SI.Com ranks the playoff coaches

[pup]

http://si.cnn.com/2007/writers/kelly_dw ... ngs/1.html


Anyone want to guess where our boy Mike Brown falls? Here is a hint, he comes after Phil Jackson and before, Brian Hill. Not before anyone else though.

[mattvan1]

While I don't disagree with Roker's positioning, Sloan at #7 makes me wonder a bit. Is Dwyer a respected analyst?

[pup]

As respected as you can be with SI.com, I guess.

Jerry Sloan is a very good coach, IMO, so I don't know if you are saying 7 is high or low.

[mattvan1]

Agree that Sloan is a very good coach, and has a great tensure and impressive numbers, but he is too old school for me - too much Bill Parcells which I don't think translates to (today's) NBA. Dwyer writes it in the comments

his intractable nature sometimes lays waste to his team's chances.

Although, more to the point I can't see anyone in the 8-16 that I'd jump ahead of him (Nelson?) so I guess there's not much of an issue.

[pup]

There are 2 surprises to me.

First is Scott Skiles. I thought he was regarded higher by most people. I never really saw it, so maybe he isn't. I really thought he would be a little higher.

And Sam Mitchell. Last year the guy was regarded as one of the worst coaches, ever. One good season and now he is repected? He could win this series, lose in round 2 to the Cavs, win coach of the year, and he is still going to get shitcanned.

[StewieG]

I would've put Roker at 14, Mitchell 15, and Hill 16, and moved everyone behind Mitchell up a notch. At this point, we're splitting hairs, but aside from moving other people up to 2 spots up or down, I really can't argue with his rankings very much. The biggest thing I would've done is move Mike D'Antoni up a couple spots. He got Nash, immediately saw how this team would best be run, and implemented it. He adjusted his style to his players. That, to me, is THE sign of a great coach. Now, it remains to be seen if he can do it with a team that doesn't have Steve Nash on it, but for now, I'd put him no lower than 3.

[pup]

StewieG - Isn't Dantoni's style the reason they went and got Nash. I thought he came in with the idea to play this style, but needed a PG to execute it and that is why they went out and got Nash.

I agree with the Roker/Mitchell/Hill being the 14/15/16.

[StewieG]

I hadn't heard that before, but it very well may be true. If that's the case, D'Antoni's probably fine where he's at.

I still don't understand how Roker, who despite all his flaws has led this team to back-to-back 50 win seasons in his first two years, is ranked behind Mitchell. Mitchell was about to be fired last year. Yes, he deserves credit for turning Toronto around, but I'm not ready to rank him ahead of a coach who's won 100 games in his first two years as a head coach.

My biggest problem with Roker though, is that the team he has is a slashing team. We should be making cuts like it's nobody's business. There is not one player in the starting lineup who isn't at least adequate scoring inside. The weakest is probably Pavlovic, and he's improved greatly in that area. This team is built on slashers, and has very few jump shooters. And yet the offense relies primarily on...jump shooters. I'm not saying the team is incapable of hitting a jump shot...Pavlovic is fine there, Z and Gooden are adequate for big men...but this team never cuts to the hole to receive a pass. It's either someone dribbles and drives, or the high screen and roll. Guys should be moving without the ball, cutting to the basket, running backdoor plays, doing everything they can to get easy buckets inside. We could probably score an extra 5 or 6 points a game if we did that, which is very significant over the course of the playoffs.

[pup]

My opinion is hard to explain, but here it goes:

Roker is a defense first coach. If we lost 60-59, he could get over it quicker than losing 110-109. Both are one point losses, but probably came in very different manners.

For a team that does not play great on the ball defense, the best way to be a defensive team is to limit posessions, fast break chances, and turnovers.

The best way to limit posessions, fast break chances and turnovers is to take the air out of the ball and rely on the best player on the floor to make something happen.

Driving to the hoop, slashing, cuts through the paint are all ways to score, but they also lead to the "bad things" from above. You are better off according to Mike Brown to hold the ball for 18 seconds, make a move, force an ugly jumper, but be in position to high tail it back to the defensive end and set up. By the time the ugly forced jumper gets to the rim and a rebound is grabbed, you should be able to get back on D.

So while we could probably score 6 more points a game slashing, it could very easily lead to giving up 6 more points. You win or lose by the same margin, just one fits better into what he wants to be "known for".

Those are not the only options to playing the game of basketball, which is why I think Mike Brown is a bum. He refuses to adjust to the players he has. They are trying to force a style into a group of players. So you are making 8 guys PLAY differently than what their natural talents suggest they do, instead of making one guy COACH a different style.

You could have conversations with soooo many people over time about the right way for the game to be played. Even for the right way to play depending on your talent level. What I don't think you could do is find too many people that will tell you the right way for this team to play is with a slow the game down, defensive grind. Maybe some old guy who is still living in the days of yesteryear where everyone would play defense, but in today's NBA, if you have a bunch of athletes, take advantage of them.

We start the tallest lineup in the NBA. We also start one of the most athletic lineups in the NBA. Yet, we slow the game down. If someone can explain to me how you do not want to take advatage of being tall, fast and athletic in the game of basketball, I would be all ears.

[mattvan1]

Don't know if you have a great post or "rack it" option here at TCF (which BTW, is, as a TLA (Three Letter Acronym) WAY to close to TCE) but whatver it is, I think Pup just summed up the enigma that is Roker. Quality post.

[consigliere]

Don't know if you have a great post or "rack it" option here at TCF (which BTW, is, as a TLA (Three Letter Acronym) WAY to close to TCE) but whatver it is, I think Pup just summed up the enigma that is Roker. Quality post.

Yeah, rack Pup.

But, rack you.....TCE.....TCF....Rich, how could you?