Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144475 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:45 pm Post subject:
MJST wrote:
Gatekeeper wrote:
MJST wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
^ You don't know whether they are better options than Luke or not.
Yes... I do.
Budenhozer, Atkinson, and now Blatt are all better choices than Luke and more experienced than him and I'd stress to even put Becky Hammon in that catgory though her situation is very similar to Luke's in terms of structure.
Wut?
So for you experience is paramount in making a coaching decision? How'd that work out for Byron and the two Mikes? So if Atlanta hadn't given Budenholzer a chance, he wouldn't be a viable candidate for Lakers HC? Blatt only spent one full season as HC so that makes him a better candidate than Luke? C'mon already, the only criteria that should matter is whether a candidate can coach or not; and by coaching I prioritize leadership and communication more than how well the guy knows his Xs & Os. Most anyone in the business can diagram a chart, that's not what the HC job is for - the HC is the guy that effectively delegates responsibilities, holds players/staff accountable, assumes responsibilities when things don't go the right way on the floor, and defers to the players when things work out and I think Luke has those qualties that makes him the right choice (at least more than those guys you've mentioned).
They all had more experience than Luke does. Budenhozer was on the Spurs Coaching Staff since 96-97 before becoming a head coach in 2013. That's 17 years with Popovich, and he was also a big part of the staff that won 4 championships. So don't try to mention his experience and resume in the same breath as Luke's who's in his 2nd year as an assistant. It's too soon for him to be out on his own and building from scratch. Don't know how that can be made clearer.
So you bringing up Budenhozer and his 17 years of experience under Pop and 4 championships as an assistant with the guy only hammers home the point about Luke than help your case.
And again, if all you want is a"HCas the guy that effectively delegates responsibilities, holds players/staff accountable, assumes responsibilities when things don't go the right way on the floor, and defers to the players when things work out" there's better and more ready choices than Luke. I've already stated that.
The only real reason Luke is even given this consideration despite people saying they just want a "(insert what an actual coach is in comparison to Byron Scott)" there's better, the only reason they say Luke in that equation is because he has the title "former Laker" attached to him, which shouldn't enter into the equation at all, if evidence hasn't already shown us that. I'd take Kenny Atkinson OR David Blatt way before I'd go for Luke who needs a few more years of experience.
I had assumed you were clueless about Luke's experiences with coaching duties and you have confirmed that. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144475 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2016 1:47 pm Post subject:
2019 wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Wow. Snippy we are today.
Some people are just too damn lazy to search Google.
No I think you tend to tend to throw you arguments out there as if they are 100% fact and unlike most other quality posters you don't like to present your full case. You're more into you one liners.
Ok, so tell me how to mail my SI issue to posters who question what I post? Do I make copies and send them to everyone on LG? Does everyone want to give me their mailing address? _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
^ You don't know whether they are better options than Luke or not.
Yes... I do.
Budenhozer, Atkinson, and now Blatt are all better choices than Luke and more experienced than him and I'd stress to even put Becky Hammon in that catgory though her situation is very similar to Luke's in terms of structure.
Some people are just too damn lazy to search Google.
No I think you tend to tend to throw you arguments out there as if they are 100% fact and unlike most other quality posters you don't like to present your full case. You're more into you one liners.
Ok, so tell me how to mail my SI issue to posters who question what I post? Do I make copies and send them to everyone on LG? Does everyone want to give me their mailing address?
97,000+ posts and you don't know how to quote? Or is that how you got to so many posts?
Why not just present your case and try to have a debate versus your zingers. I agree with some of what you're saying in Walton but how about you introduce information and provide quotes to prove your points?
^ You don't know whether they are better options than Luke or not.
Yes... I do.
Budenhozer, Atkinson, and now Blatt are all better choices than Luke and more experienced than him and I'd stress to even put Becky Hammon in that catgory though her situation is very similar to Luke's in terms of structure.
Wut?
