Coaches Matter, But So Does Perspective

by Ziller on Feb 26, 2009 6:10 AM PST in Commentary Comment 54 comments

I think we can all accept that in his current frame of mind, Kenny Natt is not an NBA head coach. He doesn't have the offensive chops, the defensive chops, the motivational chops. He does not appear to have the chops.

The Kings are bad and should be bad. But what's the difference between the way these Kings are playing and the way the Timberwolves played under Randy Wittman at the end of last season? Or the Bucks with Larry Krystowiak? Or the Sonics with P.J. Carlesimo? Or the Bobcats with Sam Vincent?

Ah yes ... Sam Vincent. Currently working in the D-League. That brings us to Ailene Voisin's told-you-so on the Bee's blog this morning.

The latest from the woulda, coulda, shoulda category, and reminding everyone that the winning coach in Arco Arena last night - Charlotte Bobcats coach Larry Brown - practically begged Geoff Petrie for an interview two offseasons ago. And Petrie, who historically is very conservative when hiring coaches, said no thanks. [...]

[G]iven how far the mighty Kings have fallen, along with the fact that Larry is affordable these days because of the Knicks' cushion, Geoff probably regrets not extending the invitation. (Joe and Gavin Maloof were ecstatic about Brown's interest, and were ready to offer a contract before Geoff talked them down). [...]

Small-market franchises need to be smarter and strike it big when they can. This was one of this times. This was a blown opportunity.

The Bobcats under Larry Brown this season: 23-35, a 39% winning percentage.

The Bobcats last season under Sam Vincent, a universally accepted disaster, now coaching anonymously in the D-League: 32-50, a 39% winning percentage.

Brown has Charlotte playing solid (good) defense. But his team also traded its best scorer for two strong defenders in Raja Bell and Boris Diaw. Brown has acquired the services of a great rookie point guard. He has DeSagana Diop and Vlad Radmanovic instead of Matt Carroll and Adam Morrison. The roster has improved markedly ... and the team is basically no better than with Vincent.

In retrospect, Brown would have been a better choice than Reggie Theus, who only served to further the destruction of team pride Eric Musselman helped start. But let's not ignore Brown's record leading up to the summer of 2007. He bilked the Knicks out of millions when things didn't go well, he tried to supplant Maurice Cheeks in Philadelphia. Passing him up was a prudent choice, and a dozen other teams (including the Bobcats) made the same exact call in 2007. And Brown has not been an unmitigated success in Charlotte.

Told-you-so punditry is generally worthless. When combined with a complete disregard for the reality of the situation, it's irresponsible. Larry Brown could not have saved the Kings.

2 recs | Comment 54 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Making Reggie the fall guy

In retrospect, Brown would have been a better choice than Reggie Theus, who only served to further the destruction of team pride Eric Musselman helped start.

This is weak. Theus did the best he could with a rapidly declining roster supplied to him by Petrie and the Maloofs. He improved the club in his one full season. He started this season 6-18. Since then, we are 5-29, so he looks awfully good in retrospect.

If anything, Reggie might have delayed this train wreck for longer than could be reasonably expected. Do you really think Larry Brown could have done a better job? Hell, I think Gregg Popovich or Phil Jackson would have struggled given the chips we’ve had in play here in recent years.

"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."

by coolcatreportdotcom on Feb 26, 2009 6:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Reggie wasn't actually working

If the reports after his departure are to be believed.

Mambo King

by otis29 on Feb 26, 2009 7:06 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Pointing fingers at decisions made years ago is

Wait....Why is everybody clapping? Everyone around me is clapping.... I guess I should be clapping too... GO LAKERS!!! I hate living in So Cal

by 27freethrows on Feb 26, 2009 7:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with CC

It is obvious now that Theus did the best he could with a badly contructed roster.

We have / had NO interior presence to lean on when shots aren’t falling,

No alternative size or skill sets on the wings to mix things up against different schemes,

No emotional leadership and attitude guys that let you get past rough patches ( I know many don’t buy this but there are guys who say ‘Yes, they kicked our assess today but damn it! We’re going to kick thiers tomorrow! – and I can’t wait!")

That being said – there’s been a number of games this year that a top flight coach would have brought home, quite a few IMO.

