That isn't true. Money talks. Jazz put up the money, free agents will come, doesn't matter what the location is.
At what point...
- Thread starter VINYLONE
- Start date
That isn't true. Money talks. Jazz put up the money, free agents will come, doesn't matter what the location is.
I don't see benching Raja for Hayward as much of a sacrifice. Take today for example. Raja played 30 minutes and contributed whopping 5 points. This is not unlike his typical contributions every game. Hayward was once again parked on the bench and played 7 minutes. There is NO sacrifice in benching Raja and playing Hayward 30-35 mins. He is already as good or better than Raja and will only get better, given the playing time. But, Sloan is Sloan. It will take Bell's injury or KOC dumping Bell for Jerry to play a young promising guy. You know, they way Sloan finally let Wes start full time when Brew was traded.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Sloan did the same with Koufos. Koufos had a string of decent games that showed some promise then promptly disappeared for 20 games or so. When he returned his confidence was obviously shot. I can't make any judgements about what happened for sure because we just don't know, but that was again a coaching decision. It almost seems this is Sloan's MO. Maybe it is his way of "breaking" new recruits to the Sloan way, slap them down when they are doing well. Who knows. But I don't think it works very well, even just from a rotation standpoint. If Hayward is outplaying Bell then Hayward should play and Bell should not.
LunaticWolf
Well-Known Member
You fire a coach when your team underachieves.
The Jazz have overachived nearly every season for the past 20 years.
Sean
Well-Known Member
LunaticWolf is exactly right.
With Sloan, we're basically dealing with the unknown. Sloan hasn't produced a failing season in his entire career with the Jazz. I guess you could claim the 2004-2005 season was pretty much a disaster - but that had circumstances that were out of Sloan's control and ultimately led to the biggest get in the post-Stockton & Malone era - Deron Williams.
Now I've been in Sloan's corner since the beginning and remain there until I see evidence he's not coaching this team to its ability. Right now, I don't think anyone can admit this roster is capable of making the NBA Finals and producing a fantastic season we're all dying for because, frankly, there just isn't much there at the moment.
I think we all knew this entering the season. How many here expected Utah to actually contend for a NBA championship? I didn't. I thought this team was, as it's been the last few years, about fourth or fifth best in the west.
I stand by that belief.
The question, I guess, is whether or not you think Sloan is getting the most out of this team. I think he is. Do I have absolute fact to back this claim up? Of course not. That's what makes this debate so very difficult. We're not dealing with a coach who has, over the course of the last few seasons, produced awful seasons. Sloan has, above anything, been remarkably consistent as a coach here at Utah - especially the last four seasons.
Where I come from this is the fact that I see no evidence the Jazz are dramatically better than their current record.
If that's the case, Sloan has done about as well as we all expected and there is no evidence to suggest he should be let go.
You don't fire a coach who wins, on average, over 60% of his games because you suspect he might not be getting the most out of his team. That's a very dangerous move that could cripple a franchise and send it reeling for years.
Just look at the Sacramento Kings. They let Rick Adelman go after one average season and they've not sniffed success yet.
It is a high risk and let's be honest, you're not going to find a coach to replace Sloan who has the same track record. You're going to replace him with an unproven assistant coach or a retread coach who, like many out there today, was fired from a franchise because of a losing season or two.
I'm looking, again, at the Sacramento Kings. Why they thought Paul Westphal was the right guy for the job is beyond me.
Ultimately, though, this is an argument that no one can win because we just don't know the answer to the question.
Like I mentioned, Sloan hasn't flopped to the point where the decision is painfully obvious. He's not in a situation like Kurt Rambis at Minnesota.
Yet, and this I'll admit even though I am pro-Sloan, he isn't a Gregg Popovich or Phil Jackson. He doesn't have a title. Maybe that's his doing. Maybe it's not.
What I do know is that there aren't many great coaches in the NBA. They're either adequate or awful. That's why there is so much turnover in the league today. Knowing that the pool of potential coaches that could succeed at Utah is small, I don't believe the ends justify the risk.
With Sloan, we're basically dealing with the unknown. Sloan hasn't produced a failing season in his entire career with the Jazz. I guess you could claim the 2004-2005 season was pretty much a disaster - but that had circumstances that were out of Sloan's control and ultimately led to the biggest get in the post-Stockton & Malone era - Deron Williams.
Now I've been in Sloan's corner since the beginning and remain there until I see evidence he's not coaching this team to its ability. Right now, I don't think anyone can admit this roster is capable of making the NBA Finals and producing a fantastic season we're all dying for because, frankly, there just isn't much there at the moment.
