Miller having "success"?

I'm in the boat that Miller has been a breathe of fresh air after Fiz but after the initial bump it seems like the Knicks are treading water again.

I dont get it. Miller's been good. Suddenly though he's the next Maurice NDour and we are a wretched organization for not seeing this is a key piece moving forward.

There were some great background stories on Miller when he first got the job. My favorite was that JVG asked him to be on his staff because when he was scouting the g league he was so impressed by how prepared Miller’s team was. I think we have seen some of that with the Knicks. The dam can’t shoot but the d is generally good and keeps them in games. They also are a different team when Payton is at the point. I think Miller has earned another year. I have a lot of concerns about Thibs. I also am concerned about a president committing to a coach before he has a gm. I also am concerned that choice is coming from a pool of guys that the pres has a relationship with if what is bein reported is true. The Knicks have used this approach before and it failed miserably. This is just a rumor and I hope it isn’t true. Macri is awesome but his last bomb was that the Knicks would accommodate DSJ’s trade request.

I do like what you are getting at. Maybe Miller doesn't yet have the juice card to deal with Randle?

Javascript is not enabled or there was problem with the URL: https://twitter.com/PJacksonsBrain/status/1232340312573476866?s=20

Click here to view the Tweet

and for all the stories about Thibs "running guys into the ground" (which I dont disagree with, but many coaches do it) there are stories of players who adored him and not just Rose/Noah/Taj

Mike Miller wasnt even a winning college coach:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Mille...

He absolutely has NOT earned a shot at next year. He's 13-22! When he's got a 500 record and a couple players breaking out in his system lets talk.

This is battered Knick fan syndrome. ITs been so long since we have seen ANY coaching. Folks are just thirsty.

HAHA..

It's just that fizdale was sooooooooo bad, JH (Rambis was a nightmare) and Fisher were handcuff to the triangle.

Once again it seems like we have a nice assistant coach running the show...

fishmike wrote:Just for the record I am NOT pro-Thibs and/or anti-Miller.

Thibs has been a good coach in the league. Not great but good and most certainly NOT bad.
Miller was great for us in the G league and has stabilized the team as an interim coach. I dont know how or why people think that makes him a shoe-in to be the perm HC

For me, Miller is a good coach for where this franchise is at the moment, and likely to be next year.

Even if there is a better coach out there, I'd argue we're better off giving the team the coaching stability that hasn't been there.

If Miller is back with the same group of players - largely expect that to be at the core true (Barrett, Mitchell,Randle), then having the same coach from day one helps those players and us start the year.

As opposed to bringing in a new voice new system so that Mitchell can be on his third coach in three years, Barrett and Randle third coach in 2 years.

Miller for a stretch with Morris had us playing really good basketball.

What talent is walking through those doors in the summer that is going to radically change our prospects?

If we're lucky, maybe we max out VanVleet. And then what - is that group going to win 40 games? Maybe. But until Barrett really takes a next step- which is a year or two away at best- our starting five is going to be at a disadvantage just about every game.

Pop as coach isn't changing that.

Might he win 5 more games than miller? Maybe.

franco12 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Just for the record I am NOT pro-Thibs and/or anti-Miller.

Thibs has been a good coach in the league. Not great but good and most certainly NOT bad.
Miller was great for us in the G league and has stabilized the team as an interim coach. I dont know how or why people think that makes him a shoe-in to be the perm HC

For me, Miller is a good coach for where this franchise is at the moment, and likely to be next year.

Even if there is a better coach out there, I'd argue we're better off giving the team the coaching stability that hasn't been there.

If Miller is back with the same group of players - largely expect that to be at the core true (Barrett, Mitchell,Randle), then having the same coach from day one helps those players and us start the year.

As opposed to bringing in a new voice new system so that Mitchell can be on his third coach in three years, Barrett and Randle third coach in 2 years.

Miller for a stretch with Morris had us playing really good basketball.

What talent is walking through those doors in the summer that is going to radically change our prospects?

If we're lucky, maybe we max out VanVleet. And then what - is that group going to win 40 games? Maybe. But until Barrett really takes a next step- which is a year or two away at best- our starting five is going to be at a disadvantage just about every game.

Pop as coach isn't changing that.