So for you experience is paramount in making a coaching decision? How'd that work out for Byron and the two Mikes? So if Atlanta hadn't given Budenholzer a chance, he wouldn't be a viable candidate for Lakers HC? Blatt only spent one full season as HC so that makes him a better candidate than Luke? C'mon already, the only criteria that should matter is whether a candidate can coach or not; and by coaching I prioritize leadership and communication more than how well the guy knows his Xs & Os. Most anyone in the business can diagram a chart, that's not what the HC job is for - the HC is the guy that effectively delegates responsibilities, holds players/staff accountable, assumes responsibilities when things don't go the right way on the floor, and defers to the players when things work out and I think Luke has those qualties that makes him the right choice (at least more than those guys you've mentioned).
They all had more experience than Luke does. Budenhozer was on the Spurs Coaching Staff since 96-97 before becoming a head coach in 2013. That's 17 years with Popovich, and he was also a big part of the staff that won 4 championships. So don't try to mention his experience and resume in the same breath as Luke's who's in his 2nd year as an assistant. It's too soon for him to be out on his own and building from scratch. Don't know how that can be made clearer.
So you bringing up Budenhozer and his 17 years of experience under Pop and 4 championships as an assistant with the guy only hammers home the point about Luke than help your case.
And again, if all you want is a"HCas the guy that effectively delegates responsibilities, holds players/staff accountable, assumes responsibilities when things don't go the right way on the floor, and defers to the players when things work out" there's better and more ready choices than Luke. I've already stated that.
The only real reason Luke is even given this consideration despite people saying they just want a "(insert what an actual coach is in comparison to Byron Scott)" there's better, the only reason they say Luke in that equation is because he has the title "former Laker" attached to him, which shouldn't enter into the equation at all, if evidence hasn't already shown us that. I'd take Kenny Atkinson OR David Blatt way before I'd go for Luke who needs a few more years of experience.
I had assumed you were clueless about Luke's experiences with coaching duties and you have confirmed that.
I know all about his college assistant coaching resume just like I'm familiar with Madsen's.
If you haven't guessed it's already been taken into account, and doesn't change my opinion. Atkinson and Blatt still trump him, and there are other coaches that will also be available this off-season that trump him in the "we just want an actual coach" category.
Again, people let what Golden State did with him watching the store far too much into account. He had one of the best tams around an assistant and basically just had to follow the blueprint Kerr left. That takes you not having an ego and trying to force your way and Luke wasn't. Kerr still constantly fed him the things he was supposed to do and what he didn't the assistants did.
Golden State has everything laid out as it should be, and Luke was great at watching the store. Watching the store is different from opening your own business and no, his 2 years NBA experience as an assistant isn't enough and still doesn't match up to the aforementioned Budenhozer that was attempted to be brought up as an example.
As I said, I am speaking about this from the perspective of already knowing Luke's college credentials, my dad actually grew up and best friends with Bill, so I know a lot when it comes to The "Walton's" as well as the Dudley's(whom was another one) and I just had the pleasure of meeting up with Jared's father while him and my dad caught up, I haven't met Bill Walton yet though.
So don't act like I'm speaking from 'not knowing' about Luke or that I'm misinformed, I'm very informed, and this is my perspective, particularly from what I've seen to how he's being overhyped but you having to actually evaluate everything he has in place. If you can't deal with that then agree to disagree. But if Mike D'antoni went to Golden State as an assistant to Kerr and had to 'watch the store' and pretty much did as he was told and setup for and Golden State had the same record near everyone would be saying it's happening due to Golden State's talent and would undercut any drawn up play as him playing the piper for Kerr.
Again, the only reason Luke gets that benefit is due to the fact he is a 'former Laker' that is where a lot of the hype comes from.
Because every single time I've broken it down thus far, the answer I get by those whom will then throw out the Golden State part, cite things about Luke that any actual coach in the NBA with a reputation should have.
The problem is we've dealt with the opposite with Scott for about two seasons now, so they're looking for someone, anyone, and Luke coincides with the success of Golden State so they're going there.
Let's ALSO not forget that NO ONE was singing Luke's praises before the start of this season and near everyone when mentioning the prospect of Luke Walton as a coach felt he was years away and then maybe could be worth taking a look at.
