What has Steve Kerr done to be considered to top coaching candidate?

[ZoPunde]

I'm confused. The Lakers, Warriors, and Knicks all want this guy to coach for them. Why? What has he done?

:confusedshrug::confusedshrug::confusedshrug:

[FLDFSU]

Same thing when he got the Phnx job.

Him and Jackson, Marc are in the same boat, HOWEVER, Jackson was never considered a "top" coaching candidate and took over a team that hadn't been to the playoffs but once in the last 20 years.

But now apparently Jackson is out to make room for Kerr, after winning 50 games and going to the playoffs in back to back years.

[9512]

Former NBA role players tend to be hired a lot.

My guess is his reputation of being a member of the bulls & spurs teams (the experience of being part of 5 titles), his reputation as an announcer (guess some people think he's knowledgeable), and his connection w/ Phil Jackson will increase his chances of getting hired.

[3peated]

point guard role players*

[jzek]

All hype.

Remember how everyone thought Brian Shaw was the next big thing? Yeah. GMs are dumb. They all go by hype and what the media tells them is "good".

[FLDFSU]

Former NBA role players tend to be hired a lot.

My guess is his reputation of being a member of the bulls & spurs teams (the experience of being part of 5 titles), his reputation as an announcer (guess some people think he's knowledgeable), and his connection w/ Phil Jackson will increase his chances of getting hired.

But what about that makes him a *top* coaching candidate? Marc Jackson had much the same background and was never (not even today) considered a *top* coaching candidate?

[Kblaze8855]

Gms don't go by hype and all. They go by nepotism like the rest of the world. Look at the GM list. Like 5-6 either played with Kerr, coached him, or were GMs on teams that brought him in. He has ties to Pop, Phil Jackson, the Nelsons in Dallas, he ran the Suns for a few years after being a consultant since 2004 and hired coaches(head and assistants) who are in the league now and hes generally been in and around the league since 1987. How many GMs know him and his way of thinking just from his time as president of the Suns?


GMs don't need media hype to decide they like Kerr. They have known him for 10-25 years.

[Thorpesaurous]

I've wondered the same thing. And I've wondered it mostly because it wasn't as if he did gang busters work as a gm in pheonix. Now GM'ing isn't the same as coaching, but still.

First, he's always come off as a bit stiff to me. That's fine. It seems like a great trait in a gm. I'm not sure I want it out of my coach.

Second, he seems to be getting a lot of recognition as a desciple of Phil Jackson, but it's not like the PJ coaching tree has been dropping super successfull acorns. He did however also coach with Pop, who has so far seen a pretty good pedigree for assistant's turning into plus coaches. Playing for those two guys is a pretty nice place to start, but I still feel like having zero assistant coaching experience is something that's not getting as much value placed on it as it should.

I like the guy. I hope he does well. But the talk about him like he's a no brainer can't miss coach just feels wierd to me.

[chocolatethunder]

Perhaps Phil just wants to groom him and basically be able to control all his moves from top, kinda like Pat Riley is doing in Miami with Spolestra.
No because Kerr has already stated that he wouldn't implement the triangle because it takes a long time to learn. Someone posted a link to and article about Kerr and what his coaching style would be like and it was a bunch of clips from different interviews I believe. He said that he liked ball movement and spacing and was against ISOball. He liked teams like Portland and San Anotnio and Dallas. Teams who moved the ball a lot. I've been trying to find the link but haven't been able to yet. There are so many topics on this now that I can't sort through them all.

[D-FENS]

Second, he seems to be getting a lot of recognition as a desciple of Phil Jackson, but it's not like the PJ coaching tree has been dropping super successfull acorns. He did however also coach with Pop, who has so far seen a pretty good pedigree for assistant's turning into plus coaches. Playing for those two guys is a pretty nice place to start, but I still feel like having zero assistant coaching experience is something that's not getting as much value placed on it as it should.


