Which one is more important in the NBA?

Which one is more important in the NBA?

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.

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.

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

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 a question without context.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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. I have never heard him actually blame the players for being shitty.

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?

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.

Pick a login and stick with it

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