So imitate the action of the tiger!
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favoured rage.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,

Now set the teeth - and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Feb 26, 2009 9:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

False equivalence

Because the team has sucked under Natt doesn’t mean the team didn’t suck under Theus. The team has underperformed, period.

by Ziller on Feb 26, 2009 10:53 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Handicaps

Not to make excuses, but Theus was also handicapped by not having Brad Miller due to suspension and Martin and Garcia due to injury for a number of games. Natt has pretty much had a full roster to play with.

Theus I think at least had a concept of what he wanted to accomplish, even though he never really got much of a chance to develop anything real coherent due to the continued shuffling of personnel available. On the other hand, I really don’t see a coherent offense or defense or substitution patterns out of Natt.

Bottom line: I’m not going to say we’d be significantly better if Theus was still calling the hosts, but I think we’d have more than 12 wins. I think Reggie could have brought in a few of those close ones we’ve let get away.

"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."

by coolcatreportdotcom on Feb 26, 2009 11:10 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

+1....and that's not very often I say that.

I agree with the first paragraph. I do think that Theus had the opportunity to mix this thing up and implement his plan. I agree that Natt has no direction at all. This is tough situation with all of these new players but basic zone defense calls and spotty rotations are a joke.

Hot dogs, get your hot dogs.

by jjham15 on Feb 26, 2009 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Natt does have a direction, he's moving to secure his job for next year.

And, that’s the problem. If Reggie was still here, he wouldn’t be under as much pressure to win. The plan the Maloofs put to him was to win, to develop the young talent, and to play exciting BB (to bring people back to the arena). He did a reasonable job with the players he had. And, if he was allowed to finish out the year, he would of had a two year history by which he could be judged.

Natt doesn’t have that luxury. Because the team did so poorly before the trade deadline, Natt only has 24 more games to build his case for getting rehired. He’s thrown out the idea of developing the youth. He’s thrown out the idea of being more exciting. He only has one thought on his agenda, WIN. And, he’ll try everything and anything to reach his goal. Even if it means playing an injured player more minutes than anyone would reasonably expect based on the fact that he’s been out a month and a half. Or, seating down our future players, to play an expiring contract that’s only playing to put up numbers so he gets a offer from someother team at the end of the year. Or, playing vet out of position when he is physically outmatch by his opponent, for God knows what reason. SMALL BALL, SMALLER BALL, & SMALLEST BALL, what next MIDGET BALL.

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom

by HighTops on Feb 26, 2009 3:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So if Natt ain't the guy...

…then who is? Who’s out there now or could be out there at the end of the season (when some coaches will inevitably be canned) who would 1) actually want to coach this team and 2) might actually be able to make a difference? I don’t know. Any suggestions?

Please consider the environment before reading this signature.

by outrider on Feb 26, 2009 7:06 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

In Brown's defense

The Charlotte roster at the beginning of the season just wasn’t playing like Brown wanted to, they had no offensive system nor did they play defense. As the season went along the team started playing defense and they developed an offensive system, and then they traded for Diaw and Bell which helped even more. I throughly believe that the Bobcats will end up at least 0.450&ish, and some of that credit has to go to Larry Brown for not only having the team play defense, but making trades that suit what he’s trying to do with the team.

As for coaching here, yes Larry Brown likely wouldn’t have saved this team. The Kings have seen more offensive cohesion as of late, but good team defense still isn’t happening. There aren’t many coaches, if any that would make this team much better right now.

They've done studies you know: 60% of the time, it works every time.

by submison on Feb 26, 2009 7:25 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Random observation of Brown

He seems to only do really well with good teams, because he often takes them further. Pistons he did well even though they weren’t considered Finals material, college he did well, 76ers he did well and along with AI he took them further than they expected. Then you look at New York, and the roster at the time was full of talent that just couldn’t work together, making them mediocre; he didn’t take them further than they expected. So in my opinion, I would never hire Brown unless the team had a good playoff roster.