Might he win 5 more games than miller? Maybe.

we have more than half the team with expiring contracts, and young guys that will probably be packaged.

What makes you think we will suck next yr?

knicks1248 wrote:

franco12 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Just for the record I am NOT pro-Thibs and/or anti-Miller.

Thibs has been a good coach in the league. Not great but good and most certainly NOT bad.
Miller was great for us in the G league and has stabilized the team as an interim coach. I dont know how or why people think that makes him a shoe-in to be the perm HC

For me, Miller is a good coach for where this franchise is at the moment, and likely to be next year.

Even if there is a better coach out there, I'd argue we're better off giving the team the coaching stability that hasn't been there.

If Miller is back with the same group of players - largely expect that to be at the core true (Barrett, Mitchell,Randle), then having the same coach from day one helps those players and us start the year.

As opposed to bringing in a new voice new system so that Mitchell can be on his third coach in three years, Barrett and Randle third coach in 2 years.

Miller for a stretch with Morris had us playing really good basketball.

What talent is walking through those doors in the summer that is going to radically change our prospects?

If we're lucky, maybe we max out VanVleet. And then what - is that group going to win 40 games? Maybe. But until Barrett really takes a next step- which is a year or two away at best- our starting five is going to be at a disadvantage just about every game.

Pop as coach isn't changing that.

Might he win 5 more games than miller? Maybe.

we have more than half the team with expiring contracts, and young guys that will probably be packaged.

What makes you think we will suck next yr?

You are kidding right? Just the last 10 years. And exactly what talent can you tell me is walking through the door to help us?

franco12 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

franco12 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Just for the record I am NOT pro-Thibs and/or anti-Miller.

Thibs has been a good coach in the league. Not great but good and most certainly NOT bad.
Miller was great for us in the G league and has stabilized the team as an interim coach. I dont know how or why people think that makes him a shoe-in to be the perm HC

For me, Miller is a good coach for where this franchise is at the moment, and likely to be next year.

Even if there is a better coach out there, I'd argue we're better off giving the team the coaching stability that hasn't been there.

If Miller is back with the same group of players - largely expect that to be at the core true (Barrett, Mitchell,Randle), then having the same coach from day one helps those players and us start the year.

As opposed to bringing in a new voice new system so that Mitchell can be on his third coach in three years, Barrett and Randle third coach in 2 years.

Miller for a stretch with Morris had us playing really good basketball.

What talent is walking through those doors in the summer that is going to radically change our prospects?

If we're lucky, maybe we max out VanVleet. And then what - is that group going to win 40 games? Maybe. But until Barrett really takes a next step- which is a year or two away at best- our starting five is going to be at a disadvantage just about every game.

Pop as coach isn't changing that.

Might he win 5 more games than miller? Maybe.

we have more than half the team with expiring contracts, and young guys that will probably be packaged.

What makes you think we will suck next yr?

You are kidding right? Just the last 10 years. And exactly what talent can you tell me is walking through the door to help us?

None

That's why we're on the brink of hiring a savvy negotiator who can wheel and deal and has a lot of connections around the NBA, because the only way i see this franchise leveling up is through a block buster trade.

franco12 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Just for the record I am NOT pro-Thibs and/or anti-Miller.

Thibs has been a good coach in the league. Not great but good and most certainly NOT bad.
Miller was great for us in the G league and has stabilized the team as an interim coach. I dont know how or why people think that makes him a shoe-in to be the perm HC

For me, Miller is a good coach for where this franchise is at the moment, and likely to be next year.

Even if there is a better coach out there, I'd argue we're better off giving the team the coaching stability that hasn't been there.

If Miller is back with the same group of players - largely expect that to be at the core true (Barrett, Mitchell,Randle), then having the same coach from day one helps those players and us start the year.

As opposed to bringing in a new voice new system so that Mitchell can be on his third coach in three years, Barrett and Randle third coach in 2 years.

Miller for a stretch with Morris had us playing really good basketball.

What talent is walking through those doors in the summer that is going to radically change our prospects?

If we're lucky, maybe we max out VanVleet. And then what - is that group going to win 40 games? Maybe. But until Barrett really takes a next step- which is a year or two away at best- our starting five is going to be at a disadvantage just about every game.