I feel like Phil just floated him as a potential candidate to help the guy get noticed around the league, and if Phil endorses you, it's gold in the NBA, albeit fool's gold

[Thorpesaurous]

No because Kerr has already stated that he wouldn't implement the triangle because it takes a long time to learn. Someone posted a link to and article about Kerr and what his coaching style would be like and it was a bunch of clips from different interviews I believe. He said that he liked ball movement and spacing and was against ISOball. He liked teams like Portland and San Anotnio and Dallas. Teams who moved the ball a lot. I've been trying to find the link but haven't been able to yet. There are so many topics on this now that I can't sort through them all.


I agree with his thinking here. I have some doubts about the ability of the triangle to run at an elite level in the current league. Loosening zone rules means it's easier to flood a floor defensively, meaning harder to do it offensively.

On top of that there are fewer players in the league than ever who are at an advantage with their back to the basket, which the triangle relies on. And the decreasing of hand checking has blown up the success rate of players working out of classic top pick and rolls that lead to kick outs or drop offs, which isn't something the triangle goes into naturally at all.

The fact that Kerr played for Pop, albeit not the same Pop that is working currently, is to me a bigger plus than his Phil Jackson experience.

[-Lebron23-]

All hype.

Remember how everyone thought Brian Shaw was the next big thing? Yeah. GMs are dumb. They all go by hype and what the media tells them is "good".
GMs do not make decisions like that going 'by hype' though, it's delusional to think otherwise. They usually speak to a large amount of people before even considering someone a candidate.

Kerr probably showed great basketball knowledge in his years as a player and of course as GM. he has spent lots of time with colleagues and coaches so if many of them endorse him, he is definitely worth looking into.

I agree with you on Shaw though. He doesn't seem ready for a HC position. I don't even like the idea of basketball he proposes but people change as the game does so let's see if he's given more opportunities.

[chocolatethunder]

I agree with his thinking here. I have some doubts about the ability of the triangle to run at an elite level in the current league. Loosening zone rules means it's easier to flood a floor defensively, meaning harder to do it offensively.

On top of that there are fewer players in the league than ever who are at an advantage with their back to the basket, which the triangle relies on. And the decreasing of hand checking has blown up the success rate of players working out of classic top pick and rolls that lead to kick outs or drop offs, which isn't something the triangle goes into naturally at all.

The fact that Kerr played for Pop, albeit not the same Pop that is working currently, is to me a bigger plus than his Phil Jackson experience.
I wanna be honest, his ties to Phil Jackson (playing for him) are being blown up to make him seem as if he'd be a puppet or just run the triangle and I don't think that's true at all. He's smart enough to say that he wouldn't run the triangle so that's a good sign to me. More than anything I think it's the complexity of the offense and finding players who are disciplined enough to play within the offense that would prevent him from implementing it. I have no idea if he'll be a good coach but I suspect that people think that he will be good because they know something. Just as Larry Brown thought Kevin Ollie would be a good coach. What do any of us know of Steve Kerr? Not much. He's an analyst and was a role player. I saw his whole career. I remember when he played for Cleveland. He seems to be a thinker like Doug Collins but not as harsh and more adaptable. No clue if that means anything. As a GM he made some good moves and some bad ones. He was only a GM for a few years so it's not even fair to call him good or bad because he wasn't doing it long enough. I think he's young enough to relate to players and he'd have the respect of winning a championship. He has a calm demeanor but he was competitive and definitely made big shots in his career. What does this mean? That remains to be seen. Guys like Bird and Jackson had no experience but were very good coaches. Neither we the X and O guys though, they were the motivators. Bird had Carlisle and Jackson had Malone (til this year and you could see the offense suffered at times). Even Phil Jackson had Tex Winter (although Phil is thought of as somewhat of an x and os guy). I think Kerr is viewed as a guy who has the potential to be a really good x and o guy and a smart manipulator/motivator like Pop. I don't know that he will be but but that's how it seems he'll be viewed. The league is shifting and people are going to be taking more chances on unproven guys with no coaching experience. Jackson, Kidd, Kerr etc and I'm all for it.

[DCL]

he seems so laid back to be an nba coach.

i can imagine in the locker room after a huge loss and he'd be going "good game, fellas. great effort by everybody. unfortunately, they got us tonight, but we'll get them next time. let's go team!"

not sure if that's the kind of intensity you want from an nba coach... not even sure if that's the kind of intensity you want from a competitive high school jv coach.

kerr is just so mellow.

