Peter Vescey on Scott Skiles

[Joe Mama]

I'm not sure if I believe or agree with everything in this article, but it is a good read. It sure seemed like the locker room under Scott Skiles' régime was very negative. It seems like that's what most of the ex-Phoenix Suns players complained about.

The first season Jason Kidd was in New Jersey I absolutely hated him. I hated in more than Karl Malone. I spent a lot of time that season defending the Phoenix Suns organization for trading him. By now I don't really care much about Jason Kidd or the New Jersey Nets. In fact last night I was hoping they would beat the Clippers to knock down a Western Conference competitor.

I do think it is interesting that so far Jason Kidd has been absolutely terrible in one of the areas that was supposed to be one of his strengths. He was supposed to be a great recruiter. He couldn't do anything to keep Antonio McDyess around. He was the guy that really pushed the Phoenix Suns to sign Penny Hardaway.

The summer of 2002 in New Jersey he pushed them to trade for Dikembe Mutombo and sign Rodney Rogers. Neither of those moves has worked out. This summer he insisted that New Jersey sign Alonzo Mourning if he was going to re-sign there. It will probably prove to be one of the worst moves of this decade.

I don't think Kidd is ever going to be a good GM.

Joe

http://www.nypost.com/sports/4328.htm

SKILES SADDLED WITH BUM RAP

November 28, 2003 -- IF you're wondering who signed off on Alonzo Mourning's (kidney illness) uninsured, $22-million guaranteed signing, it sure wasn't Nets VP Rod Thorn. Executives don't make those kinds of perilous command decisions for any teams; owners do. They're the ones who caved into Jason Kidd's demand to enlist the endangered 'Zo, or else.
A similar ultimatum was presented to the Spurs, but negotiations ended in Jersey before they knew exactly what it would cost to secure Kidd's buddy list. Dallas was prepared to do whatever it took to recruit the NBA's premier point, which is why Steve Nash was being covertly shopped at the time.

Once Jersey's owner realized other teams would docilely comply with Kidd's wishes (all it ever takes is one gluttonous fool to raise the bidding to extreme) the NumbNets were coerced to capitulate against the better judgment of every one of their doctors.

Several months later, 'Zo's kidneys are malfunctioning so seriously he's in desperate need of a transplant and I hear Kidd, in essence, mouthing this about his dear friend: "It's more important that he's home with his family than playing basketball. I want to be able to call him on the phone. I want him to be able to watch his children grow up."

What a shame those sentiments weren't forcefully articulated to Mourning when it mattered most.

For some perverse reason, Kidd (a victim of this, a victim of that) pointed his crooked little finger at Scott Skiles after being traded to the Nets for Stephon Marbury. As you recall, the first time the Suns showed up at the Swamp, he taunted his former Suns coach during the game. As if Skiles had to influence Jerry and Bryan Colangelo to distance their team from a wife-beater.

Because the Nets have been so successful since Kidd's arrival, the irrational conclusion drawn by the oblivious majority in the media is that Skiles was the bad guy, that he was excessively demanding and disrespectful, that Kidd, Rodney Rogers and Shawn Marion had no use for him.



That's the nonsense I've been reading the last few days prior to Skiles' official introduction today as Bill Cartwright's head coaching replacement in Chicago. As if Kidd has ever gotten along with any coach - college or pro - who wasn't hand-picked by him. As if Rogers isn't overweight and indolent every other season in Phoenix (and New Jersey, Denver and L.A.) and didn't deserve to be called out.

Meanwhile, Marion has the highest regard for Skiles. When asked a couple days ago by one of his teammates how he thought Scott would do with the Bulls, he replied, "He'll do well. I think he's a great coach."

Skiles made one fatal error during his ultra-impressive, incomplete three-year tenure (116-79) with the Suns, something I suspect he'll never repeat. Early in the third season he became frustrated with himself (for not being able to get through to them) as much as the players; they weren't responding to his requisite for pure precision and maximum aggression.

After a particularly tough loss to the Nuggets and subsequent chewing out, Skiles alerted the players, "If you don't like the way I'm coaching, if I'm not the right guy to get you to play the game the right way, I might as well resign."

That evening, Bryan Colangelo got a frantic call from Marbury. "You've got to do something! Scott told us he's going to quit. We need him! I need him!"

A meeting was hastily arranged the very next afternoon, a Sunday. Attendance was kept to a minimum, the Colangelos and Skiles.

