How important is a coach?

[Diesel]

I was listening to somebody make an interesting point.

GS won this year with Mike Brown coaching a lot... Last year with Luke Walton.  Steve Kerr gets all the credit in the world but if he didn't come back, couldn't Brown have won the championship?

Was Phil Jackson the great coach he was because he had MJ and Kobe?  

That brings us to us... How important is Bud in the grand scheme of things?  Is it the coach or the Culture?

[Thomas]

Maybe its not a fair example but Collins won with MJ but couldn't get where they wanted and the Phil stepped in with Tex and molded them almost immediately and they won six titles. On the other side of the coin Bud doesn't have generational talent on the roster so many might say Phil really is an aberration because he always had it on the plate from the get go. Krauss was really huge in that situation in Chicago and then in L.A., West was there the first year and then it was Kupchak's deal from then on. The GM and coach are both required and hoping our Travis and Bud combo is it for us, patience required no doubt.  

[Guest]

Anyone who doesn't understand the importance of the coach, doesn't actually understand what the coach does.  IIUC, in-game coaching is only a minor part of that job.  And, although Kerr was absent in games, he was still pretty involved in all other areas.

[thecampster]

The coach establishes a culture. It doesn't matter who is calling X's and O's on game day. The culture of practice, the discipline of the players, feeling of team in the clubhouse, it all begins with the coach.  The number one thing a coach must do is either A) establish he is the Alpha or B) defer to a player as the Alpha.  No matter where you are, little league, the office, your home, grilling in the backyard, there is always someone in charge and followers. Men need that. My years in the military taught me that. There are those who refuse to be led and those who desperately want leadership. The job of the coach is to identify how to make as many of his players follow the right person (be that him or his Jordan).  IMHO, the Celtics of old were so successful because nobody questioned Russell. Russell's work ethic was beyond reproach and his sacrifice for his team, willingness to follow his coach, his submissive yet powerful leadership made those Celtics teams great. That all begins with the coach, his ability to get his players to buy in.  Kerr has that. He has the rings, he has the intellect and he has the unwavering loyalty to his players.  Kerr is every bit as loyal to his players as they are to him and that is why they'll play for Brown, Walton or whomever, because Kerr earned their loyalty with his.

[BrazilianHawk]

IMO importance of the coach and quality of the roster are inversely proportional. The Warriors could play with any coach and still win it all, who knows? Cleveland has T-Lue as HC. Or is it LBJ?

As for the Hawks, Bud is VERY important to them, but only if he is really focused on coaching and not doing other stuff which interferes with coaching. And that's why coaching was lackluster (at best) last season. Now that he's a full-time HC again, I bet the Hawks can be much better next season  while maintaing the very same roster. That's the main reason why I don't want Millsap gone. IMHO, if Schlenk believes in Bud, getting Millsap back should be mandatory.

[macdaddy]

[AHF]

Talent is most important.  Coaching can move the needle up or down from the baseline set by talent.  Sometimes that coach impact is really critical and other times it is not such a big deal as it ends up secondary to the talent (either ridiculously good or bad).

[macdaddy]

Everyone though Avery Johnson was the second coming but Carlisle came to Dallas and the team immediately improved and won a title his 3rd year.   Sure Butler, Marion, and Chandler coming in helped a ton but i'm not sure they win a title without Carlisle. 

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, macdaddy said:

Everyone though Avery Johnson was the second coming but Carlisle came to Dallas and the team immediately improved and won a title his 3rd year.   Sure Butler, Marion, and Chandler coming in helped a ton but i'm not sure they win a title without Carlisle. 

I agree he was a difference maker for them taking a team that would have won a ton of games but likely have fallen short under a lesser coach and pushing them over the top.  He is one of the very best coaches in the game.

[Guard]

Coaching is important but you have to have the horses to truly maximize the scheme and play calling.  Especially when the  playoffs roll around and the teams that are left have the ability to out talent other teams. Coaching alone isn't enough most of the time In the NBA. 

[Diesel]

6 hours ago, AHF said:

Talent is most important.  Coaching can move the needle up or down from the baseline set by talent.  Sometimes that coach impact is really critical and other times it is not such a big deal as it ends up secondary to the talent (either ridiculously good or bad).

Coaching moves the needle...  How about Lenny.  Lenny was able to get good results out of less talented teams.

Somebody mentiond Carlisle.

However, Cleveland exchanged Lue for that foriegn dude and got immediate results. 

Finally, Byron Scott took a team that was 26-56 and took them to the finals twice...without a major overhaul of talent.  He did a similar thing with the New Orleans Hornets.

[benhillboy]

28 minutes ago, Diesel said:

Coaching moves the needle...  How about Lenny.  Lenny was able to get good results out of less talented teams.

Somebody mentiond Carlisle.

However, Cleveland exchanged Lue for that foriegn dude and got immediate results. 

Finally, Byron Scott took a team that was 26-56 and took them to the finals twice...without a major overhaul of talent.  He did a similar thing with the New Orleans Hornets.

Scott also made a stone cold fool of himself in LA.

Coaching matters a lot obviously.  Bud and Co. was almost exclusively responsible for the 60 win season that none of us saw coming.  I think Larry Brown could've won 5-8 more games with any lottery team you want to pick outside the Mavs who blatantly tanked with a great coach.

Outstanding or awful management is just as consequential.  Jerry West can clean out and remodel almost any front office in a year.  Sacramento probably not.

Edited June 16, 2017 by benhillboy

[Diesel]

1 minute ago, benhillboy said:

Scott also made a stone cold fool of himself in LA.

Coaching matters a lot obviously.  Bud and Co. was almost exclusively responsible for the 60 win season that none of us saw coming.  I think Larry Brown could've won 5-8 more games with any lottery team you want to pick.

IN LA.. what's the culture there?

 

[AHF]

3 minutes ago, benhillboy said:

Scott also made a stone cold fool of himself in LA.

Coaching matters a lot obviously.  Bud and Co. was almost exclusively responsible for the 60 win season that none of us saw coming.  I think Larry Brown could've won 5-8 more games with any lottery team you want to pick.

I am also pretty confident Rip and Ben don't win a ring in Detroit without Brown on the bench.  He maximized that team's play.