Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,770 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)

The more I see former mentors become head coaches the more I realize it is a failed maneuver. Atlanta hawks (also 0-9 at this point) who have a boat load of good young players + Joe Johnson hired a clone of Sam Mitchell in Mike Woodson.

What is the trap?

<b>It is simply mistaking these guys incredible knack at motivating and winning over young players for head coaching material</b>. Their strength is communication and desire but as evidenced by the way they use their pawns there is a total lack of tactical brilliance and creativity.

can't close quarters
can't close games
can't make adjustments to runs

Lesson here?

Though Sam and Mike could have been the most invaluable assistance coaches in the NBA during their previous assignments - that does not make them the most qualified head coaches for the next job openings. IMO assitant coaches are a different breed. For instance Butch Carter would not have made a good long term assistance coach - could have been a great head coach if not for his lack of proffesionalism under the spot light.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,400 Posts
Your thread title, its Mike Woodson not Mike Woodsone.

But I don't really agree with you. What are you saying, these guys are made to be assistant coaches and they should not be given the opportunity to coach a team?

Butch Carter was given a relatively good team which got better by the moves the general manager made. There is no coach in the NBA that can make the Raptors better at this point.

When you look at these winning situations you actually have to respect the coaches that take these jobs. They know it will be a tough season, or two, or more, but they also know that they're leading a team that at some point down the road will build into a solid team. On the other side, guys like Larry Brown who skip their way to any team they want and bolt when something goes wrong, those are the bad coaches, not the ones that stick when things get though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,324 Posts
Its a valid point that the real strengths of these two guys are the skills that make a great ASSISTANT coach. Motivating, teaching, and working with young guys is mainly an assistant role.

But they have to be given the opportunity to see if they have head coaching skills. You will never know that until they get a shot. Everyone was an assistant at one time.

And right now both guys have very flawed teams that have no chemistry. It takes players a few years of playing together to develop strong chemistry and really understand the system and run it well. From the start of KO's year to today the only active players remaining are Chris Bosh and MoP. Same thing in Atlanta where its all rooks and new faces.

Coaching can't hide the serious flaws these teams have. Coaching can't turn the clock back on Jalen Rose, or make MoP into a complete ballplayer this late in his career. It can't make Alvin or Eric Williams healthy. It can't make Hoffa's arms 5 inches longer. And it can't pop 3 years of nba experience into the heads of Charlie, Joey, Jose, and Hoffa in only 9 games.

Atlanta and Toronto were the worst job openings in the league.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,400 Posts
You could then say the same thing about Byron Scott. He was an assistant with the Sacramento Kings in 1998-99 and 1999-00. Look at him now, he's not doing that great with two major loosing seasons - last and this year as well as one losing year in New Jersey.

What's the difference between Byron and Mitchell and Woodson?

Byron had a general manager in New Jersey who was able to pull off a trade for Jason Kidd and acquire Kenyon Martin which led to a 52-30 season.

I don't think the coaches are to blame in this situation - Mitchell, Woodson - because you also have to take a look at what the GMs from those two teams were able to do in terms of acquiring players that fit with the playing scheme of the team.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,770 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Slasher said:
Your thread title, its Mike Woodson not Mike Woodsone.

But I don't really agree with you. What are you saying, these guys are made to be assistant coaches and they should not be given the opportunity to coach a team?

Butch Carter was given a relatively good team which got better by the moves the general manager made. There is no coach in the NBA that can make the Raptors better at this point.
What I am saying is these guys (great assistants) are next in line for some of these head coaching jobs and do get opportunities. But keen GM's will know how to classify great assitants from great coaches.

Assistants are generally friendly (where the white hat) head coaches carry the hammer (the black hat) they bench players and have final say.

After watching alot of basketball it seems to me the best coach and assistant coach combo is
<b>Coach Criteria</b>
- bit of a mean streak
- student of the game
- exemplary array of situational/match up tactics
- strongly inforces dicipline and defence

<b>Assitant Criteria</b>
- more relatable to players
- passion for the game and development
- the 'other guy' who players can talk to with a handle on player physci
- the 'mother'

Sam and woodson Score major marks as assitants but are being out maneuvered on the tactical side.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,770 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Slasher said:
You could then say the same thing about Byron Scott. He was an assistant with the Sacramento Kings in 1998-99 and 1999-00. Look at him now, he's not doing that great with two major loosing seasons - last and this year as well as one losing year in New Jersey.
just to be clear - some one did say "they all start as assitants" true.

the trick here is differentiating the personality types as to who's station in life is a head coach and who is an assistant. (as my post above)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,876 Posts
I think assistant coaches are often the great tactitians and basketball strategists. Head coaches are often the figurehead communicators.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,324 Posts
Actually, Jack said that the other night. Assistant coaches are the ones that most thoroughly review scouting tapes and know what the other team is running. They often diagram plays in timeouts because they know the tendancies of the other team.

Its a big jump from assistant to head coach. I don't think its really possible to KNOW which guys are truly ready. Its like the draft. Guys look good at one level but will they be good at the next level.

Lawrence Frank and Eddie Jordan were clearly the brains behind Byron Scott. Are they really better than Mitchell though, or did they just walk into situations with much better talent.
 

·
Chillin'
Joined
·
20,141 Posts
charlz said:
What I am saying is these guys (great assistants) are next in line for some of these head coaching jobs and do get opportunities. But keen GM's will know how to classify great assitants from great coaches.

Assistants are generally friendly (where the white hat) head coaches carry the hammer (the black hat) they bench players and have final say.

After watching alot of basketball it seems to me the best coach and assistant coach combo is
<b>Coach Criteria</b>
- bit of a mean streak
- student of the game
- exemplary array of situational/match up tactics
- strongly inforces dicipline and defence

<b>Assitant Criteria</b>
- more relatable to players
- passion for the game and development
- the 'other guy' who players can talk to with a handle on player physci
- the 'mother'

Sam and woodson Score major marks as assitants but are being out maneuvered on the tactical side.
Going by that, Kevin O'Neill is much more head coaching material than Sam Mitchell... which is just not true.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,400 Posts
charlz said:
What I am saying is these guys (great assistants) are next in line for some of these head coaching jobs and do get opportunities. But keen GM's will know how to classify great assitants from great coaches.

Assistants are generally friendly (where the white hat) head coaches carry the hammer (the black hat) they bench players and have final say.

After watching alot of basketball it seems to me the best coach and assistant coach combo is
<b>Coach Criteria</b>
- bit of a mean streak
- student of the game
- exemplary array of situational/match up tactics
- strongly inforces dicipline and defence

<b>Assitant Criteria</b>
- more relatable to players
- passion for the game and development
- the 'other guy' who players can talk to with a handle on player physci
- the 'mother'

Sam and woodson Score major marks as assitants but are being out maneuvered on the tactical side.
Good point and I agree with you that coaches need to be harder on players than assistants, however, there's a trend with a lot of Raptors fans where when something goes wrong they look to either blame the coach or GM.

Wasn't Kevin O'Neill a hard-nosed coach, yet I remember people on this forum yelling and screaming for him to get the boot out the door - which later happened.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top