They've done studies you know: 60% of the time, it works every time.

by submison on Feb 26, 2009 7:30 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You need to do some homework

by thelettere on Feb 26, 2009 10:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

That isn't Browns MO at all

He likes making the crappy teams good.

by jstnblke41 on Feb 26, 2009 11:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Voisin's Credibility: 0

If I remember correctly, Voisin was a public supporter of the Theus pick.
When Brown called for the job, it was reported in the same paper that pays Voisin, by marginally better reporters than Ms. Weak Sauce, that Brown wanted control over talent selection, i.e. he wanted to be the de facto GM and head coach.
It is a shame that with newspapers collapsing all over the place and good journalists on the dole the Sacramento Bee continues to pay Voisin to produce her glib diatribes.

by BrooklynFan on Feb 26, 2009 7:28 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

I think Voisin still has a job because

she can cover multiple sports; she’s good at multiple things, and a master of none. And in these times, a lot of people’ll take quantity over quality.

They've done studies you know: 60% of the time, it works every time.

by submison on Feb 26, 2009 7:32 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs

I'm sorry...

Did you REALLY write that Voisin can “cover” multiple sports? Did you REALLY write that Voisin is “good” at multiple things (in the context of sprts writing)!?!

I think of the hundreds of articles I have read that were written by Voisin, there have been approximately 4 that I finished and thought to myself, “Wow…that was actually pretty good.”

Voisin sucks. Don’t ever write that she is “good” — especially at multiple things!

by PhutureKings on Feb 26, 2009 8:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Voisin still has a job because

she is female, which is, of course, the very reason she got the job in the first place. Not politically correct to note I realize, but I, honeslty, I don’t care.

She’s a terrible columnist and a third-rate reporter yet still has a job. Personally, I can’t wait for her next column chastising us for not understanding the beauty of the WNBA or realizing the “necessity” of Title IX.

by Kusian on Feb 26, 2009 10:34 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Title IX sucks big fat donkey balls

m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!

by JediLeroy on Feb 26, 2009 3:48 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Agreed

It’s literally destroying so many different smaller sports programs all over the nation. And the main stream media won’t touch it because of political correctness and left-wing bias. It’s sad and pathetic. Talk about good intentions having bad results. But, then again, that’s generally what happens when the government starts deciding it knows what’s best for us all and trying its hand at social engineering. You see, what’s really important is the good intentions not whether a policy makes any sense. It doesn’t matter that interest in sports by females is signficantly lower than that of their male cournterparts; what matters is that they repesent half the population. Misery must be spread equally. I hate silly, feel good, feminist nonsense passing as good pubic policy. So, I guess your “sucks big fat donkey balls” summed it up very well.

by Kusian on Feb 26, 2009 4:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ha!

Normally, I’m not one to make crass, one-line judgments. Title IX, however, is so ridiculous that I can’t help but curse it. Good intentions are immaterial when those passing feel-good legislation don’t comprehend the economic and social consequences. You could make a good argument that those involved in Title IX were more interested in breaking down gender biases than actually seeking opportunities for the female athletes. It makes me sick to see certain programs axed in favor of some make-believe equality.

m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!

by JediLeroy on Feb 26, 2009 10:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd guess similar things were said

regarding desegregation and women’s suffrage and the repealing of the 2/3 of a person statutes in the constitution.

that’s generally what happens when the government starts deciding it knows what’s best for us all and trying its hand at social engineering.

Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott

by Kfan in Korea on Feb 27, 2009 5:59 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

C'mon, Kfan

Apples and oranges, and you know it.

m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!

by JediLeroy on Feb 27, 2009 3:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Let me explain

When I refer to make-believe equality, I’m referring specifically to the flawed implementation of Title IX. I am all for equality, be it through social programs or whatever. I’m against hasty or poor-planned legislation passed by an extremely vocal minority that hurts more than it helps.

m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!

by JediLeroy on Feb 27, 2009 3:35 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Sometimes the "haves" have to give up a little to help out the "have-nots"

That’s all I’m saying. I’d guess there are a few women athletes out there that are thankful for title IX, and I for one am not ready to dismiss the benefit that they’ve received.

Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott

by Kfan in Korea on Feb 28, 2009 9:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

My problem is this:

When “haves” have to become “have-nots” so that the “have-nots” can become “haves”, it seems less like giving and more like stealing. That seems to be the issue for our times.