Pop as coach isn't changing that.

Might he win 5 more games than miller? Maybe.

this is not a choice made in a vacuum. You understand Rose will be looking at a lot more than what makes sense for the next year ish?

Maybe the next FO wants better than "he's fine for now" which is basically what your arguments to keep him amount to.

This is a good example of the importance of having a talented roster VS a bunch of G league / 1 yr rentals....and how that impacts the coach.

If the Miami coach was coaching the knicks right now (aka Fitz), instead of Miller. We will be saying the same thing about coach Spo. If Miller was the coach of the heat, and won a few championships, we would say Miller is an up and coming NBA coach, who learned from his so so NCAA experience. We need to find a way to steal Miller from Miami!

This brings up an old discussion between the value of a coach vs the players. Does the coach make the players or does the players make the coach?

Will Phil Jackson still be Phil Jackson the great, if he didn't have MJ, Kobe, Shaq, Pipen, Rodman, etc...

Or did we see what Phil Jackson really looks like when surrounded by average to below average NBA players? And if we had MJ, Kobe, Shaq, etc.....do you think Phil Jackson would've turned down the knicks coaching opportunity? Instead, he was probably like, nope, I will not let these bums damage my coaching legacy.

This is why I'm like Miller, Thibs, who cares....at the end of the day, until you can add impactful NBA players, the coach will have little impact on winning, if the talent level as a team is below the NBA average, which is what we've been for years, all you can do if keep drafting and try to find a culture that fosters a winning environment. Thibs is that cultural change someone like Rose would like to have.

This is why every HOF coach / GM that comes here, leaves with scares on their Legacy. The players will make or break the coach.

blkexec wrote:This is a good example of the importance of having a talented roster VS a bunch of G league / 1 yr rentals....and how that impacts the coach.

If the Miami coach was coaching the knicks right now (aka Fitz), instead of Miller. We will be saying the same thing about coach Spo. If Miller was the coach of the heat, and won a few championships, we would say Miller is an up and coming NBA coach, who learned from his so so NCAA experience. We need to find a way to steal Miller from Miami!

This brings up an old discussion between the value of a coach vs the players. Does the coach make the players or does the players make the coach?

Will Phil Jackson still be Phil Jackson the great, if he didn't have MJ, Kobe, Shaq, Pipen, Rodman, etc...

Or did we see what Phil Jackson really looks like when surrounded by average to below average NBA players? And if we had MJ, Kobe, Shaq, etc.....do you think Phil Jackson would've turned down the knicks coaching opportunity? Instead, he was probably like, nope, I will not let these bums damage my coaching legacy.

This is why I'm like Miller, Thibs, who cares....at the end of the day, until you can add impactful NBA players, the coach will have little impact on winning, if the talent level as a team is below the NBA average, which is what we've been for years, all you can do if keep drafting and try to find a culture that fosters a winning environment. Thibs is that cultural change someone like Rose would like to have.

This is why every HOF coach / GM that comes here, leaves with scares on their Legacy. The players will make or break the coach.

I agree to acertain extent. But I wouldn't say coaching has no impact. Some guys do influence the flow of the game with their "systems", rotations and ability to get players to understand their roles. I can't remember who coached the Bulls before Phil, but I can tell you the difference Steve Kerr made when GSW moved on from Mark Jackson. It's not just Xs and Os. It's the ability to massage egos and recognize the situations that your players excel in. As for Things, I won't get upset if he's brought in. He's had some success and I'm hoping he's learned from his mistakes. He's not going to be the GM, like he was in Minny. Say what you want about Miller, but he's coached this team up to its talent level. That's the bare minimum from what I understand expect from a coach and Miller has passed that test. I wouldn't mind if he's extended. I would prefer Miller, just for the continuity, but it is what is.

BigDaddyG wrote:

blkexec wrote:This is a good example of the importance of having a talented roster VS a bunch of G league / 1 yr rentals....and how that impacts the coach.

If the Miami coach was coaching the knicks right now (aka Fitz), instead of Miller. We will be saying the same thing about coach Spo. If Miller was the coach of the heat, and won a few championships, we would say Miller is an up and coming NBA coach, who learned from his so so NCAA experience. We need to find a way to steal Miller from Miami!

This brings up an old discussion between the value of a coach vs the players. Does the coach make the players or does the players make the coach?

Will Phil Jackson still be Phil Jackson the great, if he didn't have MJ, Kobe, Shaq, Pipen, Rodman, etc...

Or did we see what Phil Jackson really looks like when surrounded by average to below average NBA players? And if we had MJ, Kobe, Shaq, etc.....do you think Phil Jackson would've turned down the knicks coaching opportunity? Instead, he was probably like, nope, I will not let these bums damage my coaching legacy.

This is why I'm like Miller, Thibs, who cares....at the end of the day, until you can add impactful NBA players, the coach will have little impact on winning, if the talent level as a team is below the NBA average, which is what we've been for years, all you can do if keep drafting and try to find a culture that fosters a winning environment. Thibs is that cultural change someone like Rose would like to have.

This is why every HOF coach / GM that comes here, leaves with scares on their Legacy. The players will make or break the coach.

I agree to acertain extent. But I wouldn't say coaching has no impact. Some guys do influence the flow of the game with their "systems", rotations and ability to get players to understand their roles. I can't remember who coached the Bulls before Phil, but I can tell you the difference Steve Kerr made when GSW moved on from Mark Jackson. It's not just Xs and Os. It's the ability to massage egos and recognize the situations that your players excel in. As for Things, I won't get upset if he's brought in. He's had some success and I'm hoping he's learned from his mistakes. He's not going to be the GM, like he was in Minny. Say what you want about Miller, but he's coached this team up to its talent level. That's the bare minimum from what I understand expect from a coach and Miller has passed that test. I wouldn't mind if he's extended. I would prefer Miller, just for the continuity, but it is what is.

Doug Collins was the Bulls coach. went on to be a tv analyst who sounded like he knew what he was talking about; but Pjax demonstrated sounding good and winning are two different things. People who like JVG and Mark Jackson should keep this in mind.

also agree re coaching. Kerr added a lot of wins to GS with same roster. Budenholzer added a lot of wins with same roster including lose of former #2 pick Jabari Also consider Nick Nurse. He like Miller was a G league guy and took over for COY Casey. Granted his team got more stacked with Kahwi and Marc Gasol but he's proving it again this year that he's legit.

people who dismiss the impact of a coach are dumb -- sorry to be blunt. I have to be so blunt because this dumb shit that it's all about the players has to stop. Yes players are hugely influential but unless you have Lebron or MJ or players in that stratosphere you need a great coach too

the issue is there are a lot of mediocre coaches, a few bad ones and a very few who are stellar. Some of the stellar ones lose their touch too -- see Popovich.

Thibs had his time. In a league where you can't touch anyone without a foul his time has passed. JVG (quitter) and Mark never even had "their time" but to the extent they did it passed too

fishmike wrote:

franco12 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Just for the record I am NOT pro-Thibs and/or anti-Miller.

Thibs has been a good coach in the league. Not great but good and most certainly NOT bad.
Miller was great for us in the G league and has stabilized the team as an interim coach. I dont know how or why people think that makes him a shoe-in to be the perm HC

For me, Miller is a good coach for where this franchise is at the moment, and likely to be next year.

Even if there is a better coach out there, I'd argue we're better off giving the team the coaching stability that hasn't been there.

If Miller is back with the same group of players - largely expect that to be at the core true (Barrett, Mitchell,Randle), then having the same coach from day one helps those players and us start the year.

As opposed to bringing in a new voice new system so that Mitchell can be on his third coach in three years, Barrett and Randle third coach in 2 years.

Miller for a stretch with Morris had us playing really good basketball.

What talent is walking through those doors in the summer that is going to radically change our prospects?

If we're lucky, maybe we max out VanVleet. And then what - is that group going to win 40 games? Maybe. But until Barrett really takes a next step- which is a year or two away at best- our starting five is going to be at a disadvantage just about every game.

Pop as coach isn't changing that.

Might he win 5 more games than miller? Maybe.

this is not a choice made in a vacuum. You understand Rose will be looking at a lot more than what makes sense for the next year ish?