[Draz]

There's not that many good coaches out there. The market for them is desperate.

[Bl]

white former nba player.


ewing has more coachign cred than him but kerr has superior genetics to some

[chocolatethunder]

[QUOTE=Bl

[chocolatethunder]

If anyone wants to read about Kerr's views on coaching have at it

http://knickerblogger.net/steve-kerr-would-be-a-smart-hire/

[imdaman99]

Absolutely nothing. The only lucrative part is that Phil said Kerr would be an extension of himself. Kerr is basically going to be a puppet. Kerr has never done anything for him to be weighing his options on where he wants to coach. If you want to stay in Cali to be with your kids, than fck off and stay there. I'm tired of this guy already.

[Bl]

And why was Jackson sought after? He had no coaching experience. Or Jason Kidd? The NBA has a pretty diverse coaching pool certainly compared to other sports and that's not even including executives. Does Ewing have more coaching cred? Yes sure. Ewing has been interviewed for several jobs, the fact that he's never gotten one should tell you something. Some guys are better as assistants and that's that. Look at Kuester or Jim Cleamons. Diversity in coaching isn't much of a problem in the NBA. Each year there are more and more minority assistants as well which had historically been the path to becoming a head coach but that is now changing.

kerr still has superior genetics and that is why he is a top coach

[chocolatethunder]

Absolutely nothing. The only lucrative part is that Phil said Kerr would be an extension of himself. Kerr is basically going to be a puppet. Kerr has never done anything for him to be weighing his options on where he wants to coach. If you want to stay in Cali to be with your kids, than fck off and stay there. I'm tired of this guy already.
What had Jason Kidd or Mark Jackson done to be considered candidates? If Kerr takes the Golden state job whose puppet would he be then?

[NumberSix]

5 rings.

[9512]

But what about that makes him a *top* coaching candidate? Marc Jackson had much the same background and was never (not even today) considered a *top* coaching candidate?

Tbh, I am not sure. Lol it seems like head coaches in the NBA like mark jackson and potentially Steve kerr are like US president candidates. They pop out of nowhere and become head coaches... Just because the gm or owner said so.

[mistergreens]

The same washed-up NBA coaches get recycled all the time, Mike Woodson, Rick Adelman, etc. Not sure what Kerr has, but it's worth a try. Stop repeating with coches who are proven mediocre and at least TRY some fresh blood.

[DukeDelonte13]

There's not that many good coaches out there. The market for them is desperate.


it's because NBA teams don't let coaches coach anymore, and everyone's coaching standards are pretty damn unfair.

Coaches need at least 3/4 seasons before an FO can really make a halfway decent determination on whether or not they are going to work or not. Giving a coach one or two years and pulling the plug is the way to go nowadays.

[imdaman99]

What had Jason Kidd or Mark Jackson done to be considered candidates? If Kerr takes the Golden state job whose puppet would he be then?
Those guys were both coaches ON the court during their time. Kerr? Role player. He never did any coaching, he was riding MJ and then Duncan's coattails to rings. I am more annoyed by him not making a decision. He is not a Popovich or Thibs, or anyone that has had success in the past to be having so many options. I am ok with giving him a chance, just join already though. I'm not saying he has to be a puppet, but he would be here on the Knicks.

[wally_world]

being white

[Levity]

hes made statements stating he likes the idea of utilizing two bigs and would rather stay away from a 4 guard line up. he also drafted dragic in the 2nd round, but did draft earl clark :lol and he butted heads with Mike D and his system, which is why he left PHX to coach NY.

so maybe GM's know this stuff and want it implemented to their team. or maybe theyre using favoritism of him being a former NBA player with phils approval in aide to their decision

[fpliii]

I agree with his thinking here. I have some doubts about the ability of the triangle to run at an elite level in the current league. Loosening zone rules means it's easier to flood a floor defensively, meaning harder to do it offensively.

On top of that there are fewer players in the league than ever who are at an advantage with their back to the basket, which the triangle relies on. And the decreasing of hand checking has blown up the success rate of players working out of classic top pick and rolls that lead to kick outs or drop offs, which isn't something the triangle goes into naturally at all.