I can drive a car in a straight line from point A to point B, or I can start at point A, hitting pedestrians and animals as I zigzag and swerve my way to point B. I fail to see how my second method is worthy of praise, even if it got me to point B. That’s not to say that fixing the gender conundrum in sports is in any way a simple task; just that there’s got to be a better way than the destructive interpretation and implementation of Title IX.

m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!

by JediLeroy on Feb 28, 2009 11:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

So you're contending that the women athletes that have benefited

from title IX have “stolen” from the men?

Is there a better solution? Probably.
Is the current situation better than it was before? For women athletes, yeah. For men athletes, probably not. That’s still a step in the right direction in my book.

Should the current situation be evaluated and amended? Sure.

For a little perspective:

A lot has changed since 1972. In 1972 there were no professional women’s sports. 1969 was the first Women’s national championship tournament for College Basketball. Women’s college sports are real now, and you have to believe that title IX has something to do with that.

It’s not all bad. That’s all I’m saying. You have to admit that it’s helped a hell of a lot of women over the years, and considering that women still don’t get equal pay for equal work, even in this day and age, that can’t be discounted.

Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott

by Kfan in Korea on Mar 1, 2009 5:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I think we agree on a lot more than it seems

I do agree that things are better for women than before, and in that sense, I do acknowledge that Title IX (the 2002 interpretation for athletics) isn’t thoroughly evil. I think it is important for schools to provide athletic opportunities for both men and women. I draw the line when anybody, male or female, loses the opportunity to compete or get a scholarship. It just doesn’t seem right that people are forcing schools to acknowledge equal desire to participate when it might not exist. At the same time, I recognize that I don’t have a better solution. But something about the way this has shaken out doesn’t sit well with me, and there’s got to be a better way.

I don’t feel that women have stolen their opportunities from men. But males have lost opportunities, and they’re not the ones to blame. If somebody has to be punished so that women can get more opportunities, it should be the schools that don’t offer the opportunities, not the kids.

m*****f***ing c***s***ing peanut butter and jelly!! f*** f*** f***!!!

by JediLeroy on Mar 1, 2009 7:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

one of the big lies

Every credible economic study done in the past decade demonstrates that women and men earn the same in their fields when variables are considered. For example, male and female engineers with the same education and same experience earn nearly the same. There is a small descrapancy that occurs but it evaporates when you correct for the time women take off for child-rearing and family. The same holds true for other professions.

I get sick of people perpetuating the big lie that women earn “70 % of what men make.” It’s a crock of shit based on the average male salary compared to average female salary without taking into consideration field of work or willingness to work longer hours and put in more time.

Typical liberal make-believe trotted out as “fact” in order to justify a radical social agenda that places some Orwellian version of equality ahead of equity and liberty.

by Kusian on Mar 3, 2009 10:55 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The Blue guy is going to slit the Red Guys throat Kusian

Watch yo back!

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

I am the stone that builder refused..I am the visual...The inspiration..That made lady sing the blues....I'm the spark that makes your idea bright.....The same spark that lights the dark....So that you can know your left from your right...I am the ballot in your box....The bullet in your gun...The inner glow that lets you know...To call your brother son....The story that just begun...The promise of what's to come...And I'm 'a remain a soldier till the war is won....

by pookeyguru on Mar 3, 2009 5:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Social Engineering

Kusian, while I agree with you that Title IX has been poorly interpreted and administered I am surprised by your stern opposition to social engineering. Laws are the means by which democratic citizens engineer the society they aspire to be. (see Christiana, Denmark for an example of how anarchism does not work) In this country, I believe we aspire to egalitarianism. A cause I believe to be worthwhile and one I think Title IX, as a piece of legislation, attempted to create.

Here is the language in the actual act, under the section titled IX: “No person in the United States shall on the basis of sex, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Notice that there is no mention of athletics. The legislation tries to address whether institutions who receive federal funding should be allowed to determine who sees the benefits of said funding without oversight? I.e. does a federally funded institution get to discriminate against anyone it sees fit and still receive funds in part raised by those being discriminated against?" this law says, no. Seems logical. Seems egalitarian.