Maybe the next FO wants better than "he's fine for now" which is basically what your arguments to keep him amount to.

my argument is he is a fine match to the level of talent we have now, and will likely have next year. I'm ok with the new front office wanting their people- but I'm arguing continuity is going to contribute more to wins and losses than any coach they can bring in.

And for me, if they bring in Tibs or some other big name, then it's more of the Dolan instafix which we had under Isiah. I'm too old and there are too many other things to invest emotionally in.

franco12 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

franco12 wrote:

fishmike wrote:Just for the record I am NOT pro-Thibs and/or anti-Miller.

Thibs has been a good coach in the league. Not great but good and most certainly NOT bad.
Miller was great for us in the G league and has stabilized the team as an interim coach. I dont know how or why people think that makes him a shoe-in to be the perm HC

For me, Miller is a good coach for where this franchise is at the moment, and likely to be next year.

Even if there is a better coach out there, I'd argue we're better off giving the team the coaching stability that hasn't been there.

If Miller is back with the same group of players - largely expect that to be at the core true (Barrett, Mitchell,Randle), then having the same coach from day one helps those players and us start the year.

As opposed to bringing in a new voice new system so that Mitchell can be on his third coach in three years, Barrett and Randle third coach in 2 years.

Miller for a stretch with Morris had us playing really good basketball.

What talent is walking through those doors in the summer that is going to radically change our prospects?

If we're lucky, maybe we max out VanVleet. And then what - is that group going to win 40 games? Maybe. But until Barrett really takes a next step- which is a year or two away at best- our starting five is going to be at a disadvantage just about every game.

Pop as coach isn't changing that.

Might he win 5 more games than miller? Maybe.

this is not a choice made in a vacuum. You understand Rose will be looking at a lot more than what makes sense for the next year ish?

Maybe the next FO wants better than "he's fine for now" which is basically what your arguments to keep him amount to.

my argument is he is a fine match to the level of talent we have now, and will likely have next year. I'm ok with the new front office wanting their people- but I'm arguing continuity is going to contribute more to wins and losses than any coach they can bring in.

And for me, if they bring in Tibs or some other big name, then it's more of the Dolan instafix which we had under Isiah. I'm too old and there are too many other things to invest emotionally in.

That doesnt make any sense to me. Miller can coach scrubs but not elite players? Or the expectations are so low its who cares? The next HC is going to be a huge decision for the next FO. Hopefully the next HC has enough juice to coach Randle out of that spin move 80x a game.... one can wish

Nalod believes great coaches make good players better. You can't create winning without talent. A great coach gets more out. Phil elevated Jordan. Indisputable. Might another have done just as well or better? Maybe. We'll never know. Jordan no doubt elevated the triangle and Jacksons style. Kobe never won without Phil. Indisputable. Are there other dynamics to it? Of course. But Rudy T had some talented teams with Kobe in his prime and it did not happen. Kobe was also very difficult to coach. Massive ego. Jordan got Phil after 5 years in the league. It was easier for him to accept his coach.
MDA took all star nash and elevated to Twice MVP. Harden from all star to super star.
In each case there is a specific dynamic and not every coach can bring that from team to team. Thus Thibs history cannot be duplicated. One cannot simply transpose his past into a knick future that has different players against an every changing league. For even a KAT/Thibs reunion would need some reconciliation between them. KAT has to buy in or Thibs has to lower his KAT defense expectation and let him play.
There is no "Put Dennis in the DRose role. Entirely different players and make up. Rose was a very unique specimen.
PHil could have coached the knicks and I can't speak to him protecting his legacy but im not sure the roster turnover as it was could not have really gotten the triangle in place. Lets be real, Lakers had teams that did not buy in to it with Kobe and did not win. The Karl Malone/Payton team was a massive disappointment. Phil took the blame in his book. He said he did not coach them proper. If you read his books he at times was self critical. Is he arrogant? sure, he has 11 rings as a coach. Pop is arrogant, Auerbach was arrogant, Riles was, but did it with "Cool", Larry won both NCAA and NBA chips. Arrogant and not likable!!!

No winning coach can do it without talent. Miller is good "for now" in contrast to Fiz. In a world that "fair" and "Rewarded for hard work" should exist its easy desire retaining him.