The fact that Kerr played for Pop, albeit not the same Pop that is working currently, is to me a bigger plus than his Phil Jackson experience.
Thing is though, on a basic level, the triangle is all about spacing and ball movement, and having players who can drive/pass/shoot. Being a threat to shoot is how you kill a zone.

It's true that not having back-to-the-basket players to play the post position will limit what you can do with the offense. After the initial guard-wing pass which I think is in most of the triangle sets, I believe most of the first looks are to the post. Melo might be able to play it, but with all the ball movement, if the first option isn't there, you look to rotate/invert the main triangle. There are a ton of options though, and the triangle is meant to be tailored to the individual talent you have. Not every team would implement the offense in its entirety.

I do think there are real questions about how accustomed Kerr is with the offense though, how well he can teach it, and as someone said, how dedicated he is to using it.

[chocolatethunder]

Those guys were both coaches ON the court during their time. Kerr? Role player. He never did any coaching, he was riding MJ and then Duncan's coattails to rings. I am more annoyed by him not making a decision. He is not a Popovich or Thibs, or anyone that has had success in the past to be having so many options. I am ok with giving him a chance, just join already though. I'm not saying he has to be a puppet, but he would be here on the Knicks.
What kind of player was Riley? Or Phil Jackson? These guys weren't studs and they sure weren't coaches on the floor. You of course realize that in basketball the best players aren't usually the best coaches, it's normally role players who are the best coaches. I mean was Rick Carlisle a stud? Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less if this dude coaches or not but I'm all for GMs and owners taking a chance on someone unproven and thinking a little outside the box.

[imdaman99]

What kind of player was Riley? Or Phil Jackson? These guys weren't studs and they sure weren't coaches on the floor. You of course realize that in basketball the best players aren't usually the best coaches, it's normally role players who are the best coaches. I mean was Rick Carlisle a stud? Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less if this dude coaches or not but I'm all for GMs and owners taking a chance on someone unproven and thinking a little outside the box.
I get what you're saying, I am willing to give him a chance because guys that come out of nowhere have potential too like you said with PJackson and Riley... but this has been dragging on for too long. Either say yes or no, Knicks should not be his 3rd option.

[AnaheimLakers24]

hes white and played for phil. thats it

[chocolatethunder]

I get what you're saying, I am willing to give him a chance because guys that come out of nowhere have potential too like you said with PJackson and Riley... but this has been dragging on for too long. Either say yes or no, Knicks should not be his 3rd option.
I feel you but Jackson just got fired yesterday. Phil is no dummy and I'm sure they talked about if Golden State job opened up so Kerr is weighing his options. I personally wouldn't coach NY because I don't trust Dolan and the roster is not that good and it will take several years before it gets better because of lack of cap space and draft picks. Golden State on the other hand isn't a walk in the park because if they do well everyone will say it's because of Jackson and if they don't do well everyone will say it's Kerr's fault. For instance when Larry Brown won the title with Detroit, at the time some people complained and said he just took over Carlisle's team and had an easy win.

[GimmeThat]

I actually don't know.

I thought he had a good run as a GM for the Suns and helped build up an even larger fan base while he was there.

I still think he would fit in great with the Lakers FO.

[Relinquish]

Well he did commentary, and it sucked so I guess that is good enough qualifications. :confusedshrug:

[Thorpesaurous]

Thing is though, on a basic level, the triangle is all about spacing and ball movement, and having players who can drive/pass/shoot. Being a threat to shoot is how you kill a zone.

It's true that not having back-to-the-basket players to play the post position will limit what you can do with the offense. After the initial guard-wing pass which I think is in most of the triangle sets, I believe most of the first looks are to the post. Melo might be able to play it, but with all the ball movement, if the first option isn't there, you look to rotate/invert the main triangle. There are a ton of options though, and the triangle is meant to be tailored to the individual talent you have. Not every team would implement the offense in its entirety.

I do think there are real questions about how accustomed Kerr is with the offense though, how well he can teach it, and as someone said, how dedicated he is to using it.