BUT coincide it with the success of Golden State which is happening with or without him and SUDDENLY Luke is READY to take on a rebuilding team, and every little thing he does, which he was doing last year too, but suddenly it matters now because it coincides with the team success, which again, happens with or without him.
When little stuff like that happens it's very obvious where the hype comes from, and again it's jumping too soon because you think it will lead to success faster. Luke didn't get "more ready" because he watched the store for Kerr. He just got his feet wet. And still isn't ready.
Give the guy some years before throwing him on this team far too soon cause you're hyped about what Golden State's doing and every little thing Luke does or draws up becomes 10 times more important than it was last year when you could read the same things in terms of his basketball knowledge and understanding of the game. Heck you could have read and heard about that at Memphis.
But it didn't matter at the start of this season and the majority thought was he wasn't and isn't ready yet. Don't let what Golden State does in spite of him make you think he's suddenly leap frogged from that place. If you already have, then that's fine. But I however, won't be, because I understand the scenario and circumstances and why not to get overhyped about them just yet.
So again, if all that is out of the way, and it just comes down to "we want a coach that knows X's and O's and will hold people accountable" you'll have some available this off-season that have more experience at that and are more well equipped at this point in their careers than Luke currently is at those things. Basic things a coach SHOULD do, but Byron doesn't, so it magnifies it when another coach does.
Last edited by MJST on Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Timeouts had been an issue already. Blatt mismanaged them early in the season and sometimes turned to Lue about when to execute certain timeouts. Teams can take advantage of certain mandatory timeouts and conserve options, something with which Blatt had issues.
During the first portion of the 2014-15 season, film sessions were a topic of discussion among the players. Blatt was reluctant to criticize star players even when they clearly messed up a play. This became routine. It got so bad that I'm told that Lue finally intervened, stood up and demanded that somebody rewind the footage so that he could get on members of The Big 3.
During team scrimmages, players competed aggressively but bit their tongues as Blatt frequently blew his whistle to call ticky-tack or phantom fouls for his go-to players. One player said sometimes Blatt didn't even have a whistle and would yell at the top of his lungs to stop play and call a foul if one of his stars acted as if he was hit.
Quote:
Blatt had trouble drawing up plays out of timeouts. He would freeze up and waste precious seconds, one player said. He would even draw up plays for players who weren't in the game, another player said.
Quote:
In the closeout game of the Eastern Conference Finals, a game the Cavaliers trounced the Atlanta Hawks by 30 to sweep the series; Blatt had signaled for Tristan Thompson to reenter in the closing minutes with the game already wrapped up. This was when Thompson was the team's most valuable big man with Kevin Love out of commission with a dislocated shoulder.
The bench couldn't believe it. They were shocked, as was Thompson, who never questions authority. LeBron James told Blatt to put somebody else in the game
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144475 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:46 am Post subject:
2019 wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
2019 wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
yinoma2001 wrote:
Wow. Snippy we are today.
Some people are just too damn lazy to search Google.
No I think you tend to tend to throw you arguments out there as if they are 100% fact and unlike most other quality posters you don't like to present your full case. You're more into you one liners.
Ok, so tell me how to mail my SI issue to posters who question what I post? Do I make copies and send them to everyone on LG? Does everyone want to give me their mailing address?
97,000+ posts and you don't know how to quote? Or is that how you got to so many posts?
Why not just present your case and try to have a debate versus your zingers. I agree with some of what you're saying in Walton but how about you introduce information and provide quotes to prove your points?
How do I quote a magazine that I read? It is in the recycle bin right now, I guess "recycle bin" should do it? _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144475 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:49 am Post subject:
MJST wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
MJST wrote:
Gatekeeper wrote:
MJST wrote:
fiendishoc wrote:
^ You don't know whether they are better options than Luke or not.
Yes... I do.
Budenhozer, Atkinson, and now Blatt are all better choices than Luke and more experienced than him and I'd stress to even put Becky Hammon in that catgory though her situation is very similar to Luke's in terms of structure.
Wut?
