Which one is more important in the NBA?

_________________

Kinda chicken or egg unless you are the Warriors.

_________________
Nas: Blago, who has single handedly destroyed CFMB?

Blago: https://youtube.com/shorts/Lftdxd-YXt8?feature=share

"You can’t love your country only when you win." -President Biden

https://youtu.be/R6e4ruziZBI?si=1G4W1vbh0eGQuHfU

Talent no doubt.

It's very simple. A bunch of talented players aren't going anywhere if the workplace environment sucks. If a sucky coach doesn't hold players accountable, doesn't treat guys fairly, doesn't prepare players for games, doesn't know how to lead, etc., then the environment is going to be toxic and guys aren't going to be motivated to give their best. This is why having a coach who can do all that is necessary. Again, very simple. Not sure why this is so hard.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

Bill Fitch and Paul Westhead want a couple of words with you. And both Rick Carlisle and Ty Lye are in the hallway.

And what Vegan said.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

Apparently for you it is and you still didn't answer the question..Great coaches don't win shit without talented players. Doesn't matter how great the workplace happens to be.

You can't give me an example of when this happened. I don't need nor want hypotheticals. Provide an example of when this happened.


To illustrate my point i'd be willing to bet you that the best coach in the league (Gregg Popovich) will not win the championship this year. In fact i'm willing to bet that he won't make it to the conf finals this year either. Thats despite having 2 All Stars on his team.

An Avatar bet.

_________________

There were some very talented well coached 76er teams that didn't win squat

_________________
I'm going to bounce from the spot for awhile but I will be back at some point to argue with you about this hoops stuff again. Playoffs have been great this season. See ya up the road.

I'm out.

Can you point out where I said a great coach is the only reason teams win?

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

Your have misrepresented my argument from the very beginning. I stated that great coaching doesn't matter without first having talent. You took it to mean coaching "doesn't matter". I never said that. It doesn't matter without talent.

If given the choice i'd take superior talent over superior coaching any day. Thats my point.

_________________

It's not an either or thing. A good coach can make a moderately talented team competitive. Once that team adds more talent then they take the next step into contender status because all the pieces (talent and coaching) are in place.

The Utah Jazz.of the 90s and early 2000s and the Spurs after Duncan declined are examples of moderately talented teams being competitive because of superior coaching. So are Rick Carlisle's Mavericks.

A good coach is the difference between a moderately talented team being competitive night in and night out and that same team winning 15 games. In other words, if you put a good coach on a sucky team then you get a chance at the 7th or 8th seed. And if you put a bad coach on a moderately talented team then you give up 100 points in a half and don't know what "defensive scheme" means.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

It's a question without context.

What's more important for crops? The sun or rain?

Actually there is context and Vegan knows it that is why he is ducking it. He overrates coaching. Many do. Great Coaching means nothing without talent. . Period.

You can win a championship without being a great coach. Ty Lue proved that. You can't win a championship without having talent. Paul Westphal. Bill Fitch. They proved that. Possibly Rudy T.

_________________

Duncan really didn't decline though. His Decline occurred during his last 2 seasons. He was still an elite player at age 35. Moderately competitive is a semantics argument. There are a lot of coaches that look a lot better with superior talent. Erik Spoelstra is one of them.

_________________

Aside from the 82-84 teams, Boston and the Lakers were better, more talented teams. Especially when the Boston Strangler was hurt.

And to look back at the earlier Sixers teams, they were dominated by scorers who never passed, and guys who had no business with a ball in their hands. But it was fun.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

Does any reasonable person deny that? By context I mean these guys didn't get to the NBA on physical capabilities. That talent was nurtured by coaching, amongst other things. And great coaching ALWAYS means something. Mostly, it provides a culture of striving for excellence. Great teams are a process and coaching is a part of it.

I give up - I'll take the L here. Effective today, October 30, I hereby declare to myself that you're more likely to win basketball games if the players you have are good at basketball. The link between being good at basketball and winning basketball games is something I now readily acknowledge, and in the coming days and weeks I pledge to study this link more thoroughly to bring my understanding up to date.

_________________
Successful calls:

Kyrie Irving will never win anything as a team's alpha: check
T.rubisky is a bust: check
Ben Simmons is a liability: check
The Fields Cult is dumb: double check

2013 CSFMB ROY

Yep. Philly was better when they acquired Moses. Prior to that there were years that they could get past one but not the other. They were my favorite team growing up particularly given the Mo Cheeks angle. I don't think anyone ever thought Cunningham was the problem. In fact he was regarded as one of the better coaches around back then. Andrew Toney got hurt Doc got old and So did Moses and that window closed on them. They also screwed themselves by making one of the dumbest trades in NBA history.

_________________

Without knowing the genesis of this thread, I'm just going to guess that vegan thinks coaching is more important than LTG does. So, based on that disagreement, LTG created a completely misleading thread asking if a coach or the players were more important in order to defeat an argument that no one actually made. Am I close?

_________________

It obviously plays a role but your best coaches never have to take shit jobs so its rare that you really see the value of what you are talking about.

If Pop leaves the Spurs tomorrow he will have his pick of the best job available. He won't have to take the Nets job. He will takeover a talented underachieving team or a team that is ready to "bust out". If it is all about Coaching which is all that Vegan seems to ever focus on then it wouldn't matter what job these guys take over. In addition I don't blame coaches whenever the record is bad. Vegan does. Circumstances and situations often dictate those things.

Fred Hoiberg may be a bad coach but he also has a bad hand. With a full roster he should be able to compete better but this isn't a championship team. Greg Popovich will not turn them into that either. That is my point. They will play better but he won't be able to turn chicken shit into chicken salad simply because he is the coach.

_________________

Vegan has been making this argument for about 3 years now. Miss a little miss a lot. He blames coaches whenever players aren't shit. I.E. Alvin Gentry. He also overrates Coaches. I.E. Tom Thibodeau.

Whenever a team loses he blames the coach. He never criticizes the players and more often than not he never accounts for teams simply being more talented. That is why I started the thread.

_________________

So, because you think he overstates the value of coaches, you make the leap that he also thinks the coach is more important than the players?

_________________

Yeah because he thinks that shitty coaching equates to shitty records. That was the argument used against guys like Alvin Gentry to name one. You are sort of on the ass end with this one but that is the crux of it.

The argument has always been that shitty coaches have shitty records because they are shitty coaches. Not that they coach shitty teams. That is his argument and has been for awhile.

_________________

You can win with great talent and good coaching. You can win with good talent and great coaching.

If you have great talent and great coaching, you will not lose (see 90's Bulls). If you have poor of either, you won't win shit.

Cleveland won good talent and bad coaching to hear MANY tell it.

_________________

Lebron elevated the talent to great. It's actually more of a referendum on Kerr's coaching ability than anything. Warriors should not lose.

Bump!

_________________

Pick a login and stick with it

Non Sequitor and totally irrelevant seeing as I have never tried to "hide" who I am. UNLIKE SOME HERE!

_________________

"Non Sequitor" hey maybe that's the password to long time guy, give it a shot

If changes to usernames "perplexes" you then it might be time to "incorporate" someone else inside Frank's "simple" tent!

_________________