Welcome Steve Kerr!

Discuss anything related to Golden State Warriors basketball here

Moderators: Mr. Crackerz, JREED, Guybrush, hobbes

User avatar
Starting Lineup
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:29 am
Poster Credit: 14
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 9:57 pm
meh....


I mean what the hell are we supposed to expect? The guy's never coached. The same was true about Mark Jackson, but he grew on the job. So now we are supposed to wait for Kerr to "learn how to coach" like Jackson had to? I'm not buying it that this was the move that was about wins and losses and taking the team to the next level (SVG yes, Kerr no). It looks more like a move to appease an owner who had a personal vendetta against Mark Jackson and needs to be surrounded by yes-men.

Yes, Lacob has earned a lot of credibility, and I've been one of his biggest fans. But this move -- a definite upgrade or more of a risk? I'd say it's more of a risk and far from a sure-upgrade. While there were plenty of quirks that bothered me about M Jackson's coaching (slow to react, slow to call timeouts, rotations, etc), he also brought many intangibles (cultivated toughness, defense, accountability, chemistry) as well as being spot on about developing Klay and Green. Would Nelson or some other coach would've stuck with Klay while he was struggling or played D Green when his offense struggled? Idk.

Pressures all on Lacob, the FO, and Kerr to take this team further than Mark Jackson could have. And I hope Lacob embraces that pressure, because he's the one that chose to make this move. A huge failure would to have a coach who "gets along" with FO but the team plays worse on the court.

With a healthy squad -- 55 wins, minimum 2nd round playoffs, a top defensive team, and the team playing better as a whole.... or this hiring is a failure. Cuz I guarantee with a healthy squad Jackson would've had this team at minimum in the 2nd round in back to back years.
User avatar
Rookie
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:50 pm
Poster Credit: 3
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 11:48 pm
rockyBeli wrote:meh....


I mean what the hell are we supposed to expect? The guy's never coached. The same was true about Mark Jackson, but he grew on the job. So now we are supposed to wait for Kerr to "learn how to coach" like Jackson had to? I'm not buying it that this was the move that was about wins and losses and taking the team to the next level (SVG yes, Kerr no). It looks more like a move to appease an owner who had a personal vendetta against Mark Jackson and needs to be surrounded by yes-men.

Yes, Lacob has earned a lot of credibility, and I've been one of his biggest fans. But this move -- a definite upgrade or more of a risk? I'd say it's more of a risk and far from a sure-upgrade. While there were plenty of quirks that bothered me about M Jackson's coaching (slow to react, slow to call timeouts, rotations, etc), he also brought many intangibles (cultivated toughness, defense, accountability, chemistry) as well as being spot on about developing Klay and Green. Would Nelson or some other coach would've stuck with Klay while he was struggling or played D Green when his offense struggled? Idk.

Pressures all on Lacob, the FO, and Kerr to take this team further than Mark Jackson could have. And I hope Lacob embraces that pressure, because he's the one that chose to make this move. A huge failure would to have a coach who "gets along" with FO but the team plays worse on the court.

With a healthy squad -- 55 wins, minimum 2nd round playoffs, a top defensive team, and the team playing better as a whole.... or this hiring is a failure. Cuz I guarantee with a healthy squad Jackson would've had this team at minimum in the 2nd round in back to back years.


Yes Rocky, you make a lot of good points. But what is the alternative? Keep Jackson? I'm not on the inside but it sounds like things were becoming very difficult.

If you don't want Kerr, who do you want? I like Stan too, but are you willing to give him the deal Detroit gave him (5 years - $35 million - full control of basketball decisions)?

There were other coaches out there, but was there one that you really wanted?

I understand your skepticism. I feel the same way. I think I would feel better if Kerr had at least worked as an assistant coach for a while. For now I am just going to trust that the management has made the right decision. This was the guy they wanted and they got him. I can't really complain about any of the things they've done so far. Look at the success they've had in a relatively short time. If this doesn't work out I'll start complaining but until then I'll just see how it goes.

Moderator
Posts: 5360
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:21 pm
Poster Credit: 21
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 6:38 am
I think assistances will play a huge role.

Kidd never had coaching experience. He was a player the season before. Kidd doesnt always call the plays (as people often think). I've seen enough Nets games this year and I usually see the assistant coach with the whiteboard drawing something up. Granted, Kidd too has the whiteboard on his hand as well (not taking anything away from his work this year).

My point is, assistances will be huge. Kerr doesn't have an ego lilke Jackson or Kidd. we might be able to attract some good assistants.

All Star
Posts: 2804
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:46 pm
Poster Credit: 7
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 9:36 am
While I am on board with the hiring of Steve Kerr, it seems like the only reason that Mark Jackson was dismissed is that he, Jackson, and ownership/front office were not on the same page, which is too bad, yet, understandable.

VC cutlure and NBA coaching culture may not always be the best fit, and that may be where Joe Lacob and his son have some opportunities for "personal growth."

As a fan, I just want to see the team have a chance to compete for a championship. With ownership, the front office, head coach, and hopefully the players all in alignment, we Warrior fans finally may, indeed, get a chance to see the team get beyond the second round of the playoffs.
User avatar
Hall of Famer
Posts: 21375
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:50 am
Location: Perth
Poster Credit: 27
PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2014 6:57 am
J1000 wrote:
migya wrote:
8th ave wrote:
migya wrote:The FO just put themselves under huge scrutiny by getting another no experience HC. It will all be on them if it doesn't turn out.


Tell me, though. What would have been the better alternative?



First option would have been to offer SVG the money he got from Detroit. He is worth it and likely SVG would have said that to the FO when they met with him a few days ago, before he signed with Detroit. SVG is worth it and he'll turn Detroit around and maybe make them a top 3 team in the East within three years.


In addition to giving him more money, Detroit also gave him full control of basketball decisions, which the Warriors were not willing to do.



SVG had said in interviews that the Warriors were a very attractive situation. As always, the money is the number one factor and if the FO had offered him that he'd have come here I think.
Image



Image


migya make the ring fall on ya
Previous

Return to Warriors Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest