Is coaching overrated?

[Fire Colangelo]

I'm not doubting the importance of good coaching. Coaches like Phil, Pop, etc I have great respect for, and are very important to the success of their respective teams.

But is there talent in coaching? You've got to know your X's and O's, you've got to be motivational and inspirational, you've gota be able to manage egos, you've got to have a philosophy, etc. But what else is there?

IMO, becoming an all time coach is all about luck and opportunity. The NBA is a players league, players make the coaches, not the other way around.

Phil Jackson took over a team that had a prime Michael Jordan and an upcoming Scottie Pippen on the team.

Pop went 17-47 in his first year and was on the verge of being fired until the Spurs drafted Duncan.

Riley had Magic and Kareem on his team in his first year coaching the Lakers.

What do all of these guys have in common? They had all time great talent, and were put in the position to win since day one. Once you win one Championship, you have job security for at least the next couple of years to try and devise new strategies, and that's what separate them from the rest. Pop goes with a new "system" every single year, because he knows he's not getting fired from his job. Pop can bench whoever he wants and won't get in shit for it even if the Spurs lose. Other coaches like Dwane Casey, or whoever aren't gonna try that because the moment something goes wrong their asses get fired. So they stay with something safe, something that works to keep their job.

Had the Bulls management been a little patient with Doug Collins in 1989 and had him coach for a couple of years, would the Bulls be as successful? Maybe, maybe not, but they'd definitely win a couple of rings, and Collins will be considered as a great coach, instead of just a decent coach.

Would someone like Larry Brown, Rick Adleman, Jerry Sloan, or even George Karl have similar amounts of success had they been in Pop/Phil/Pat's position? Definitely. Erik Spoelstra won two championships with LeBron and Wade, why can't he succeed with MJ and Pippen? Or Magic and Kareem? Or Duncan?

What I'm trying to say is, Pop/Phil/Pat are great coaches, but that's because they were put into the position to succeed since day one.

Think about it this way, person A starts his career at Google while person B starts his career at an inferior private company. Person A is put in the better position to succeed compared to person B despite having similar skills.

That's how I feel about coaching, just all about opportunity.

Had Pop/Phil/Pat started their careers with the Bobcats or some shit they'd probably be a journeyman coach atm.

[pastis]

i think for being successfull you need the right players, the righ head coach, the right assist. coaches and the right front office. its a mix of all what guarantees success.

a good coach will find out the strength of every individual player and will build up the right system for his team. many coaches arent capable of that.

if you have players like jordan, shaq, tim duncan on your roster....well of course this will make your task much easier. but still.... you have to put the right pieces around your star player, thats difficult enough. and for wining it all....you also need a a bunch of luckof course.

[SouBeachTalents]

I'm not doubting the importance of good coaching. Coaches like Phil, Pop, etc I have great respect for, and are very important to the success of their respective teams.

But is there talent in coaching? You've got to know your X's and O's, you've got to be motivational and inspirational, you've gota be able to manage egos, you've got to have a philosophy, etc. But what else is there?

IMO, becoming an all time coach is all about luck and opportunity. The NBA is a players league, players make the coaches, not the other way around.

Phil Jackson took over a team that had a prime Michael Jordan and an upcoming Scottie Pippen on the team.

Pop went 17-47 in his first year and was on the verge of being fired until the Spurs drafted Duncan.

Riley had Magic and Kareem on his team in his first year coaching the Lakers.

What do all of these guys have in common? They had all time great talent, and were put in the position to win since day one. Once you win one Championship, you have job security for at least the next couple of years to try and devise new strategies, and that's what separate them from the rest. Pop goes with a new "system" every single year, because he knows he's not getting fired from his job. Pop can bench whoever he wants and won't get in shit for it even if the Spurs lose. Other coaches like Dwane Casey, or whoever aren't gonna try that because the moment something goes wrong their asses get fired. So they stay with something safe, something that works to keep their job.

Had the Bulls management been a little patient with Doug Collins in 1989 and had him coach for a couple of years, would the Bulls be as successful? Maybe, maybe not, but they'd definitely win a couple of rings, and Collins will be considered as a great coach, instead of just a decent coach.

Would someone like Larry Brown, Rick Adleman, Jerry Sloan, or even George Karl have similar amounts of success had they been in Pop/Phil/Pat's position? Definitely. Erik Spoelstra won two championships with LeBron and Wade, why can't he succeed with MJ and Pippen? Or Magic and Kareem? Or Duncan?

What I'm trying to say is, Pop/Phil/Pat are great coaches, but that's because they were put into the position to succeed since day one.

Think about it this way, person A starts his career at Google while person B starts his career at an inferior private company. Person A is put in the better position to succeed compared to person B despite having similar skills.

That's how I feel about coaching, just all about opportunity.

Had Pop/Phil/Pat started their careers with the Bobcats or some shit they'd probably be a journeyman coach atm.

Well Robinson missed almost the entire season, while other important players like Sean Elliot missed a lot of games as well. I'd also be surprised if Pop was gonna be fired after that season considering HE fired the Spurs coach midseason, and the Spurs knew they were getting a high draft pick plus getting Robinson back for next season

[Dro]

Somebody posted that 65% of the NBA Titles have been won by 4 coaches...So I'd say no, coaching is not overrated.....

[Legends66NBA7]

http://freakonomics.com/2013/05/30/a-former-nba-coach-argues-that-coaches-are-not-responsible-for-outcomes/

^Take it for what it is.

[red1]

Somebody posted that 65% of the NBA Titles have been won by 4 coaches...So I'd say no, coaching is not overrated.....
The point OP is making is that those 4 coaches had nearly all of the top 10 GOAT players play for them

[red1]

I don't think that it is overrated. While it is true that talent can mask poor coaching to an extent, if you look at all of the championship teams in history you will notice that that they had top-tier coaching relative to the rest of the league. Coincidence? I think not

[Milbuck]

I don't think it's reasonable to hold something that happened 18 years ago against Pop and use it to denigrate his impact today. Yeah, 17-47 was abysmal...but they started the season 3-15 before Pop took over. Then Robinson went down, Elliot missed significant time, as did other guys. So basically the Spurs went 3-15 (17%) with Robinson and coach Bob Hill, and 17-47 (27%) with Pop and no Robinson, no Duncan, and a decimated roster. If anything even in that shitstain of a season he did them some good.

But watching the Spurs the last decade plus, especially the past few seasons when they've returned to championship-level contention...his impact is obvious. The dribble drive penetration, terrific spacing, spot passing, constant motion in both ball movement and off-ball movement, that all-around beautiful offense would be nowhere near where it is right now, without Pop. Is Patty Mills really gonna torch the Heat if it was Dwayne Casey running the show?

And the adaptability is insane..you watch some footage of the late 1990s, early 2000s Spurs, and then watch last year's championship spurs..the stylistic variation is unreal. That isn't just a coincidence, that's visible impact of Pop mastering his craft.

[fpliii]

Doesn't the Spurs' success in the past three years (11-12, 12-13, 13-14 have all been dominant teams) suggest that there is some value to coaching?

Talent is incredibly important, but look at OKC...if Brooks was at least a tiny bit more innovative/creative, wouldn't they overachieve more?

That being said, I do think that chemistry/fit (a big part of this is versatility/portability of your star players) is far, far more underrated than either coaching/talent.

[Qwyjibo]

Unless you have one of those rare God-tier coaches, yes, it's overrated.

Right now, in the NBA it's what? Popovich on a level above everyone, then maybe Carlisle and Thibodeau on a level below that and then a mass of mediocrity. It mostly comes down to the players on the floor. There is almost no coach in the NBA that could screw up with a team headed by Durant, Westbrook and Ibaka and there is almost no coach in the NBA that could make dumpster fires like the current Pistons, Knicks and Lakers work.

[SpanishACB]

there are more mediocre GMs

If coaches became managers (were allowed to have a say in transfers and able to impose a system on players without the player's constent) then there would be plenty more good coaches

[Nuff Said]

What exactly do ppl mean by "x's and o's?"

[hawksdogsbraves]

I don't think the Hawks would sniff the playoffs with a coach like Larry Drew at the helm as opposed to Bud.

[josh99]

What exactly do ppl mean by "x's and o's?"
Plays/strategy as opposed to encouragement/leadership/motivation etc

[navy]

I don't think the Hawks would sniff the playoffs with a coach like Larry Drew at the helm as opposed to Bud.
Eastern Conference

[hawksdogsbraves]

Eastern Conference

Sure, but on paper we don't really have any more talent than a team like Detroit, it just fits better and we have a great system in place.

[Nuff Said]

I often wonder why even have a coach when you have a player who "shoots too much?" I mean if a player is able to run around freely and do as he pleases why is there a coach on the roster being paid millions?

[navy]

Sure, but on paper we don't really have any more talent than a team like Detroit, it just fits better and we have a great system in place.
????

Paul Millsap > Josh Smith
Horford > Drummond
Teague > Jennings


:confusedshrug:

[Fire Colangelo]

Well, maybe overrated isn't the best word to use.

I do think someone like Pop is responsible for a lot of the success his teams have had.

What I'm trying to say is that the only reason he became such a good coach was because he had:

1) Duncan from the start
2) Job security from the Spurs front office (who were very patient) to experiment different tactics/systems

Again, not saying that he's not a god tier coach

Just saying that I think a lot of coaches would've had similar success had they been put in the position of the likes of Popovich, Phil, or Pat Riley.

[hawksdogsbraves]

????

Paul Millsap > Josh Smith
Horford > Drummond
Teague > Jennings


:confusedshrug:

Nobody thought Smith was worse than Millsap before he went to Detroit and Paul came here, hence why he got paid $14mil/yr and we brought in Millsap to replace him for $9.5 million. The players' careers and reputations have shot in opposite directions since swapping teams.

I'd take Drummond over Horford in a heartbeat, that kid would thrive here.

Teague is better than Jennings, but it's not some massive gap.

They have a very good player in Monroe on that bench too, a guy who the Hawks may well give big money to after this season, (and another guy who the Pistons have no idea how to use correctly).

[T_L_P]

It depends. If you think a coach is more important than a top 25 GOAT, then absolutely.