I am 1000% against bringing in Hornie as the HC. What is the track record of bringing is past star players as the HC? Horrid would be one word. Also, Hornie can get all the bench time he wants. If he really wanted to be a coach, he ought to go start at a JC somewhere and work his way up. HC is way different than playing the game.
At what point...
- Thread starter VINYLONE
- Start date
I am 1000% against bringing in Hornie as the HC. What is the track record of bringing is past star players as the HC? Horrid would be one word. Also, Hornie can get all the bench time he wants. If he really wanted to be a coach, he ought to go start at a JC somewhere and work his way up. HC is way different than playing the game.
Jazz peaked much earlier, scaring the heck of the the Magic Johnson Showtime Lakers in 1988, taking them to 7 games. The Lakers went on the win the championship. The ole Jer took over.
Clearly yes, you have the logic down perfectly. Everyone knows Jordan was a miserable failure because he only won 6 rings. Stock-Malone-Sloan underachieved because they won none, zero, zip, nada. Win one and you wipe that out.
vslice02
Well-Known Member
I agree completely with the above statement. Fortunately Hornacek was not a star player. He was a good role-player with a high basketball IQ and good role-players with high basketball IQ's actually have a good track record as head coaches.
That summary is lacking a few details. The following season after losing to the Lakers in the 2nd-round, Frank Layden abruptly resigned mid-season. The Jazz lost in the 1st-rnd that season (how many coaches took over a team midseason and made it past the 1st-rnd?). In Sloan's first 3 full seasons as head coach, the Jazz progressed from 1st-rnd to 2nd-rnd to conference finals. Then Mark Eaton's back went out and the Jazz struggled to build a team around Stock&Malone (Jeff Malone, Luther Wright, David Benoit). 96-99 was clearly their peak.
Sean
Well-Known Member
I don't think you understand the definition of peaking. Winning 47 regular season games and taking the defending champions to seven games in the second round - ultimately losing that series anyway - is not what I'd suggest is peaking.
It was a great series, to be sure. However, if that was the peaking of our franchise, subsequently everything after that would've been downhill - under the truest idea of what peaking means.
That game was more an indication of Utah's ability to build itself into a contender out west. And what do you know, that's exactly what they did.
But don't put too much stock in a freakin' near-upset in a second round series against the defending champs. Especially when, after that series, the Lakers almost fell to Dallas - who would go on to make the playoffs only once after that in a span of 12 years.
Great post, best defense of Sloan I have seen by far. For my tastes, I would rather take the risk to win it all than keep with same ole that doesn't look like it will get you there.
Ownership has a role in this too. I can see if I were them that I could very well be extremely happy with Sloan: he puts folks in the seats. I think they could and probably should push him a little more though. Could be that they do, although there is no indication of this other than that one outburst by Larry about DWill and Palacio.
Sloan = All-Star
Jackson = 6th man on NBA championship team
Tomjanovich = All-Star
Just to name 3 off the top of my head.
Also...
https://www.ilr.cornell.edu/news/NBACoaches_61208.html
I say bring in Horny and let's see what he can do. He is a student of the game and has helped our players showing an obvious knack for working with the players. And it is pretty clear he is being groomed for it in some way.
You know, reading ClutchFans last night, I could understand their frustrations with the Rockets. They really have nothing much to look forward to.
But to see this kind of talk from jazz fans just makes me want to puke. I've never seen a fan base so down on a team that is having a very good year.
Here is something you guys ought to get used to (I am amazed that you aren't already): Jerry Sloan will coach the Jazz for as long as he wants to. He is going nowhere. He likes it here and the jazz FO seems to like him.
Some day, we will all find out what another coach can do for the jazz. For now, I love Sloan and he has more than proven himself.
Would you rather have Rick Adleman?
But to see this kind of talk from jazz fans just makes me want to puke. I've never seen a fan base so down on a team that is having a very good year.
Here is something you guys ought to get used to (I am amazed that you aren't already): Jerry Sloan will coach the Jazz for as long as he wants to. He is going nowhere. He likes it here and the jazz FO seems to like him.
Some day, we will all find out what another coach can do for the jazz. For now, I love Sloan and he has more than proven himself.
Would you rather have Rick Adleman?
You cant just sit on your *** and demand that Greg Miller take ahuge franchise changing risk by sending off Sloan and hiring some guy as the coach. Popovich and Phil Jackson, whom you jerk off to everyday, are'nt coming here. Sloan is arguably the third best coach(actually he was voted as second best in an ESPN poll this year) and it is'nt so bad to have a top 3 or 4 coach coahcing your team. It amazes me that you keep sounding like a broken gramophone all the time with your Sloan bitching.
Jazz as an organization are'nt known for taking risks. Heck, even with regards to making trades or getting players via FA signings they are very conservative and I have been critical of them many times. You expect them to fire a hall of fame coach and hire some guy and risk going even worse? Because chances are that things could get a lot worse with a new coach, than it could get better and lead us to a championship. At best the new coach would be lucky to get the Jazz to playing at the same level that Sloan has the Jazz doing right now. Jazz are a small market franchise that care about the bottomline a lot and they are not about to fire a top 3 coach just to show you that they can "take risks". They can take risks in other ways, by making a mid season trade for AK or do something like that.
chemdude1232
Active Member
Partially this boils down to whether it's a coaches league or a players league.
For my taste, it boils down to the fact that, ultimately, it's up to the players to win. Sure, the team puts them together, but at the end of the day, the players have to perform. At this level, no team has any real surprises. Every team knows every play of every other team - with the exception of impromptu inbounds plays - and frankly it is up to the players to maximize their talents. Sure, coaches come into play with respect to matchup optimization, but most often the optimum players are played the most. Say what you want about Sloan not playing Fes (frankly I think this is a non-issue, AJ deserves Fes' minutes easily, but some of you seem to care nonetheless), but Sloan has a proven track record of sustained success that many other coaches would murder for.
For my taste, it boils down to the fact that, ultimately, it's up to the players to win. Sure, the team puts them together, but at the end of the day, the players have to perform. At this level, no team has any real surprises. Every team knows every play of every other team - with the exception of impromptu inbounds plays - and frankly it is up to the players to maximize their talents. Sure, coaches come into play with respect to matchup optimization, but most often the optimum players are played the most. Say what you want about Sloan not playing Fes (frankly I think this is a non-issue, AJ deserves Fes' minutes easily, but some of you seem to care nonetheless), but Sloan has a proven track record of sustained success that many other coaches would murder for.
Keep doing what you have always done and you will get what you have always gotten. For us that means playing it safe, making minimal changes, and we consistently make the playoffs and get anywhere from the 1st round to the WCF. That is what we have always gotten. I for one would not mind seeing them do something different to see if we can get something different. Might be better, could be worse, but at least we tried to go outside the norm. I have enjoyed the Jazz for many years, and I think Sloan is a top 5 coach of all-time. But he is just part of the "doing what we have always done". Think others sound like broken records? The Jazz have been playing the same tune since 1983. Different people playing the instruments, still the same record. I am looking forward to Sloan retiring not because I don't think he is a good coach, but because I think it is time we changed the music. Drop the twangy old country and let's try some Jazz!
Sean
Well-Known Member
Lots of teams shake it up, Log. In fact, I'd wager every NBA team shakes it up far more than Utah.
They don't play it safe. Not many franchises in the NBA do and I think, at least from my perspective, it rarely works.
Sacramento blew it up in 2006. They had made the playoffs eight seasons in a row. Yet they didn't like the direction the franchise was heading. So they traded away their talent and fired their most successful coach in franchise history (at least the Sacramento days).
What has that gotten them? 33, 38, 17 and 25 - that's their win total over the last four seasons. They're 8-26 at the moment.
Here is a franchise that, outside of maybe the Lakers, dominated the early 00s and now they're routinely one of the worst teams in the NBA.
Look at Houston. This is a team that started blowing it up after their 2007 season. They fired their head coach, brought in Rick Adelman and began adjusting their roster. What'd it get 'em? Another first round loss to Utah in 2008, a second round loss to the Lakers in 2009 and, unless something changes drastically, two consecutive seasons of missing the playoffs.
Their franchise is in a mess. In fact, it's a heap of **** at the moment.
No one knows what the future holds and let's be honest, the Rockets haven't been relevant in the NBA since taking Utah to five games in 1998. That's a long time ago.
And really, that's what the NBA is filled with. Franchises that gave it maybe five years before giving up and revamping their entire organization. It does work sometimes (Boston, Miami, Detroit come to mind) - but it's rare.
I think Jazz fans are going to be in for a rude awakening when that consistency we've all come to expect abruptly ends in the future.
Think about it this way, these are the teams who have made the playoffs every year of the last five seasons:
San Antonio
Dallas Mavericks
Denver Nuggets
Cleveland Cavaliers
Los Angeles Lakers
That's it. Even the Jazz don't make the cut. This is over the last half-decade.
Five teams. That means only 16% of the league's teams have made the NBA playoffs consecutively the last five seasons.
Of those I've listed, Cleveland is probably not going to keep their streak alive and Denver is in serious jeopardy of losing theirs.
That shows you just how inconsistent the NBA is and frankly, I think it's solely because franchises are consistently blowing their rosters up and going through coaches like they're toilet paper.
It's not a surprise that, of those teams I've listed above, only Dallas hasn't been remarkably consistent from the top down.
And the Mavs, while pretty solid, still haven't done anything since their last blowup that Utah hasn't done.
So it's probably not as wise to use them as an example until they actually make the NBA Finals.
That leaves a lot of failures.
If you take out the Heat and Celtics, it's even more pathetic.
You've got teams like Phoenix, who made the WCF last year and is probably going to miss the playoffs entirely this year. You've got the Bobcats, who appeared to be a surprise team in 2010 and they've gone kaput this season. Portland will probably eek its way into the playoffs - but they won't get anywhere.
Then there is Denver. The Nuggets are on the verge of blowing up and I'll bet they have a better shot at returning to their pre-Anthony days than they do of becoming a Utah-level team.
So that's the way I look at it. Playing it safe isn't a bad thing when the odds are stacked against you.
It's just being smart.
They don't play it safe. Not many franchises in the NBA do and I think, at least from my perspective, it rarely works.
Sacramento blew it up in 2006. They had made the playoffs eight seasons in a row. Yet they didn't like the direction the franchise was heading. So they traded away their talent and fired their most successful coach in franchise history (at least the Sacramento days).
What has that gotten them? 33, 38, 17 and 25 - that's their win total over the last four seasons. They're 8-26 at the moment.
Here is a franchise that, outside of maybe the Lakers, dominated the early 00s and now they're routinely one of the worst teams in the NBA.
Look at Houston. This is a team that started blowing it up after their 2007 season. They fired their head coach, brought in Rick Adelman and began adjusting their roster. What'd it get 'em? Another first round loss to Utah in 2008, a second round loss to the Lakers in 2009 and, unless something changes drastically, two consecutive seasons of missing the playoffs.
Their franchise is in a mess. In fact, it's a heap of **** at the moment.
No one knows what the future holds and let's be honest, the Rockets haven't been relevant in the NBA since taking Utah to five games in 1998. That's a long time ago.
And really, that's what the NBA is filled with. Franchises that gave it maybe five years before giving up and revamping their entire organization. It does work sometimes (Boston, Miami, Detroit come to mind) - but it's rare.
I think Jazz fans are going to be in for a rude awakening when that consistency we've all come to expect abruptly ends in the future.
Think about it this way, these are the teams who have made the playoffs every year of the last five seasons:
San Antonio
Dallas Mavericks
Denver Nuggets
Cleveland Cavaliers
Los Angeles Lakers
That's it. Even the Jazz don't make the cut. This is over the last half-decade.
Five teams. That means only 16% of the league's teams have made the NBA playoffs consecutively the last five seasons.
Of those I've listed, Cleveland is probably not going to keep their streak alive and Denver is in serious jeopardy of losing theirs.
That shows you just how inconsistent the NBA is and frankly, I think it's solely because franchises are consistently blowing their rosters up and going through coaches like they're toilet paper.
It's not a surprise that, of those teams I've listed above, only Dallas hasn't been remarkably consistent from the top down.
And the Mavs, while pretty solid, still haven't done anything since their last blowup that Utah hasn't done.
So it's probably not as wise to use them as an example until they actually make the NBA Finals.
That leaves a lot of failures.
If you take out the Heat and Celtics, it's even more pathetic.
You've got teams like Phoenix, who made the WCF last year and is probably going to miss the playoffs entirely this year. You've got the Bobcats, who appeared to be a surprise team in 2010 and they've gone kaput this season. Portland will probably eek its way into the playoffs - but they won't get anywhere.
Then there is Denver. The Nuggets are on the verge of blowing up and I'll bet they have a better shot at returning to their pre-Anthony days than they do of becoming a Utah-level team.
So that's the way I look at it. Playing it safe isn't a bad thing when the odds are stacked against you.
It's just being smart.
Also with the Jazz being a small market franchise with limited pockets, taking a risk and ending up with 2 or 3 seasons in a row where they just miss the playoffs will be a big no-no. They just cannot afford that, especially now that they have paid the LT these past couple of years. I dont know about the Kings and Rockets and those other teams who keep blowing up their teams. Maybe their owners can afford multiple losing seasons. It may sound unfortunate but that's what the reality is. Also, I would much rather change the players before I change the coach. Let the Jazz FO take a risk on the personnel front before changing the system/coach. Its not like as if we have a championship-calibre team and it is Sloan's system that is holding us back from winning it all these past few years. We kept bringing back the same team for the most part and we got more or less the same results.
This season, We have just one legit all star and a bunch of good but not great players.
How do you suddenly expect to have different results?
When a coach is consistently getting the best out of his players and if his team still cannot progress beyond a certain point, then it is obvious where the scope for improvement lies. Improve the team. Change for the sake of changing does'nt make sense, especially with the CBA/lockout around the corner
This season, We have just one legit all star and a bunch of good but not great players.
How do you suddenly expect to have different results?
When a coach is consistently getting the best out of his players and if his team still cannot progress beyond a certain point, then it is obvious where the scope for improvement lies. Improve the team. Change for the sake of changing does'nt make sense, especially with the CBA/lockout around the corner
//r00t 4 Jazz
Well-Known Member
I also wanted to point out people bringing up Sloan not winning with S&M, at worst (for Sloan) that means in his 20+ years of coaching maybe 2-3 seasons he didn't have his best year, but even then it was not a bad year just not his best.
Teams and people/players (including coaches) can have a bad year you see it all the time but I think more in other sports, overall coach Sloan has been consistently good and while I do have my frustrations with him (like playing Bell to many minutes) he is a net positive and I also would think Corbin would make a good replacement if he's still around when coach Sloan retires.
Teams and people/players (including coaches) can have a bad year you see it all the time but I think more in other sports, overall coach Sloan has been consistently good and while I do have my frustrations with him (like playing Bell to many minutes) he is a net positive and I also would think Corbin would make a good replacement if he's still around when coach Sloan retires.
//r00t 4 Jazz
Well-Known Member
Also since I have complained about Bell's playing time I will try to make it constructive criticism. I think Bell can still start (since maybe his veteran leadership will carry more weight if he does) but he should be the first player out after about 5-6min at the longest.
I think you sale it as that way he can play his hardest and provide the energy that has been missing by the starters and not have to worry about pacing/conserving himself or his fouls. Then you have Hayward (or CJ I guess) come in and finish our the qtr and can still play price at sg to start the 2nd unless Hayward is tearing it up (at this point CJ would be playing the 3 for AK).
I think you sale it as that way he can play his hardest and provide the energy that has been missing by the starters and not have to worry about pacing/conserving himself or his fouls. Then you have Hayward (or CJ I guess) come in and finish our the qtr and can still play price at sg to start the 2nd unless Hayward is tearing it up (at this point CJ would be playing the 3 for AK).
//r00t 4 Jazz
Well-Known Member
Just ran across this SLTrib article and though it fitting for this thread here is a quick quote from it:
https://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/jazz/51021567-87/sloan-jazz-utah-game.html.csp
I guess here's the whole article
https://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/jazz/51021567-87/sloan-jazz-utah-game.html.csp
Maybe I'm reading what I want to but I think that means Hayward for Bell, during the games you hear them say how good Hayward will run the floor. While with my own eyes I see that Bell is usually more of a setup for a corner 3 or trailer type, or my suggestion a few posts up of taking Bell out after no more the 5min or so, as to keep his vet status and getting to go all out energy in a shorter stretch, I dunno just my opinion.
I guess here's the whole article
By Brian T. Smith
The Salt Lake Tribune
First published 28 minutes ago
Updated 28 minutes ago Updated Jan 10, 2011 02:48PM
Good question. Hard answer.
That was the consensus response from key Jazz veterans Raja Bell, Ronnie Price and C.J. Miles when asked Monday whether a Utah team prone to slow starts since the season started would benefit from a starting lineup change.
Bell said rotation shakeups can either soar or sink, and can only be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Price pointed to Memphis’ recent insertion of guard Tony Allen into the Grizzlies’ first unit as proof that a well-timed move can provide immediate improvement, but added that a similar switch for the Jazz could backfire.
Miles? He is just happy that he simply gets paid to play basketball, gladly leaving personnel decisions to Utah coach Jerry Sloan.
“I don’t even know what to say now,” Miles said prior to practice. “Thinking about it is pretty tough — just trying to figure out what you would do.”
Welcome to Sloan’s world.
The resilient Jazz have rallied for a league-high 12 victories this season when trailing by at least 10 points, while Utah has come back from 15 points down seven times and emerged victorious. In addition, a team that has surpassed original expectations has also produced a four-game improvement compared to last season’s squad, while holding a share of first place with Oklahoma City in the Northwest Division.
Story continues below
- Sloan gets creative
Published Jan 10, 2011 12:52:26PM3 Comments
- Millsap brings Jazz back in OT win vs. Rockets
Published Jan 10, 2011 02:50:50PM- Jazz notes: Jefferson’s defense is a work in progress
Published Jan 10, 2011 02:50:50PM
But the Jazz’s primary leaders — Sloan and All-Star guard Deron Williams—- have long been troubled by Utah’s early-game struggles.
Williams was the only player queried Monday who would not comment when asked about a possible change. The response was not new: He has deferred to Sloan all season, preferring to not become publicly involved in Utah’s coaching decisions.
“I want to run more, that’s all I can say,” Williams said.
There are many things that Sloan wants out of his first unit, primarily increased effort and production. But he feels like he is “between a rock and a hard place,” and is still facing the same issues that have halted a change since training camp started.
Williams, Paul Millsap and Al Jefferson are the only players locked into starting roles, leaving Andrei Kirilenko and Bell as options to be replaced.
Prior to Utah’s comeback victory Saturday against Houston, Sloan said that he would consider making a change if the Jazz did not pick up their game. Utah eventually did, led by 23 post-halftime points from Millsap. But it was also more of the same for the Jazz, who trailed the Rockets by 14 points at halftime, appearing sluggish and unmotivated during the first two quarters.
“I don’t think anything’s in concrete,” Sloan said Monday, later stating that he is not infallible and second guesses himself everyday.
He added: “They have to live with my mistakes and I have to live with theirs. It’s not just a one-way street.”
P2
Sloan has considered inserting either Miles or rookie Gordon Hayward into the starting lineup. But Miles is Utah’s premier scorer off the bench, while the 20-year-old Hayward is still adjusting to the highs and lows of the NBA.
“We try to make the best decision we can. It’s certainly not 100 percent, and it never will be,” said Sloan, who conceded that he will likely continue to use a season-opening starting lineup of Williams, Bell, Kirilenko, Millsap and Jefferson on Wednesday versus New York.
To Sloan, the most difficult issue facing the Jazz is the game-by-game uncertainty of who will take the court and when they will do so. He is not receiving consistent production from either Utah’s first or second unit, and is often forced to play a guessing game when considering player matchups and rotation changes.
“That makes it difficult,” Sloan said. “I’ve never had a team, probably, that’s been this unsettled.”
One Brow
Well-Known Member
When they start to play below the level of their talent. How many people nationally would say we are more talented than OKC, New Orleans, or Denver? Yet we are tied with the first and ahead of the second.
I'm sure it was just forgetfulness that you left off 2010 CS, right?
Archie Moses
Well-Known Member
More likely a learning disability caused him to exclude 2010.