So for you experience is paramount in making a coaching decision? How'd that work out for Byron and the two Mikes? So if Atlanta hadn't given Budenholzer a chance, he wouldn't be a viable candidate for Lakers HC? Blatt only spent one full season as HC so that makes him a better candidate than Luke? C'mon already, the only criteria that should matter is whether a candidate can coach or not; and by coaching I prioritize leadership and communication more than how well the guy knows his Xs & Os. Most anyone in the business can diagram a chart, that's not what the HC job is for - the HC is the guy that effectively delegates responsibilities, holds players/staff accountable, assumes responsibilities when things don't go the right way on the floor, and defers to the players when things work out and I think Luke has those qualties that makes him the right choice (at least more than those guys you've mentioned).
They all had more experience than Luke does. Budenhozer was on the Spurs Coaching Staff since 96-97 before becoming a head coach in 2013. That's 17 years with Popovich, and he was also a big part of the staff that won 4 championships. So don't try to mention his experience and resume in the same breath as Luke's who's in his 2nd year as an assistant. It's too soon for him to be out on his own and building from scratch. Don't know how that can be made clearer.
So you bringing up Budenhozer and his 17 years of experience under Pop and 4 championships as an assistant with the guy only hammers home the point about Luke than help your case.
And again, if all you want is a"HCas the guy that effectively delegates responsibilities, holds players/staff accountable, assumes responsibilities when things don't go the right way on the floor, and defers to the players when things work out" there's better and more ready choices than Luke. I've already stated that.
The only real reason Luke is even given this consideration despite people saying they just want a "(insert what an actual coach is in comparison to Byron Scott)" there's better, the only reason they say Luke in that equation is because he has the title "former Laker" attached to him, which shouldn't enter into the equation at all, if evidence hasn't already shown us that. I'd take Kenny Atkinson OR David Blatt way before I'd go for Luke who needs a few more years of experience.
I had assumed you were clueless about Luke's experiences with coaching duties and you have confirmed that.
I know all about his college assistant coaching resume just like I'm familiar with Madsen's.
If you haven't guessed it's already been taken into account, and doesn't change my opinion. Atkinson and Blatt still trump him, and there are other coaches that will also be available this off-season that trump him in the "we just want an actual coach" category.
Again, people let what Golden State did with him watching the store far too much into account. He had one of the best tams around an assistant and basically just had to follow the blueprint Kerr left. That takes you not having an ego and trying to force your way and Luke wasn't. Kerr still constantly fed him the things he was supposed to do and what he didn't the assistants did.
Golden State has everything laid out as it should be, and Luke was great at watching the store. Watching the store is different from opening your own business and no, his 2 years NBA experience as an assistant isn't enough and still doesn't match up to the aforementioned Budenhozer that was attempted to be brought up as an example.
As I said, I am speaking about this from the perspective of already knowing Luke's college credentials, my dad actually grew up and best friends with Bill, so I know a lot when it comes to The "Walton's" as well as the Dudley's(whom was another one) and I just had the pleasure of meeting up with Jared's father while him and my dad caught up, I haven't met Bill Walton yet though.
So don't act like I'm speaking from 'not knowing' about Luke or that I'm misinformed, I'm very informed, and this is my perspective, particularly from what I've seen to how he's being overhyped but you having to actually evaluate everything he has in place. If you can't deal with that then agree to disagree. But if Mike D'antoni went to Golden State as an assistant to Kerr and had to 'watch the store' and pretty much did as he was told and setup for and Golden State had the same record near everyone would be saying it's happening due to Golden State's talent and would undercut any drawn up play as him playing the piper for Kerr.
Again, the only reason Luke gets that benefit is due to the fact he is a 'former Laker' that is where a lot of the hype comes from.
Because every single time I've broken it down thus far, the answer I get by those whom will then throw out the Golden State part, cite things about Luke that any actual coach in the NBA with a reputation should have.
The problem is we've dealt with the opposite with Scott for about two seasons now, so they're looking for someone, anyone, and Luke coincides with the success of Golden State so they're going there.
Let's ALSO not forget that NO ONE was singing Luke's praises before the start of this season and near everyone when mentioning the prospect of Luke Walton as a coach felt he was years away and then maybe could be worth taking a look at.
BUT coincide it with the success of Golden State which is happening with or without him and SUDDENLY Luke is READY to take on a rebuilding team, and every little thing he does, which he was doing last year too, but suddenly it matters now because it coincides with the team success, which again, happens with or without him.
When little stuff like that happens it's very obvious where the hype comes from, and again it's jumping too soon because you think it will lead to success faster. Luke didn't get "more ready" because he watched the store for Kerr. He just got his feet wet. And still isn't ready.
Give the guy some years before throwing him on this team far too soon cause you're hyped about what Golden State's doing and every little thing Luke does or draws up becomes 10 times more important than it was last year when you could read the same things in terms of his basketball knowledge and understanding of the game. Heck you could have read and heard about that at Memphis.
But it didn't matter at the start of this season and the majority thought was he wasn't and isn't ready yet. Don't let what Golden State does in spite of him make you think he's suddenly leap frogged from that place. If you already have, then that's fine. But I however, won't be, because I understand the scenario and circumstances and why not to get overhyped about them just yet.
So again, if all that is out of the way, and it just comes down to "we want a coach that knows X's and O's and will hold people accountable" you'll have some available this off-season that have more experience at that and are more well equipped at this point in their careers than Luke currently is at those things. Basic things a coach SHOULD do, but Byron doesn't, so it magnifies it when another coach does.
Luke began doing coaching duties under Phil in 2010, so that is more than two years as an assistant. And then he also coached for the Lakers in the D League. People were talking about how good a coach Luke would be when he was still playing, he was that type of cerebral player. And in a few months as an interim head coach he did as well as any other coach in the history of the league has done. He will be highly sought after in the offseason and the Lakers will be lucky if he considers them. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
Some people are just too damn lazy to search Google.
No I think you tend to tend to throw you arguments out there as if they are 100% fact and unlike most other quality posters you don't like to present your full case. You're more into you one liners.
Ok, so tell me how to mail my SI issue to posters who question what I post? Do I make copies and send them to everyone on LG? Does everyone want to give me their mailing address?
97,000+ posts and you don't know how to quote? Or is that how you got to so many posts?
Why not just present your case and try to have a debate versus your zingers. I agree with some of what you're saying in Walton but how about you introduce information and provide quotes to prove your points?
How do I quote a magazine that I read? It is in the recycle bin right now, I guess "recycle bin" should do it?
You're like the daughter who can only try and makes things difficult and sarcastic versus actually saying anything of relevance. Glad to hear you recycle though.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144475 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:52 pm Post subject:
2019 wrote:
You're like the daughter who can only try and makes things difficult and sarcastic versus actually saying anything of relevance. Glad to hear you recycle though.
^ You don't know whether they are better options than Luke or not.
Yes... I do.
Budenhozer, Atkinson, and now Blatt are all better choices than Luke and more experienced than him and I'd stress to even put Becky Hammon in that catgory though her situation is very similar to Luke's in terms of structure.
Wut?
So for you experience is paramount in making a coaching decision? How'd that work out for Byron and the two Mikes? So if Atlanta hadn't given Budenholzer a chance, he wouldn't be a viable candidate for Lakers HC? Blatt only spent one full season as HC so that makes him a better candidate than Luke? C'mon already, the only criteria that should matter is whether a candidate can coach or not; and by coaching I prioritize leadership and communication more than how well the guy knows his Xs & Os. Most anyone in the business can diagram a chart, that's not what the HC job is for - the HC is the guy that effectively delegates responsibilities, holds players/staff accountable, assumes responsibilities when things don't go the right way on the floor, and defers to the players when things work out and I think Luke has those qualties that makes him the right choice (at least more than those guys you've mentioned).
They all had more experience than Luke does. Budenhozer was on the Spurs Coaching Staff since 96-97 before becoming a head coach in 2013. That's 17 years with Popovich, and he was also a big part of the staff that won 4 championships. So don't try to mention his experience and resume in the same breath as Luke's who's in his 2nd year as an assistant. It's too soon for him to be out on his own and building from scratch. Don't know how that can be made clearer.
So you bringing up Budenhozer and his 17 years of experience under Pop and 4 championships as an assistant with the guy only hammers home the point about Luke than help your case.
And again, if all you want is a"HCas the guy that effectively delegates responsibilities, holds players/staff accountable, assumes responsibilities when things don't go the right way on the floor, and defers to the players when things work out" there's better and more ready choices than Luke. I've already stated that.
The only real reason Luke is even given this consideration despite people saying they just want a "(insert what an actual coach is in comparison to Byron Scott)" there's better, the only reason they say Luke in that equation is because he has the title "former Laker" attached to him, which shouldn't enter into the equation at all, if evidence hasn't already shown us that. I'd take Kenny Atkinson OR David Blatt way before I'd go for Luke who needs a few more years of experience.
I had assumed you were clueless about Luke's experiences with coaching duties and you have confirmed that.
I know all about his college assistant coaching resume just like I'm familiar with Madsen's.
If you haven't guessed it's already been taken into account, and doesn't change my opinion. Atkinson and Blatt still trump him, and there are other coaches that will also be available this off-season that trump him in the "we just want an actual coach" category.
Again, people let what Golden State did with him watching the store far too much into account. He had one of the best tams around an assistant and basically just had to follow the blueprint Kerr left. That takes you not having an ego and trying to force your way and Luke wasn't. Kerr still constantly fed him the things he was supposed to do and what he didn't the assistants did.
Golden State has everything laid out as it should be, and Luke was great at watching the store. Watching the store is different from opening your own business and no, his 2 years NBA experience as an assistant isn't enough and still doesn't match up to the aforementioned Budenhozer that was attempted to be brought up as an example.
As I said, I am speaking about this from the perspective of already knowing Luke's college credentials, my dad actually grew up and best friends with Bill, so I know a lot when it comes to The "Walton's" as well as the Dudley's(whom was another one) and I just had the pleasure of meeting up with Jared's father while him and my dad caught up, I haven't met Bill Walton yet though.
So don't act like I'm speaking from 'not knowing' about Luke or that I'm misinformed, I'm very informed, and this is my perspective, particularly from what I've seen to how he's being overhyped but you having to actually evaluate everything he has in place. If you can't deal with that then agree to disagree. But if Mike D'antoni went to Golden State as an assistant to Kerr and had to 'watch the store' and pretty much did as he was told and setup for and Golden State had the same record near everyone would be saying it's happening due to Golden State's talent and would undercut any drawn up play as him playing the piper for Kerr.
Again, the only reason Luke gets that benefit is due to the fact he is a 'former Laker' that is where a lot of the hype comes from.
Because every single time I've broken it down thus far, the answer I get by those whom will then throw out the Golden State part, cite things about Luke that any actual coach in the NBA with a reputation should have.
The problem is we've dealt with the opposite with Scott for about two seasons now, so they're looking for someone, anyone, and Luke coincides with the success of Golden State so they're going there.
Let's ALSO not forget that NO ONE was singing Luke's praises before the start of this season and near everyone when mentioning the prospect of Luke Walton as a coach felt he was years away and then maybe could be worth taking a look at.
BUT coincide it with the success of Golden State which is happening with or without him and SUDDENLY Luke is READY to take on a rebuilding team, and every little thing he does, which he was doing last year too, but suddenly it matters now because it coincides with the team success, which again, happens with or without him.
When little stuff like that happens it's very obvious where the hype comes from, and again it's jumping too soon because you think it will lead to success faster. Luke didn't get "more ready" because he watched the store for Kerr. He just got his feet wet. And still isn't ready.
Give the guy some years before throwing him on this team far too soon cause you're hyped about what Golden State's doing and every little thing Luke does or draws up becomes 10 times more important than it was last year when you could read the same things in terms of his basketball knowledge and understanding of the game. Heck you could have read and heard about that at Memphis.
But it didn't matter at the start of this season and the majority thought was he wasn't and isn't ready yet. Don't let what Golden State does in spite of him make you think he's suddenly leap frogged from that place. If you already have, then that's fine. But I however, won't be, because I understand the scenario and circumstances and why not to get overhyped about them just yet.
So again, if all that is out of the way, and it just comes down to "we want a coach that knows X's and O's and will hold people accountable" you'll have some available this off-season that have more experience at that and are more well equipped at this point in their careers than Luke currently is at those things. Basic things a coach SHOULD do, but Byron doesn't, so it magnifies it when another coach does.