I am also a former “minor sport” scholarship athlete (so was my sister—the better athlete between the two of us); I’ve felt the effects of the application of this law first hand. Neither my team nor my sister’s team generated revenue. So she was certainly no less deserving of her free education than I was. Her gain did however come unnecessarily from a nameless man’s loss. As did mine. But not because egalitarianism is a corrupt ideal. Her gain was a man’s loss because Jimmy Carter’s administration interpreted Title IX poorly. They did not consider the market effects of major sports, e.g. building a good football program with 100 scholarships is an investment that can generate revenue to fund all of the other “minor sport” programs. A government should not force a school to consider giving up revenues that fund the minor sports in order to balance their male/female scholarship ledger? It is a ridiculous notion but one generated from poor interpretation not because social engineering is somehow inherently flawed. Kfan has already provided examples of the benefits of social engineering. And I think Title IX has the potential to make his list, just not in its current condition.

by BrooklynFan on Feb 27, 2009 8:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Beautifully written response, BF.

I agree with much of what you wrote. And the examples that KFan provided were, of course, spot on. My argument with social engineering has less to do with larger fundamental issues (e.g. slavery) than with implementation of these fundamental truths. Title IX and affirmative action are just two examples of terrible (and in the case of affirmative action border-line racist) public policy based on good intentions.

I too was a scholarship athlete in a minor sport, so I really appreciate your personal story and that of your sister. And, of course, this is why I get so worked up over the issue. For the record, I am a huge advocate of women’s sports and almost lost a coaching job a few years ago for allowing a girl to compete in a sport that, at the time, was considered male-only.

Thanks for your articulate and thoughtful response. This is worthy discussion. I wish Otis would have joined in this one as well.

by Kusian on Feb 27, 2009 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Wish I could

You both have articulated the pros and cons much better than I could, and you clearly understand the issue. Honestly, I know very little on Title IX. The actual text of the language quoted by BrooklynFan is certainly something we can all agree with, but the points on how it has played out in reality are a reminder that the application of the law is just as important.

Anyways, in this ignorant man’s opinion, it appears Title IX doesn’t allow for the business aspect of big-time college sports programs (which BF notes above may in some cases be a better vehicle for a college’s self-funding of all their sports programs).

Mambo King

by otis29 on Feb 27, 2009 10:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Voison seems to forget one thing

two years ago, when Larry Brown was available we also had a guy by the name of Ron Artest. So basically, she thinks we should’ve hired an crazed egomaniac of a coach to coach a crazed egomaniac of a star? That’s a great idea. I’m going to go take an extra long shower even though the Central Valley might be in a drought, then I’m going to go pour some gasoline on a wildfire.

www.mancancook.net

by vfettke on Feb 26, 2009 8:46 AM PST reply actions 1 recs

There is a missing component in this article -

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Feb 26, 2009 8:51 AM PST reply actions 2 recs

LOL!!!!

Yes, Voisin is absolutely horrible….

by MooreBang4UrBuckets! on Feb 26, 2009 11:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Wasn't she the

one who was most excited about Theus’s hire? Was she not a 12yr old school girl with a crush? What was she saying then about Larry Brown?

Sensationalist media + lack of relevant insight= Ailene Voisen

Me shakes head.

AK47, SN13, B52, and K9. One guns, Another runs, He fits, while it licks.

by CAB on Feb 26, 2009 9:03 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Thankfully somebody said it

This team needed to bottom out. What happens from here on out is more important than anything that happened 2 years ago.

No mistakes in the tango, darling. Not like life. Simple. That's what makes the tango so great. If you make a mistake, and get all tangled up, you just tango on.....

by pookeyguru on Feb 26, 2009 10:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Kenny or whomever becomes the Kings coach,

needs to take some notes from Obama playbook. Does the word “inspiration” mean anything.

Watching the guy coach and speak would put even the most enthusiastic player to sleep. Yea he got handed a pile of shit, so whats new. Thats why he got promoted.

We certainly don’t have the most talented team in the league but we aren’t the worst either. In our glory years the Kings weren’t the most talented team in the league, but the chemistry and motivation was there due in a large part from Adelman’s direction.

With a group of young players coming out of college/highschool. We need a coach thats a little dictatorial in my opinion. Give the guys some kind of vision, set up plays and freaking use them. Come up with rotations that make sense. Make the game fun.
Be a god damn leader. These players, especially the youngsters have something to prove and are willing to play hard they just need guidance.