"Scott wanted to make sure he had our support, which we gave him," Bryan said. "We wanted to make sure he wanted to remain as coach. He said, 'Absolutely!'

"A lot of people think we had to talk him into staying. There's no truth to that at all."

The problem was, numerous players tuned out Skiles following his motivational speech that backfired. They figured he'd meant what he said so why do as he says; he'd be quitting soon enough.

Skiles' first two seasons after succeeding Danny Ainge, who flat out quit 20 games into '99-'00, the Suns were 38 games above equilibrium. Two months after carelessly spouting off, his team was 25-26 and vividly dragging.

Another meeting was set up between the Colangelos and Skiles.

"We figured the best thing to do for our team and his career was to move forward without Scott," Bryan said. "It was a mutual agreement and in the mutual interest of everyone concerned.

"Contrary to popular opinion, there was no firing, no quitting and no animosity. Scott's a brilliant, no-nonsense guy who greatly respects the game."

 

[thegrahamcrackr]

I dont remember hearing about the Marbury phone call.

It was a good read however.

 

[fordronken]

Originally posted by thegrahamcrackr
I dont remember hearing about the Marbury phone call.

It was a good read however.

I also don't remember hearing anything about Vescey knowing what the hell he's talking about. Ever.

Maybe he should replace Frank Johnson.

 

[Errntknght]

Oddly enough it sounds like Vecsey has the bare facts right about the manner of Skiles departure from the Suns. I don't think that had much to do with why so many of us wanted to see him go, which was because he was a lousy coach. No doubt he was a good technician as far as the Xs and Os of defense are concerned but he was a grim, humorless person without a glimmer of humanity. Remember Rex saying about him that even his friends thought he was as a$$hole, in the aftermath of Skiles denigrating remarks about some player in the press.

I expect Scotty will get Chicago playing better defense but I don't expect him to succeed in the long run. He's simply too abrasive and hypercompetitive and he will grind his players down. Don't forget that Phoenix deteriorated steadily under his guidance after that first honeymoon season. He may not survive into the long run... he looks to be on the verge of apoplexy every game...

 

[3rdside]

I expect Scotty will get Chicago playing better defense but I don't expect him to succeed in the long run. He's simply too abrasive and hypercompetitive and he will grind his players down. Don't forget that Phoenix deteriorated steadily under his guidance after that first honeymoon season. He may not survive into the long run... he looks to be on the verge of apoplexy every game...

I think it's a touch unfair to forecast his demise already. Do you think he might have learnt a lesson or two from his phoenix days? Howabout the fact that our organisation has a repeated history of hiring and firing coaches at will - do you think there's a chance it may be us and not him that's the problem?

 

[sly fly]

Originally posted by Errntknght
Oddly enough it sounds like Vecsey has the bare facts right about the manner of Skiles departure from the Suns. I don't think that had much to do with why so many of us wanted to see him go, which was because he was a lousy coach. No doubt he was a good technician as far as the Xs and Os of defense are concerned but he was a grim, humorless person without a glimmer of humanity. Remember Rex saying about him that even his friends thought he was as a$$hole, in the aftermath of Skiles denigrating remarks about some player in the press.

I expect Scotty will get Chicago playing better defense but I don't expect him to succeed in the long run. He's simply too abrasive and hypercompetitive and he will grind his players down. Don't forget that Phoenix deteriorated steadily under his guidance after that first honeymoon season. He may not survive into the long run... he looks to be on the verge of apoplexy every game...

If Skiles can reach the young players quickly... then who cares if he lasts long-term? Not too many coaches do.

 

[George O'Brien]

Scott Skiles v George Karl

Some coaches are good at getting teams to play hard. For a while Skiles had the Suns playing very hard. But the pressure wears if the coach lacks a sense of humor.

I was very impressed with the George Karl Sonics in that they played hard all the time. Eventually the atmosphere became too much and he ended up leaving. He had a similar pattern in Milwaukee with success early followed by trading away everybody who resisted his style.

I have thought about whether two years of George Karl would get the Suns close to the top. After that, someone else would have to clean up the mess.

 

[Errntknght]

3rdside, "I think it's a touch unfair to forecast his demise already."

I'm a fan on a message board and he's a public figure - I can easily be wrong in my forecast but how could I be unfair?

"Do you think he might have learnt a lesson or two from his phoenix days?"

He probably learned something here but I'd be dumbfounded if he changed his personality. In fact, I think the situation with Skiles is a lot worse than I wrote - I think he cannot tolerate the pressure of the job. That's rather speculative but it seemed to me he got more tense and more erratic his third season.