Luke began doing coaching duties under Phil in 2010, so that is more than two years as an assistant. And then he also coached for the Lakers in the D League. People were talking about how good a coach Luke would be when he was still playing, he was that type of cerebral player. And in a few months as an interim head coach he did as well as any other coach in the history of the league has done. He will be highly sought after in the offseason and the Lakers will be lucky if he considers them.
That's because of the TEAM he had, and the structure that the team already set. How much of what Golden State has done this year do you honestly thing is because of Luke Walton or anything Luke Walton came up with and built on his own that wasn't already set by Kerr and the assistants? I'm seriously and honestly asking you that question.
as far as "coaching duties" it was more of a part time thing or more keeping his ear to the door. He wasn't our assistant coach in 2010, Kareem was. And Kareem had been working with us as an assistant since 2010, Luke wasn't behind the majority of the decisions that came that way, Clemson and Kareem were and it was Kareem that divised the strategy for how we'd beat Orlando for that Championship. Luke was more or less opening the door for his career to likely end, but he was still an active member of the roster.
Luke didn't have any REAL experience as an assistant till the lockout year where he worked over at Memphis till the lockout ended where he then returned as a member of the Lakers, till he was traded to the Cavs and retired soon thereafter and was hired by us to be the D-Fenders coach. Not assistant coach, Player Development Coach. Which why you saw him so often on Time Warner Cable.
When the Warriors added him to their coaching staff as an assistant he was about 3rd on the pecking order, behind Gentry whom Kerr went to for most any and all advice in terms of the offense and strategy and Luke was there to keep his mouth shut and his ears open. Much like any assistant that is starting out.
In the absence of Gentry this year it was to be Luke's first time as the main assistant that he has dealt with ANYWHERE since his brief stint in Memphis during the lockout year.
Due to Kerr's botched surgeries he was tasked with "coaching" the team. But the blueprint was already laid out by Kerr and his assistants, all Luke had to do was follow it. And he did.
What you need to understand is that the structure with the Golden State Warriors and how that team is ran, they make sure EVERYONE is prepared just in case someone is no longer around, this is why they don't even notice that Gentry is gone, everything that he taught, and showed them they have implemented into their style of play and they have no need nor wish to re-invent the wheel as all they really need to do at this point is allow their players to just get better. And they have.
The Warriors are head and shoulders above anyone else in the NBA and it's BECAUSE of their roster and the fact their roster GOT BETTER. They had the "Finals gitters" last year that usually costs young teams and they have to come back the next year stronger, however they wound up winning, and came into this year bigger and better. They were gonna go on that run with or without Walton and had they done it under Kerr who'd have done the same thing then Luke would be seen as still needing a few years.
What Luke has in Golden State is a fantastic system, front to back that has already been built, and a structure that already exists and was implemented last year offensively by an assistant that was NOT him. All he has to do with the Warriors in Kerr's absence is follow the blueprint that works. That is the advantage of having a fantastic team around you both on the court and on the bench.
Now was there times when Luke's coaching ability was exposed a bit and showing how inexperienced he was when he had to actually "Coach" and the team wasn't on autopilot? Yes. But Curry would drop 37 or 40 and they'd win by 5 or 7 so the streak kept going.
But the point is, Luke doesn't have that on a rebuilding team. When I said "Would Luke do for Brooklyn what Brad Stevens is doing for Boston." I meant it. Because we need to throw what Golden State is doing out of the window and just look at Luke as a coach and how he dealt with it. What we know about him so far is if he has a great team, a great system already in place, and such that he will not try to re-invent the wheel, he'll do precisely what he's supposed to do and defer to assistants that know more than he does about it.
THAT is what Kerr does and THAT is what the Phil Jackson motif is. NOT trying to go to a rebuilding team and run the triangle and assume you're Phil or will have his success because of the system(this is the mistake both Brian Shaw and Kurt Rambis made).
