ballocks

personally, i don't think coaches have as much of an impact as some people suggest. regardless, i don't know how very many people could agree with what steph's saying here. i'm not sure he means it like it's being reported but if he does, i think he's off the mark.

for one, the 'mentally tough' attitude is not necessarily something i agree with. mentally tough? is that how you'd describe this team? i'm not sure. and even if it is, most of the players here were acquired over the last 10 months (nesterovic, bargnani, garbajosa, parker, dixon, ford, humphries, slokar, tucker). only chris, joey, jose, mop and d-mart are holdovers from last year. maybe sam's had a substantial impact on chris' development, but joey, jose, mop and d-mart? are they mentally tough? are you going to cite that trait in those players in order to praise sam's handling of them? if so, is that why joey and mop are constantly moving in and out of the rotation these days, the latter of whom appears to need a psychiatrist? d-mart? jose? i don't know. i think calderon's been 'this way' for years, at least it seems like he has, and i'm not sure how much credit should be afforded sam mitchell because of it.

i suppose he could've also had an effect on rasho when they played together in minny and tj when they were in milwaukee, but seriously- we're picking at threads there.

i'm not saying that we should get rid of sam- if anything, i'm saying the opposite: coaches probably don't matter nearly as much as we're in the habit of suggesting. i mean, there are moments in every season when the coach is crucial, but there are also quite a few where he doesn't matter at all.

for that reason, i'm a big fan of establishing a coach's security on a team. if nothing else, it prevents the media and fans from bringing rumours/distractions to the table on a habitual basis, which are often things that detract from a team's pursuit of its goal. the situations where coaches have been successful enough over their respective careers as to guarantee their own futures (like los angeles, san antonio, salt lake, miami) are more conducive to the ultimate goal of success than anywhere else (imo). the 'revolving door' cities are not surprisingly in a 'hole' more times than not.

and the way i put it here is going through the back door, i guess, but whatever: if you could find the right fit for your coach (that should be the primary criteria), you need to find a way to keep him around long-term. the details that we constantly critique and criticize are rarely game-breakers (good or bad) and shouldn't necessarily be raised in an effort to kick someone out of town. in other words, they're often irrelevant imo. and if they are, we should secure a coach long-term so as to dissolve the mountains of stress and distraction that arise from the massive, speculative rumour mill that grows on said mountains.

anyway, this was more a point on "team-building" as i see it, inspired only by stephon marbury's comment (which i might see as a symptom of the issue i'm talking about, i don't know) and probably doesn't belong here, but it's here now. what can i do.

peace