I had a team that played against me in college that ran a little triangle, and being a walk on PG, I was asked to run scout stuff sometimes, and got pretty familiar with the triangle. You are correct about the spacing being a huge factor. That's why PG play in the triangle frequently fell to guys like Kerr. Pure floor spacers. Kerr, Pax, BJ Armstrong, Craig Hodges, right down to Mike Penberthy.
There was a second type of "PG", usually a nominal term used on an extra SG or SF. The Ron Harper types. There main focus is to play on the weakside and be able to attack and finish after cutting without the ball. Basically spacing the floor but without the shooting, just by being active enough and enough of a threat going to the basket that they can't be ignored. They usually have the added advantage of making the team a real defensive pain in the ass.

Ball movement, at least the way I think of it in terms of San Antonio, Portland, and a few other of the really crisp current teams, isn't really something I'd associate with the triangle. More player movement within the triangle. And the scheme has only extremely rarely used ball screens, especially in any attacking manner.

Defensively, I think the laxed zone rules would make it harder to run that strong side of the court stuff. I have a feeling that's part of why we've seen an explosion of mid court offense based a lot on center pick and rolls. Probably part of why we've seen something of a golden age of NBA PGs, because that type of offense that can exploit the defensive rules is something that position is adept at.

Most importantly though is what you say at the bottom. I'm not sure how committed he is to any particular scheme.

[DukeDelonte13]

hes made statements stating he likes the idea of utilizing two bigs and would rather stay away from a 4 guard line up. he also drafted dragic in the 2nd round, but did draft earl clark :lol and he butted heads with Mike D and his system, which is why he left PHX to coach NY.

so maybe GM's know this stuff and want it implemented to their team. or maybe theyre using favoritism of him being a former NBA player with phils approval in aide to their decision

David Griffin the cavs interim GM was behind the selection of Dragic, he was Kerr's assistant at the time.

[fpliii]

I had a team that played against me in college that ran a little triangle, and being a walk on PG, I was asked to run scout stuff sometimes, and got pretty familiar with the triangle. You are correct about the spacing being a huge factor. That's why PG play in the triangle frequently fell to guys like Kerr. Pure floor spacers. Kerr, Pax, BJ Armstrong, Craig Hodges, right down to Mike Penberthy.
There was a second type of "PG", usually a nominal term used on an extra SG or SF. The Ron Harper types. There main focus is to play on the weakside and be able to attack and finish after cutting without the ball. Basically spacing the floor but without the shooting, just by being active enough and enough of a threat going to the basket that they can't be ignored. They usually have the added advantage of making the team a real defensive pain in the ass.

Ball movement, at least the way I think of it in terms of San Antonio, Portland, and a few other of the really crisp current teams, isn't really something I'd associate with the triangle. More player movement within the triangle. And the scheme has only extremely rarely used ball screens, especially in any attacking manner.

Defensively, I think the laxed zone rules would make it harder to run that strong side of the court stuff. I have a feeling that's part of why we've seen an explosion of mid court offense based a lot on center pick and rolls. Probably part of why we've seen something of a golden age of NBA PGs, because that type of offense that can exploit the defensive rules is something that position is adept at.

Most importantly though is what you say at the bottom. I'm not sure how committed he is to any particular scheme.
1) Apologies, I was thinking player movement, but wrote ball movement (there's tons of cutting obviously). However, I think you need to have able/willing passers to execute.

2) What changes do you think need to be made then? Moving the center closer to the elbow in the triangle so the PnR is more of an option if you pass off to the weak-side guard? Or do you think the offense has to be modified on a deeper/more fundamental level?

[senelcoolidge]

I agree too. He has no coaching experience. That seems to be the new trend, media guys/ex players with no coaching experience seems to be the new hot things these days. I personally wouldn't hire a guy with no experience at the NBA level.

[chocolatethunder]

I agree too. He has no coaching experience. That seems to be the new trend, media guys/ex players with no coaching experience seems to be the new hot things these days. I personally wouldn't hire a guy with no experience at the NBA level.

So in saying that you're saying that you wouldn't have hired Jackson in the first place.

Ex players being coaches is nothing new. Hiring a guy who's been an assistant forever even under a good coach doesn't mean much. Kuester was a hot commodity and he was an awful head coach. Mo Cheeks was thought of as a great assistant and he's about as bad of a coach as could be. Pitino is not a great NBA coach and neither is Cal. Picking a coach is like picking a player, it's not a science, it's partly a crapshoot.