Kerr is the only one that actually did it Phil's way. You go to a talented team ready to go further over the hump and you bring assistants that understand more about the game than you do in an X's and O's way(for Phil it was Winters, for Kerr it was Gentry) and you defer to them to handle the X's and O's while you focus primarily on the strategy and 'coaching'. This is what Kerr did, and it is what Phil Jackson did and it is what the motif is.
Not to jump at a rebuilding team and try to build it from the ground up with the triangle. Heck even PHIL couldn't do that when he came here for our two down years and it was by virtue of having a player that could drop 50 points in 3 quarters consistently despite being quadruple teamed that we even made the playoffs.
So what Luke did in essence, what Kerr was doing. That doesn't mean that Kerr would go to New York and suddenly they'd make the finals in 3 years and it SURELY doesn't mean that Luke is ready to leave the nest and take over a rebuilding team.
ALL of Phil's disciples that went to a rebuilding team they had to build from the ground up, FAILED.. and there is a reason for that.
IF you really want Luke Walton as a coach for this Lakers team, and you actually want him to have success, you wait until this Lakers team is capable of winning at LEAST 45 games a year. And by that time, Luke will be ready. Not not right now. It would just ruin what he already has and cut him out before he's ready enough to be a head coach in this league.
So if 3-5 years from now the Lakers are a consistent 45 win team and Luke is a free agent coach, by all means sign him to try to take this team over the top. Anything less than that and you're setting yourself up for disappointment, heartache, and more "NO MORE REHASHES BECAUSE THEY WERE FORMER LAKERS!" posts from detractors.
Pat Riley followed a blueprint and it worked out well for him. _________________ LeBron, AD, & _________. Stay tuned.
"...there was a time when the Israelites were wandering in the desert and all of a sudden, bread came down from heaven,” Pelinka said. “That’s kind of what today feels like for us to have KCP join.”
You're like the daughter who can only try and makes things difficult and sarcastic versus actually saying anything of relevance. Glad to hear you recycle though.
Does luke still own that BBQ restaurant in Manhattan beach? If so I wanna try it now
I'm pretty sure it closed down (I don't see it on yelp). It was called Joey's BBQ on Sepulveda. There's also a Joey's bbq in Chino but I don't think its related.
ALL of Phil's disciples that went to a rebuilding team they had to build from the ground up, FAILED.. and there is a reason for that.
They tried to bring the triangle to teams that had no business running it? _________________ "There's only 2 dudes better than me, and I'm BOTH OF THEM."
Joined: 23 Jun 2005 Posts: 8488 Location: The (real) short corner
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:35 pm Post subject:
MJST wrote:
*snip*
Since when is coming from a place where all of the best practices are already set up a bad thing? That's one of the primary reasons you hire him in the first place.
I remember your wall of texts defending Byron because you wanted to argue the circumstances behind why his previous teams failed. Now you're trying to argue the circumstances behind why Luke's team has been succeeding. Needless to say, that's not the best way to evaluate coaches.
In fact, one of your main arguments in Byron's favor was that you thought he was given a contending team, he would be a good enough coach not to mess that up. That you're so dead set against giving Luke the same credit is just bizarre.
Does luke still own that BBQ restaurant in Manhattan beach? If so I wanna try it now
I'm pretty sure it closed down (I don't see it on yelp). It was called Joey's BBQ on Sepulveda. There's also a Joey's bbq in Chino but I don't think its related.
Yeah, heard that Luke owned 2 Joey's Smokin' BBiQ (Manhattan Beach, Tustin) but they're both shuttered now. There's one in Lomita that he doesn't own, but is still around.
As for Joey's BBQ (non Smokin') in Chino, seems like a different chain altogether.
Does luke still own that BBQ restaurant in Manhattan beach? If so I wanna try it now
I'm pretty sure it closed down (I don't see it on yelp). It was called Joey's BBQ on Sepulveda. There's also a Joey's bbq in Chino but I don't think its related.
Yeah, heard that Luke owned 2 Joey's Smokin' BBiQ (Manhattan Beach, Tustin) but they're both shuttered now. There's one in Lomita that he doesn't own, but is still around.
As for Joey's BBQ (non Smokin') in Chino, seems like a different chain altogether.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
