Hudson is bought out

[Chaplin]

sorry, but I really don't see how DA's system working in Italy is proof of anything except that his system worked in Italy (a completely different brad of ball), especially considering his absolutely abysmal NBA coaching record without Steve Nash. Whether it's DA is a great coach is still very much up for debate and will be determined after Nash is gone IMO.

Does that theory apply to Gregg Popovich when Tim Duncan leaves? I doubt you'll find many people that say that he is called a great coach only because Duncan is on the team.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

Does that theory apply to Gregg Popovich when Tim Duncan leaves? I doubt you'll find many people that say that he is called a great coach only because Duncan is on the team.

i'm making an assumption, but i'll bet that his overall record in games duncan misses is MUCH greater than dantoni's record in games w/o nash. hell, just look at how the team plays when nash is off the floor, they grind to a halt most of the time. that means (imo) that dantoni can't strategize w/o nash.

has he put an exciting brand of ball on the floor? of course. have i seen him outcoach anyone? not yet.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Does that theory apply to Gregg Popovich when Tim Duncan leaves? I doubt you'll find many people that say that he is called a great coach only because Duncan is on the team.

He's called a great coach because he has taken two completely different teams to the NBA Championship, something DA hasn't even sniffed, so actually I should probably add a caveat to my statement. If DA wins a title with this style with Nash, than he unabashedly deserves a TON of credit and could be labeled as great in my eyes. However, since we've seen Nash accomplish this without DA, on much worse teams, I think it's impossible to say what's getting Nash back to the same point - him or the coach? And to this point, that coach hasn't gotten him any further, so yeah, the juries still out on DA as opposed to Pop because Pop has cultivated a dynasty, plain and simple.

I'm also willing to bet Pop's record without Duncan isn't nearly as abysmal as DA's without Nash.

 

[Chaplin]

He's called a great coach because he has taken two completely different teams to the NBA Championship, something DA hasn't even sniffed, so actually I should probably add a caveat to my statement. If DA wins a title with this style with Nash, than he unabashedly deserves a TON of credit and could be labeled as great in my eyes. However, since we've seen Nash accomplish this without DA, on much worse teams, I think it's impossible to say what's getting Nash back to the same point - him or the coach? And to this point, that coach hasn't gotten him any further, so yeah, the juries still out on DA as opposed to Pop because Pop has cultivated a dynasty, plain and simple.

I'm also willing to bet Pop's record without Duncan isn't nearly as abysmal as DA's without Nash.

Fair enough.

To take it a step further, how would you characterize Nash's 2 MVPs under D'Antoni, and 0 under whoever happened to be coaching the Mavs? It sounds like you think that Nash is pretty self-sufficient, yet if that were true, wouldn't he have been an MVP candidate on the Mavs as well?

 

[azirish]

I don't think a "bad" coach can win a championship, but neither can a great coach do it without great players. Obviously I'm not going out on a limb here.

The failure to win the championship is not in and of itself proof of being inadequate as a coach. Cotton never won it and the list of great coaches who came up short is really very long. It took Larry Brown forever to finally win it (with the help of Karl Malone's injury), yet no one denied he was a great coach. Jerry Sloan came up short every time. Don Nelson has never been to the finals, but look at his overall record and I think he qualifies as one of the best coaches of his era. No matter how great a coach is, there is an awful lot of luck involved. Pat Riley is a great coach, but won it all only once since the 80's.

Winning the championship is not necessarily proof of being "great". Chuck Daly had one collection of players that was great, but his overall record was pretty average. Rudy T won it two years in a row, but was pretty average the rest of his career.

For whatever it is worth, it should be noted that Pop's first year was the year when Duncan was drafted. The following season was when the Spurs when the Spurs won their first championship (1998-99) - the strike year. The next season the Spurs won 53 games and lost to the Suns in first round. But the next three years were dominated by the Lakers. All the genius in the world was not going to beat Shaq and Kobe.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I don't think a "bad" coach can win a championship, but neither can a great coach do it without great players. Obviously I'm not going out on a limb here.

The failure to win the championship is not in and of itself proof of being inadequate as a coach.

well, no duh George. No one said it was. There is an entire spectrum of choice between between inadequate and great, and DA definitely leans towards the higher end of that scale, but nice to try to distort the debate.

Cotton never won it and the list of great coaches who came up short is really very long. It took Larry Brown forever to finally win it (with the help of Karl Malone's injury), yet no one denied he was a great coach.

Gee, maybe that's because he resurrected not one franchise, the Spurs (WCF), not two franchises, the Clippers (playoffs), not three franchises, the Pacers (two ECF), not four franchises, the Sixers (Finals), and actually won the NBA Title and got to another Finals. Maybe that's why he was looked at as a great coach, because his teams were always a)overachieving and b) contending. Thus, the guy's track record isn't based on one set of players like DA, thus there's no comparison between the two.

Jerry Sloan came up short every time.

But he got to the Finals, no? And he's shown the ability to rebuild another team into a contender, without HOFers getting to the WCF, no? Again, the guy doesn't have a brief track record with just one set of players like DA, thus no comparison there. Seeing a trend?

Don Nelson has never been to the finals, but look at his overall record and I think he qualifies as one of the best coaches of his era. No matter how great a coach is, there is an awful lot of luck involved. Pat Riley is a great coach, but won it all only once since the 80's.

I won't go into Nellie because I don't have the time to discuss his legendary prowess as an innovator, but as far as Riles is concerned, he's taken THREE different franchises to the Finals, on top winning 6 titles, and on top of that, he got the Heat when they were a joke of the league and quickly turning them into a perenial power in the East. Again, track record, multiple teams, resounding succes, NO COMPARISON.

Winning the championship is not necessarily proof of being "great". Chuck Daly had one collection of players that was great, but his overall record was pretty average. Rudy T won it two years in a row, but was pretty average the rest of his career.

sorry, but it's completely ridiculous statement to suggest that Daly wasn't a great HC. Rudy T's immediately lifted what had been a life-less franchises with one of the best players in the game to a three-time division winner, two time champ and an WCF Finalist another year down the road. He also lost that entire club and put together another playoff team afterwards, but the true extent of his greatness couldn't be determined because dude got cancer and that became his life, rather than coaching.

For whatever it is worth, it should be noted that Pop's first year was the year when Duncan was drafted. The following season was when the Spurs when the Spurs won their first championship (1998-99) - the strike year. The next season the Spurs won 53 games and lost to the Suns in first round.

i'd say the abive is worth very little when you factor in that Duncan DIDN'T PLAY AGAINST SUNS IN THAT SERIES and was injured the last two weeks of the season. But that couldn't have anything to do with them losing that year, right?

But the next three years were dominated by the Lakers. All the genius in the world was not going to beat Shaq and Kobe.

and this is wrong as well, as the next TWO years were dominated by the Lakers, but Pop, as usual, showed his "genius" in beating the ever living crap out of the Lakers the next season, when the Lakers were defending champs.

 

[azirish]

and this is wrong as well, as the next TWO years were dominated by the Lakers, but Pop, as usual, showed his "genius" in beating the ever living crap out of the Lakers the next season, when the Lakers were defending champs.

My bad, the Lakers did not get a chance to beat the Spurs the first year after the Spurs first championship because the Suns did it for them.