"Howabout the fact that our organisation has a repeated history of hiring and firing coaches at will - do you think there's a chance it may be us and not him that's the problem?"

There's no question in my mind that our organization has a major problem in the hiring of coaches - I've been saying as much for a couple of decades. IMO, Scott Skiles was the worst mistake they ever made - in hiring, I mean, not firing. Before Danny left I was praying he'd stick out the season so there'd be a chance that the Colangeli would make a serious search for a new coach and not promote Skiles. I was afraid the team would play better simply because their distraught coach was gone and it would take three or four years for the C's to realize their mistake. As it happened they never did realize it and lost no time repeating it.

 

[George O'Brien]

I have some sympathy for Skiles, even though I think he mismanaged the situation badly.

Skiles won because he focused on defense, but in the off season the Suns traded awy his two best defensive players: Kidd and Robinson as part of a long range restructuring of the team. Both deals made long term sense for the Suns (Kidd would have left last summer when his contract was up) and the Robinson deal led indirectly to getting the Cabackapa pick.

It was inevitable that the Suns would struggle after those deals, but Skiles could not accept coaching a team of players like Rogers and Delk who would not play good defense. He eventually gave up trying and the team went into a total tail spin.

Skiles needs players with the same kind of intensity that he had as a player. It is hard to imagine the Bulls players have that intensity, but maybe he will bring it out. If he does, they have the talent to be a playoff team in the East. If not, Scott will be unemployed at the end of the season.

 

[PhiLLmattiC]

I was really upset when Skiles resigned. I thought he coached well and if anything he had problems trying to coach marbury and make him more into a distributor. The Suns topped the league in defense his last year but it didn't translate into too many wins. They still would have made the playoffs.

 

[Yuma]

Peter Vescey on Scott Skiles

That's an ugly picture!!! Yuck!!!

 

[3rdside]

That's an ugly picture!!! Yuck!!!

lol!

I'm a fan on a message board and he's a public figure - I can easily be wrong in my forecast but how could I be unfair?

unfair - as in you've written the guy off without having given the guy a chance to prove himself. Its unfair. You're still entitled to your opinion though.

In fact, I think the situation with Skiles is a lot worse than I wrote - I think he cannot tolerate the pressure of the job. That's rather speculative but it seemed to me he got more tense and more erratic his third season.

speculative - yes. You may as well of said he likes to blow goats, there's just as much proof.

I'm not saying you're wrong in any of this, I just think you're being too harsh on a guy that perhaps wasn't given enough time here in phoenix or maybe the situation just didn't suit him.

 

[George O'Brien]

Before Skiles became the Suns coach, he was considered one of the "hottest" prospects in the NBA. No one doubted that he had the ability. At the same time, he would not be first coach to fail in his first head coaching stint. Look at how well Lloyd is doing in New Orleans after being hopeless in Chicago.

That being said, I suspect that Skiles would do better with a veteran team of players who are willing to be pushed. It is not an accident that Larry Brown does best with veteran teams (no I do not think Skiles is another Larry Brown). Nor is it an accident that Lloyd is doing better with a veteran team down in New Orleans. Veterans can be coached. Young players need to be trained.

The reason I think Jerry Sloan is a candidate for Coach of the Year is that he is getting team play out of his young players.

 

[Joe Mama]

Originally posted by George O'Brien
Before Skiles became the Suns coach, he was considered one of the "hottest" prospects in the NBA. No one doubted that he had the ability. At the same time, he would not be first coach to fail in his first head coaching stint. Look at how well Lloyd is doing in New Orleans after being hopeless in Chicago.

That being said, I suspect that Skiles would do better with a veteran team of players who are willing to be pushed. It is not an accident that Larry Brown does best with veteran teams (no I do not think Skiles is another Larry Brown). Nor is it an accident that Lloyd is doing better with a veteran team down in New Orleans. Veterans can be coached. Young players need to be trained.

The reason I think Jerry Sloan is a candidate for Coach of the Year is that he is getting team play out of his young players.

I totally disagree about Scott Skiles. Unless he's changed a bunch since his stay in Phoenix, he would be better suited for a high school or college head coaching position. I definitely don't think he will do better with veteran teams. I think he is much better fitted for whipping some of these young guys into shape.

Joe

 

[JCSunsfan]

Originally posted by Joe Mama
I totally disagree about Scott Skiles. Unless he's changed a bunch since his stay in Phoenix, he would be better suited for a high school or college head coaching position. I definitely don't think he will do better with veteran teams. I think he is much better fitted for whipping some of these young guys into shape.

Joe

A agree with you Joe, almost. He will do best with young players that will depend upon him to get playing time, or face short careers. If his mgmt backs him, and allows him to bench (or even trade) a veteran prima donna, he will really be set. Trading Rose has already proven a point to this team.

Players who are used to losing will begin to buy into Skiles, if what he does produces wins. Curry and Chandler were hs prima donnas, but I would dare say that several season of losing in Chicago has humbled them some.

If they establish a habit of winning, over a season or so, they will start to believe their own press clippings, and might tire of Skiles demands.

The fact is that Pat Riley is exactly the same type of coach that Skiles is (in temperament).

 

[Errntknght]

"unfair - as in you've written the guy off without having given the guy a chance to prove himself. Its unfair."

But he did have a chance to prove himself in Phoenix and it is my considered opinion that he failed here because of his personality and temperment, hence is likely to fail in Chi-town. If you feel obliged to ignore history or paid scant attention to his coaching here, you probably should wait to form an opinion.


"speculative - yes. You may as well of said he likes to ... , there's just as much proof."

I gave my opinion and the reasons for it. Are you suggesting you conform to a higher standard? If so, I'll be the first to confess it has eluded me.


"...maybe the situation just didn't suit him."

That was exactly my thought when he was hired here, except for the 'maybe'.

 

[Errntknght]

Joe wrote, "I totally disagree about Scott Skiles. Unless he's changed a bunch since his stay in Phoenix, he would be better suited for a high school or college head coaching position."

Do you really think it's good for youngsters to be heavily exposed to such a grim, hypercompetitive person as Scott Skiles?


George O' wrote, "Look at how well Lloyd is doing in New Orleans after being hopeless in Chicago."

Do we really know if Tim Floyd was hopeless in Chicago? Suppose, for example, he was under some pressure to use the trinagle offense, which I believe he did employ there and does not in New Orleans. The triangle is acknowleged to be extremely difficult to implement without Tex Winter at your side. If that was his situation you could say he was set up for failure. Perhaps Cartwright was as well.
Floyd was quoted recently as saying that he was given lots of advice in Chicago and made the mistake of following it, which he wouldn't repeat in NO. Now I read the between the lines the part about the triangle but it makes considerable sense.
It's still early days but if he proves to be a good coach I'll take it as the Bulls management having screwed up, not Tim Floyd.

I believe I saw a quote someplace recently of Bulls players being elated that with the advent of Skiles they were freed from the triangle. Maybe it was in the wire recap of the Bulls-Bucks game.

 

[Joe Mama]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not sure Scott Skiles is really good for anyone because he seems to be so negative. I just believe that veterans will tune him out much more quickly.

I agree with you about Tim Floyd. He was basically forced to run the triangle offense in Chicago. I'm not so sure the failure of the triangle offense with these posts Michael Jordan Bulls has as much to do with the absence of Tex Winters as it does with the players that were trying to run it. Either way, as an outsider I wouldn't blame Tim Floyd. That said, I don't think he's doing anything New Orleans that Paul Silas wouldn't have or couldn't have done himself.

Joe Mama

 

[George O'Brien]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not sure Scott Skiles is really good for anyone because he seems to be so negative. I just believe that veterans will tune him out much more quickly.

It depends on the veterans. Cliff Robinson and Jason Kidd responded well. I can name a lot of veterans who would not.

Matching the team to the coach is no easy task. Back in the late '90's the Knicks hired Don Nelson as coach. The Knicks had Ewing and good supporting staff, so having a creative coach like Nelson looked like just the trick. He bombed.

I never got the whole story, but the Knicks players were so set in their ways that the openly revolted when Nelson tried to get them to do other things. In Dallas, Nelson has had the chance to build his kind of team - versitle guys that handle the ball and shoot. Nelson all but invented small ball and the point forward. It was a big culture shock for the slow go Knicks.

In a similar manner, give Skiles a group of intensve defensive specialists and he will win "coach of the year". Give him a bunch of players who only want to shoot and play hard just part of the time, and Skiles will go crazy.

 

[Joe Mama]

Jason Kidd loathed Scott Skiles. Scott Skiles did not like Jason Kidd's style of basketball because he wanted a point guard who was much better in the half-court.