I think we all knew this entering the season. How many here expected Utah to actually contend for a NBA championship? I didn't. I thought this team was, as it's been the last few years, about fourth or fifth best in the west.
I stand by that belief.
The question, I guess, is whether or not you think Sloan is getting the most out of this team. I think he is. Do I have absolute fact to back this claim up? Of course not. That's what makes this debate so very difficult. We're not dealing with a coach who has, over the course of the last few seasons, produced awful seasons. Sloan has, above anything, been remarkably consistent as a coach here at Utah - especially the last four seasons.
Where I come from this is the fact that I see no evidence the Jazz are dramatically better than their current record.
If that's the case, Sloan has done about as well as we all expected and there is no evidence to suggest he should be let go.
You don't fire a coach who wins, on average, over 60% of his games because you suspect he might not be getting the most out of his team. That's a very dangerous move that could cripple a franchise and send it reeling for years.
Just look at the Sacramento Kings. They let Rick Adelman go after one average season and they've not sniffed success yet.
It is a high risk and let's be honest, you're not going to find a coach to replace Sloan who has the same track record. You're going to replace him with an unproven assistant coach or a retread coach who, like many out there today, was fired from a franchise because of a losing season or two.
I'm looking, again, at the Sacramento Kings. Why they thought Paul Westphal was the right guy for the job is beyond me.
Ultimately, though, this is an argument that no one can win because we just don't know the answer to the question.
Like I mentioned, Sloan hasn't flopped to the point where the decision is painfully obvious. He's not in a situation like Kurt Rambis at Minnesota.
Yet, and this I'll admit even though I am pro-Sloan, he isn't a Gregg Popovich or Phil Jackson. He doesn't have a title. Maybe that's his doing. Maybe it's not.
What I do know is that there aren't many great coaches in the NBA. They're either adequate or awful. That's why there is so much turnover in the league today. Knowing that the pool of potential coaches that could succeed at Utah is small, I don't believe the ends justify the risk.
jazzrule
Well-Known Member
Back severak years ago I suggested the current Bull's coach would be a good replacement for Sloan. I like what he is doing there. I really like that he was willing to sit Loozer for not playing defense. Now if Sloan would do that to his starters when they won't play hard in the first quarter. rebound, etc., then I think you would see some changes that need to happen.
memo is money
Active Member
How about Lawrance Frank? He is also a defensive specialist. He had a really successful career as a NJN head coach. I would rather have him over THibbs at this point because he has the head coaching experience.BTW, I admire the job coach Tom has done during his career. Thibbs is the main man responsible for the great, phenomenal defensive schemes of Celtics. He had also tremendous achievements as an assistant for JVG in NYK and HOU.
Except for the Stockton Malone years in which they underachieved by never winning a ring.
gregbroncs
Well-Known Member
They did not underachieve. They were never the best or most talented team. I'm as disappointed in those losses as anybody but they were simply not as talented as the Bulls.
vslice02
Well-Known Member
Not a big fan of Frank. Good defensive principles but I question his offensive mind and I don't think he commands the respect of all his players. I think Frank is a better 1st-assistant than head coach, but JMO. Maybe I'm a bit biased because Gordan Chiesa resigned from his position as lead assistant mostly due to the fact Frank didn't allow his assistant coaches the same freedom to coach that Sloan did.
I'm on record for hoping Hornacek gets a shot at replacing Sloan when he retires. I think he would keep alot of our system in tact, plus he brings experience outside of Jazz basketball to the table, as well as being more of a players' coach and not under-estimating the value of running and the 3pt FG. I hope Hornacek can get some bench experience soon.
If forced to make an outside hire my favorite coaches (aside from unrealistic Popaviches and Jackson pipe-dreams) are Scott Skiles and Nate McMillan. Doubt Nate would leave Portland but Skiles might be looking for work in a few years.
Earth to gregbroncs: Stock and Malone were with the Jazz for more than 2 years. Massive fail to not win it all with two of the all time greats. This should be an excuse for other teams: "We would have won in 19xx except for that damn unstoppable tandem of Stockton and Malone."
Every year there is some damn team with damn great players to beat. It is the nature of winning a championship.
vslice02
Well-Known Member
As I posted previously, that's not how the NBA works. Unless you're a dynasty with one of the top-10 players in league history, in the NBA teams make championship pushes, 2-3 peak years where they go from being just a good team to a great team trying to win a championship. The Jazz's peak years were 96-97, 97-98, 98-99 and two times they got hit by the greatest player ever and the third year they got hit by the lockout.
Using the logic that good teams underachieve whenever they don't win a championship is like saying Michael Jordan underachieved in all 7 of the 13 seasons he never won a championship with the Bulls.