No, no and no. Wouldn’t hire any coach from any of these leagues without first having NBA experience. Seen any recent successful college to NBA coaches? Any Euro or WNBA coaches at all? There are good reasons for this.

I have no problem with the argument that just because they coached in the WNBA they shouldn’t coach in the NBA.

The real issue is why Whiz and why do the Maloofs continue to not learn from their mistakes?

I’m a Kings and Skins fan….and I am very worried about the direction of the Kings. I’ve watched Dan Snyder take over my Skins and turn them into a joke by being his own GM. The Maloofs and Kings are so close to falling apart and going down this road. This cannot happen. Why would Petrie let this happen? I can tolerate a bad team, but not a lack of a future… which is what we will have if the Maloofs keep meddling….

Basketball is not a single game, it brings too much of difference in terms of demands. We are not looking for a good basketball coach, we are looking for a good NBA coach and that makes a difference. I believe that Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, Rick Adelman or whoever else should probably fail have they moved to WNBA or the Greek league nowadays without any prior long-term preparation for the specific competition.

On the other hand, and that is why I recommended your article, TZ, to be an NBA coach does not mean to be a superior coach. If basketball consists of ‘multiple’, it takes more than hype, commercials or athleticism to convince me that NBA is the ‘best’ of basketball. Which is why I would not want John Whisenant to be the next head coach of the Kings – for the reasons that jjham gives int his thread, but partially also for the reasons vfettke and lietothegirls give in another one – but, at the same time I would echo your words that

Just because the man’s last job was coaching women’s basketball should never disqualify him for the job. Arguing otherwise is short-sighted, close-minded and frankly sexist.

Or in other words, ‘Just because the man’s last job was coaching women’s basketball should never disqualify him for the respect as a basketball coach (which is what I am a bit concerned of some fragments of these discussions). Arguing otherwise is short-sighted, close-minded and frankly sexist’.

Would we want a female head coach? Would we want a transgendered head coach? Would we want a cross-dressing head coach who looked like Medea Going to Jail on the sidelines on national TV? Would we want to go to war with a female General leading us?

When boys do high-testosterone things they tend to want high-testosterone alpha dogs leading the charge. And I don’t think that is “sexist”, but it clearly is gender-specific.

And if Whiz has to serve as an assistant somewhere in the NBA to shed the “soft” tag, then so be it.

But I think to condemn opposition to the WNBA angle as irrational or sexist and just discount it on that basis is irrational and close-minded.

So again, if you reject Whisenant out of hand, would you support the hire of any college or European coach without NBA coaching experience?

No. i want a head coach who knows not only what it’s like to deal with NBA talent, but someone who knows how to deal with NBA players as well. That NBA experience is important. I’d have no problem with a former WNBA coach if they had NBA experience of some sort, because of that respect factor. For example, I think Bill Laimbeer would get way more respect in the locker room as a coach because he’s not only played in the NBA, he’s won rings.

When it comes down to it coaches are powerful people. Successful ones do well because they know how to coach at their specific level, but most of the time they can’t make the transition to a different level of play because of the ego the comes along with being in that position of power. Their egos won’t allow them to change how they deal with players. This is why college coaches don’t do well in the NBA. College coaches get used to micro-managing their players. If their players don’t listen they can yank their scholarship. An NBA coach can’t cancel a contract. And even if a coach could, do you get rid of LeBron for not listening to Mike Brown. A college coach’s job is to teach his players and get them to listen to him. They are much more involved that way. The NBA is a player’s league. A coach is there almost for suggestions. Usually NBA coaches implement their systems and let the players run it without too much over-coaching. This, to me, is why Phil Jackson is so great. His team plays his offense, but he lets them run it, drawing up plays only when its necessary. However, he does provide that one other aspect needed by an NBA coach. He can deal with the egos. He’s a psychological genius that can play mind games and gets his players to do what he wants. That’s why he’s successful, but that also doesn’t mean he’d be successful at the college level

Here’s why:

Most likely whoever they sign will get a multi-year contract, like the one’s they are still paying for. They could sign a coach to a one year contract to save money if things don’t work out, but any good coach isn’t going to accept that, and I doubt any of the assistants we all like would want so little job security. The only 1 year deal that could feasibly happen is the Maloofs exercising Natt’s option, which isn’t likely. Plus, will the players really be confident in a guy management doesn’t have enough confidence in to give a good deal to? Doubtful.

So the Kings have to sign someone they are confident in to a multi-year deal. They have to know that he’ll do well and that they won’t be paying him to sit at home in the future. They’ll really have to take everything into consideration, not just whether they like the guys because he played in New Mexico. I really think this leaves the Whiz out of the picture simply because he’s too unproven for them to take the risk. If any coach fails they’ll be screwed. They’ve fired three coaches in 4 years. What happens if the coach they get sucks and they have to fire him. That’d be 4 coaches in 5 years. That’s utter turmoil for young players. Then again, our coach could suck and they could let him stay, which means the team would be terrible and players would probably start demanding trades. So, hiring an inexperienced coach really isn’t an option.

Now the question is, what coaches with NBA experience do they go after? Eddie Jordan is an obvious option. He’s a Petrie guy. This team plays amazingly well when they play the type of offense he’ll surely implement. However, he may be too expensive. Then again, he’s also a proven coach who will get wins and help turn the team around. They might not be able to afford to not get him. If the price really is an option they can always go after a top assistant, such as Tom Thibodeau or Mike Budenholzer. These guys are top assistants on championship level teams. Either could develop into a great head coach along with this team. But, despite their experience, neither of these two are proven. Being an assistant on a great team doesn’t mean you’ll cut it as a head coach, right Mark and PJ? This could still be too risky, but at the same time they’d be a fairly cheap risk.

As it stands, I think these are our three real options: Jordan, Thibodeau, and Budenholzer, with Budenholzer being the long shot.

Do not become the Oakland Raiders. Do not become perceived as some crazy owners meddling in the important issues, thus causing all highly-qualified HC candidates to laugh whenever the 510 area code appears on the caller id. Stop the madness!

How many wins per season can be attributed to a great x’s & o’s coach?

What’s more important, a coach who is respected ,or a coach who has a system and can teach it?

Do our rookies need to respect their coach to buy into his system, or are they so gung ho and willing to participate that they’ll follow anyone who can teach them how to play together?

I thought it was Petrie not Theus who pissed Artest off.