[Thorpesaurous]

1) Apologies, I was thinking player movement, but wrote ball movement (there's tons of cutting obviously). However, I think you need to have able/willing passers to execute.

2) What changes do you think need to be made then? Moving the center closer to the elbow in the triangle so the PnR is more of an option if you pass off to the weak-side guard? Or do you think the offense has to be modified on a deeper/more fundamental level?


I do think moving the offense to the high post would be fasinating. And reading Tex Winters stuff, it always seemed to be his notion that it should be run higher and wider, to allow more cutting to go on behind it.

If you moved it up higher, I could envision it becoming closer to Portland's pinwheel set, that looks like a four out one in with the one at an elbow, and then all four spinning around that center point. You can use that center point to run high hand off, or straight middle pick and roll. It doesn't hurt that Portland has one of the best mid post mid range shooting big guys in the league. It would also look pretty with Kevin Love up there I'd imagine, and as I think about it, he already runs something similar out of Addlemens horns set with the two bigs at the high post, you'd just be asking him to do it solo. He's not a great breakdown handler though.

(University of Oregon runs the pinwheel a ton too by coincedence, and may be the best pure form to look at it if you're looking.)

It's that constant going to the middle that I feel has led to the explosion in corner threes becoming such a valued weapon. When a PG heads to the middle of the lane, he can kick in either direction, or behind him. The help defense tends to come from both directions as it's not clear which way he may break. Back when offenses were started from the sidelines more, the shooting sat more exclusively on the weakside. It was harder to hit that strong side shooter. But because of the way the illegal defense was called, overloading the strong side with your best players turned the game into three on three. Now you see teams like the Bulls flooding offenses that run that sideline stuff, and even aggressively driving teams that run to the top to a side.

[fpliii]

I do think moving the offense to the high post would be fasinating. And reading Tex Winters stuff, it always seemed to be his notion that it should be run higher and wider, to allow more cutting to go on behind it.

If you moved it up higher, I could envision it becoming closer to Portland's pinwheel set, that looks like a four out one in with the one at an elbow, and then all four spinning around that center point. You can use that center point to run high hand off, or straight middle pick and roll. It doesn't hurt that Portland has one of the best mid post mid range shooting big guys in the league. It would also look pretty with Kevin Love up there I'd imagine, and as I think about it, he already runs something similar out of Addlemens horns set with the two bigs at the high post, you'd just be asking him to do it solo. He's not a great breakdown handler though.

(University of Oregon runs the pinwheel a ton too by coincedence, and may be the best pure form to look at it if you're looking.)

It's that constant going to the middle that I feel has led to the explosion in corner threes becoming such a valued weapon. When a PG heads to the middle of the lane, he can kick in either direction, or behind him. The help defense tends to come from both directions as it's not clear which way he may break. Back when offenses were started from the sidelines more, the shooting sat more exclusively on the weakside. It was harder to hit that strong side shooter. But because of the way the illegal defense was called, overloading the strong side with your best players turned the game into three on three. Now you see teams like the Bulls flooding offenses that run that sideline stuff, and even aggressively driving teams that run to the top to a side.
:applause: Great stuff all-around.

Good call on Portland. I'll look into Oregon's offense.

[FLDFSU]

Tbh, I am not sure. Lol it seems like head coaches in the NBA like mark jackson and potentially Steve kerr are like US president candidates. They pop out of nowhere and become head coaches... Just because the gm or owner said so.


The issue with Kerr, that separates him from Kidd and Jackson is that neither Jackson or Kidd were highly sought after. The Warriors supposedly rushed to fire Jackson to make themselves available for Kerr, and reports were out that the Warriors were letting Kerr's people to hold on until the Warriors were eliminated because there would be a vacancy if he was interested.

You would think that Doc Rivers or Thibs suddenly became available...

[DMAVS41]

Why are people making such a big deal of this?

Kerr is a former player, former champion, former GM...and has been in and around the game for a long time.

He's clearly a very impressive man and seems to have the respect of everyone in the league from players to coaches to gm's to owners.

He and Stan Van are the two guys I'd be going after if I had a team that needed a coach.