I just caught a rerun of the movie Coach Carter earlier in the week, saw Obama’s speech and then watched Natt’s postgame interview so my expectations maybe a little high.

I’m jumpin off my soapbox now….

by nothingbutnet on Feb 26, 2009 11:23 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

Then I have the coach for you!

He’s Obama’s Bro in law, a Carrill disciple from Princeton. Craig Robinson.

by avishai on Feb 26, 2009 1:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

He's doing a nice job at OSU this year...

but at this point it would be more of a reach than the Theus hire.

by cabz on Feb 26, 2009 3:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Ziller's understated conclusion: voisin is fatuous idiot

i now invite you to vote on a related fanpost poll here:

http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2009/2/26/773042/poll-if-sacbee-had-to-cut

by fire_voisin on Feb 26, 2009 12:34 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Larry Brown is only a great coach...

…When he has a great team. Brown isn’t the kind of coach that gets the most out of young players, patiently teaching them and molding them. He gets the most out of veterans, using them to the extent of their abilities. Never asking them to do what they can not and making them do what they can in order to succeed. The Kings need a players coach that can mold young players into solid NBA citizens. Teaches basketball to young 20 sompthings and pound it into their heads what it takes to be an NBA player. Not Brown’s forte. Unfortunately, not Natt’s Forte either. Natt comes from the Jerry Sloan farm of coaches. I do not believe that Sloan ever saw a rookie he liked. It would appear by recent observations and the record that Natt is clueless on how to teach up these kids. He seems to have no fresh ideas to improve the team, and he just blathers on and on how the Kings need to “Play Smart”. Players who have smart coaches play smart. Players who have not so smart lame duck coaches play like the Kings did last night against the Bobcats.

The Kings are going to have to fork over some coin to make this mess into a masterpiece. There is talent on this roster more than 12 – 47 would indicate. Natt is the perfect coach if you want the first overall draft pick however. Because he is apparently clueless as to how he can improve this roster, he is the perfect fall guy for this disaster season. He just doesn’t have the wherewithal to do the job necessary to turn this train wreck around. The players all know already that he is toast at the end of the season. The players are only playing to improve their skills or there lot in life after their brief stint on the worst team in the league. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that even Natt knows that he is gone at the end of the year or will be demoted back to assistant coach. There is no way that interim tag is ever coming off for Natt. There is really nothing he has done to improve the on court activities. No matter what he has done off the court with regard to discipline or correcting any behavioral issues, winning and losing are the ONLY thing that matters to fans and players and owners, and newspapers, and……

So the question becomes, who is the best coaching candidate available or soon to be available that has the required skills necessary to take our roster, mix in good free agents and a high draft pick, and make it into a winner. Petrie was smart not to bring Brown into this mess. Brown’s drama is better appreciated from a great distance. Petrie needs to find a players coach who can teach the game and the lifestyle needed to suceed in the NBA. He has to be young enough to be able to speak and be heard by young players but old enough to know what he is doing. A coach that is credible, who has played the game and succeeded. A coach that can either mold young bigs or has the ability to bring in assistants who can mold young bigs. A coach that understands the game and is a good judge of talent. And a coach that passes the smell test so the playboy bosses buy into the hire. After all, they are signing the checks. Oh, and he has to be relatively cheap with the economy being what it is. Pretty tall order HUH? I don’t envy Petrie. He has to 1) Make the highest draft pick he has ever made (hopefully). 2) He has to weed through the free agent market looking for talent that meshes with the talent the Kings already have. Not bring in players that will stunt the growth of the young talent. and 3) He has to bring in a REAL coach who can do all the aforementioned jobs as well as look good doing it. Or Petrie will get fired and the Maloofs will really blow the whole thing up. NOPE ! Don’t envy Petrie at ALL! On the other hand, I truly believe he can do all those things and so do the Maloofs or they would have let him go already. The NBA is a “What have you done for me in the last 24 hours” business. Lets hope Geoff pulls up his sleeves and does what it is going to take to get the Kings back on the road to respectability. Natt has driven the Kings off the road, into a ditch, over a brick fence, into a tree, engine on FIRE!

I have cut the Mouth and Nose out of my Paper Bag, but I am contemplating not cutting out any EYE HOLES so I don't have to watch this mess at all...

by FaStRmAn on Feb 26, 2009 1:42 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Well said,

Any ideas who that coach might be.