Joe Mama

 

[George O'Brien]

If Skiles loathed Kidd, I can only imagine what he felt about Marbury whose style is that exact opposite of Skiles playing style.

 

[Errntknght]

"If Skiles loathed Kidd, I can only imagine what he felt about Marbury whose style is that exact opposite of Skiles playing style."

I don't know that Skiles loathed Kidd any more than he did the next guy but Skiles general style of offense is to grind it out in the halfcourt rather than pushing the ball upfloor trying to score before the defense is set - the style Kidd is best at. On defense I can't see why he wouldn't like Jason's contribution.

I do remember something spilling over into the press about Kidd being unhappy with Skiles calling lots of plays from the sidelines. I recall Kidd glaring at Skiles a number of times when he made such calls. Eventually that subsided into mutual tolerance,

As far as Marbury is concerned, his walk it up and beat the opponents in the half court game meshed with Skiles quite well. True, as a player, Skiles was not the scorer Marbury was but it never appeared to me he was upset with Marbs steady dribbling and driving to the hoop. I remember thinking he should diversify the offense a good bit and it didn't appear that Skiles was trying to but Stephon was balking at it. Now Marbs defensive intensity might not have been all that Skiles wished for...

 

[3rdside]

But he did have a chance to prove himself in Phoenix and it is my considered opinion that he failed here because of his personality and temperment, hence is likely to fail in Chi-town. If you feel obliged to ignore history or paid scant attention to his coaching here, you probably should wait to form an opinion.

(((jerk alert)))

um yeah, whatever.

my logic:

Scott Skiles finds himself in an unfavourable situation in Phoenix. He's been a bit severe in dealing with certain player and manages to isolate himself from much of the team. He gets fired. There's a good chance he'll learn from his mistakes.

He then gets hired by the Bulls who probably see in Scott Skiles a guy with a 116 - 79 win/loss record (that's pretty good by the way) and a disciplined approach towards coaching - something the Bulls could do with. There's a good chance that he might succeed. In my opinion, you'd be foolish to say he will fail particularly when he hasn’t even coached one game yet. After seeing the Bulls win their first game with Skiles as coach, I’d feel somewhat justified in my reasoning.

Your logic:

Skiles will fail because he failed in Phoenix. Forget that he has a 60% winning record, forget that Phoenix has a history of firing coaches before their contracts expire, forget that Skiles will have learnt from his past mistakes (people usually do) and:

In fact, I think the situation with Skiles is a lot worse than I wrote - I think he cannot tolerate the pressure of the job. That's rather speculative but it seemed to me he got more tense and more erratic his third season.

just make up stuff out of nowhere in the hope that you might sound convincing.

I’m afraid you don’t (at least not to me anyway).

 

[PhiLLmattiC]

Damn, I was convinced. Not anymore, I'll tell u that. I think Skiles will do fine. I think he learned from the past.

 

[Errntknght]

"In my opinion, you'd be foolish to say he will fail particularly when he hasn’t even coached one game yet. After seeing the Bulls win their first game with Skiles as coach, I’d feel somewhat justified in my reasoning."

You'd have thought I was outright crazy when my opinion was that Skiles would fail here in Phoenix after his first season - he was the savior, according to almost everyone. Still I believed what I saw in his handling of the team was more important than the WL record the team achieved. So it was no surprise to me that the team steadily declined from that point on.

It was a similar situation about a year ago regarding FJ... it was during the teams little December run that I decided I'd seen enough of FJ to believe that he didn't have solid enough X's and Os to be an NBA head coach - though his choice of the motion offense with his group of players made me suspicious earlier. It was not acclaimed as an insight at the time, to put it mildly, though a few people thought there might be something to it.

Oh yeah, I got called worse than foolish when I offered the opinion that Ainge wouldn't last the season the year he did quit because he seemed to be showing signs that the stress was seriously getting to him. I was a bit surprised that it happened so early in the year but not surprised that Skiles was installed the instant he quit - or slightly before.

Anyway, I'll just go along seeing what I see and forming my own opinions, however many people think them foolish.


"just make up stuff out of nowhere in the hope that you might sound convincing."

What in the world did I say that I could have made up... all I said was that it seemed to me that Skiles was getting more tense and erratic his third year. If it didn't seem that way to you, that's fine, but I don't know why you'd accuse me of making up my impressions. It's a losing argument as everyone knows you can't possibly know if I did or not. And they may think imputing lies to another poster, lacking any evidence, is boorish behavior.