BuzzerBeater Forums

Rage and insult?
Have a spoonful of cement.
If you want to trade insults, fine: I can do that too. But I'd prefer to talk basketball, particularly if it doesn't mean that I *HAVE* to agree with you. Would that be ok with your sensitivities? You made some points initially that I'd like to respond to - but I have things to do at the moment. Back in around an hour!

I think Phil's desire for special treatment and accommodations had quite a bit to do with whether he was the right choice. I think a good full time coach is better than a great part timer.

D'antoni has only had success with one system in his entire career, and then just fairly limited success. His success has always been with fast athletic teams who can run, pass, and shoot from the perimeter. Doesnt sound much like the Lakers of today to me. Is it possible he can run an offense that fits the Lakers players? Sure, we just havent seen it with success yet. He got fired from the Knicks just last year and the Knicks improved as a result. The Knicks! The Lakers hired him because he doesnt rub Buss the wrong way like PJ, he is a big name that people know, and he is cheap. That is what I call a move for the sake of 'public relations', not pure X's and O's.

Jackson has had success in the past with multiple types of players, including a strong post up player named Shaq, and won championships.

Ok, ignoring the other bit entirely...
D'Antoni had better than limited success, he took a mediocre team and turned it into a true contender. During the 3 years he and Nash had PHX at their pinnacle, they were one of the best 3 teams in the NBA. But for a dodgy application of the rules, then PHX may have beaten a very good Spurs team - and in all likelihood won the title.
The vital, pivotal part of the offense he ran with the Suns was the pick and roll. That's the centerpiece, the shooting stems off that, but that was it. Additionally to running at pace, their half-court offense was devastating too.
The Knicks? Well... I agree with you. I think that he tried to run the same offensive system and bend the players to fit that, and it failed. Melo is completely the wrong type of player for many of the ideals D'Antoni preaches.
However, Jeremy Lin first had his successes under D'Antoni, and a lot of the offense the team played without Carmelo was redolent of his system.
But... I agree with you.

And I also agree with you that a motivated, enthused Phil Jackson is a better coach. Infinitely better.

But Jackson has never had a point-guard oriented team to run. That said, I think he's a smart enough guy to be able to work it so that Steve Nash would be the creative starting point. If motivated...
And that's really the point. Nearly everything I've read, everything I've heard, points to Phil Jackson not being totally motivated. Not really having the right reasons for taking the job.
Guys far more knowledgeable and *ahem* "brilliant" thee or me have stated that they know this, or at least believe it to be true.
Adrian Wojnarowski, Ryen Russillo, Bill Simmons. All think that the motivations PJ had for being interested weren't entirely above board.

If it's a choice between Phil Jackson of 2008/9 and D'Antoni, I take Phil. In a heartbeat. But if that choice becomes Phil circa 2010/11? Gimme Mike D'Antoni.
Mike D'Antoni isn't coming cheaply. I believe that it's a 4 year deal (4th year a team option), at around 4 mil a year (and the numbers could be way off on salary). That's cheaper than Phil, but not cheap.
A lot of experts have stated that an offense based on the pick and roll would be a better fit for LA than returning to the triangle. Only Gasol/Bryant/Blake really know the triangle, and I don't think Steve Blake will even hold down the back-up role that long. Yeah, I'm choosing to believe that D'Antoni won't try run the SSOL with LA. If mugs like you and I can see that this would be a bad fit, I think that D'Antoni will be able to see that too - from all reports he's a really smart guy.

Additionally, contract length. If Phil came aboard, then he's coach for a maximum of 2 years. I have difficulty seeing him being motivated beyond a few months, much less when he's nearly 70. That would mean a new coach when the franchise is looking to retool around Dwight. Bad idea. This way, they get to have a coach in place who can oversee the building around Dwight.

Err... part two coming up!

Maybe it's semantics, but I see what you're saying about PR as more "spin" from the Lakers than PR...
"Public relations" to me would mean that they are trying to appease the public, rather than make the more difficult choice.
Given the city of Los Angeles is baying for Phil Jackson, then I'd take a "PR choice" to be acquiescing to that - even tho' it would mean making some perhaps very difficult changes to the way the entire franchise exists.

So, for me it all comes down to:
- certainty over which Phil you're getting.
- support for Kupchak.
- contract length.
- fit of system.

On those, I believe that Mike D's the better fit. Overall. Is it a deadset certainty? Hell no. But all I'm doing is giving reasons as to why I believe they made the right choice.
(really interesting discussion on this between Ryen Russillo and Bill Simmons on the SVP/Russillo show - today)...

I think Phil's desire for special treatment and accommodations had quite a bit to do with whether he was the right choice. I think a good full time coach is better than a great part timer.

Succinct, and to the point.
I agree wholeheartedly.

I agree with some of your points, but share the same sentiment that given the current situation with the Lakers, Phil was the best candidate to fill-in for the HC vacancy (negotiations fiasco aside), at least for this season. Given the Lakers' payroll this season, I kind of find it laughable they choose to cut costs here, given the circumstances of needing to bring in a veteran coach (x amount of games into the regular season, falling well under .500, even with the injuries, which seems to be getting discounted for whatever reason), but that's how they operate...

Feel like not a lot of guys can handle a big market like LA (coaches that is), and that Phil has shown repeated success (championships) given short time, new faces, and handles pressure/egos/scheduling/veterans extremely well. The job was too big for Mike Brown, and (personally) I think it's too big for D'Antoni as well.

From D'Antoni's short stint with NY, Carmelo Anthony and Amare' Stoudemire in his last season, that alone was a challenge. I don't put a lot of whole stock in it, but the way that instant transformation took place under Mike Woodson, one begins to draw conclusions about some of the shortcomings with D'Antoni. BTW, I love how all of these coaches are named Mike!

Just my two cents, won't weigh in on the basketball side, I've only watched one game so far this season, but have taken a growing interest on following the business and management side of the NBA. o;

Last edited by a-o at 11/14/2012 12:52:00 AM

I won't pretend to know all the specifics here, but Kobe's take on it published http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/8629856/kob... to be given some credence.

Last edited by Demon Hoosier at 11/14/2012 12:56:25 AM

Good post, thanks for sharing!

@Shoei
I agree with a lot of your points.

Last edited by a-o at 11/14/2012 1:08:05 AM

as for management the matter is buss should be given the boot, the very reason why phil jackson wasnt hired is because he doesnt want to be proven wrong as he also got rid of whatever phil jackson influence in laker land. he wanted to prove that he can create a championship team and get rings for years to come outside of the traingle offense, outside the what he seems to think as BS phil jackson doctrine.

as we all know phil jackson is good to players and is a hard ass with management. if it were you would you put the guy again where you work hard to get rid off?

I think the Jim Buss vs Jackson is a fair point - and I do expect that you're right, but aren't we ignoring Mitch Kupchak? Kupchak's had an amazing off-season - one of quite a few, and to put Jackson in would mean a significant impact on what his job would be from that point on. That would be treating one of the association's best GMs pretty harshly.

I do feel that quite a few people here expect that *Phil Jackson* would have been the *Phil Jackson of 2008-10*, not the *Phil Jackson of 2011*.
May I ask why people expect that?

Last edited by malice at 11/14/2012 3:29:08 AM