Avery Johnson comes to mind. I realize he got outcoached in the playoffs by his mentor. I am sure he has learned from his mistakes. The old adage, " you learn more from your mistakes than you do from your successes" is true. The guy won coach of the year in 2005. You don’t get that honor by being lucky.

I don’t know if he will be on the table but I think he is the best prospect we will have available come this summer.

by nothingbutnet on Feb 26, 2009 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know much about the real value of each of the guys out there

Some teams play above thier coaching I’m sure and some play better because of it.

I do think though that Eddie Jordan both coached those guys in Washington the last year or two And seemed to let them be who they were. Too many injuries killed them, a running team without runners or a defensive backstop (necessary in that system I think) and he took the fall. Not a lot of wins since either under new coaching.

But I don’t really have much of a clue as to how to evaluate these guys.

I do know we don’t have an offensive or defensive scheme that I can really recognize from game to game.

So imitate the action of the tiger!
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favoured rage.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,

Now set the teeth - and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Feb 26, 2009 2:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Oh - and I'd like that, a system I mean:)

So imitate the action of the tiger!
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favoured rage.
- lend the eye a terrible aspect,

Now set the teeth - and teach them how to war!
Henry V iii

by lietothegirls on Feb 26, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

The new coach better be a really good teacher or hire some assistances who are

Hawes, Jt, 3 draft choice ( hopefully #1 is a starter), and with our limited cap space possibly 1or 2 undrafted rookies because their inexpensive. That’s 3 starters and 2 to 4 other rookies that all have to be trained how to play offense & defense. And, he better have a long contract and a lot of patience.

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom

by HighTops on Feb 26, 2009 3:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

You might need an interim teacher coach

You know, some poor sap who does all the hard work and then gets canned when we are good enough to merit/attract a better coach.

"The basis for winning an NBA title is having a superstar in his prime. Not an all-star, or a bunch of all-stars, but a superstar."

by coolcatreportdotcom on Feb 26, 2009 5:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Pretty much what I was thinking

Get a Mo Cheeks type guy then when the team is ready to become a contender bring in someone new.

by jstnblke41 on Feb 26, 2009 7:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Teacher coach

We already tried this guy –

So this time, how about this guy?

SACTOWN ROYALTY - Try our thick creamy shakes!

by section214 on Feb 26, 2009 7:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs

Thats great

Although many of the bloggers won’t get it because they’re too young.

by nothingbutnet on Feb 26, 2009 8:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I loved that show

and I don’t mean the Reggie one.

Ball movement ... is like jogging for most people: They do it occasionally, and it makes them happy. Then they go back to not doing it. - Henry Abbott

by Kfan in Korea on Feb 27, 2009 6:00 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

No, the kids need to start learning a system now.

We’ve already had 4 coaches in 3 and a half years. We can’t waste another couple of years learning an interims offense & defense and turn around that throw that out the window for a playoff conterder coach.

No, the Kings need to sign a long term coach. Give him a four year deal, and let him teach his defensive system. The kids will learn fast, but they’ve got to know that the guy is going to be around, so they can’t shrug him off like they can with Natt.

"If you don't have anything good to say, LIE" - Mom

by HighTops on Feb 26, 2009 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Absolutely

This next coaching hire is going to be hugely important, and Kings’ management needs to get it right.

Mambo King

by otis29 on Feb 27, 2009 8:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

none of the current "usual suspects" excite me much

some more than others (I agree Eddie Jordan seems the best match for a Geoff Petrie team). The questions than begin: If the Kings hire a non-Princeton offense coach how does he build the team that works for that coach? Princeton is great, but what defense? No, those two items are not mutually exclusive but historically, the Kings/Adelman/Petrie/Carill Princeton was manned by high skill, low grit players. The high skill player is not always defensively less attuned but more times than not it seems (yes, I realize it may be perception as the A/P/C Kings had generally good defensive stats but were not "Stoppers")

Well, I will interrupt my blatherings with -- too soon to talk about it, wait until the season ends and see who is available. Just no one seems like a clear cut favorite

by betweentheeyes on Feb 27, 2009 5:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs