Under that same logic, it's better to graduate from college on independent study rather than interacting with a teacher.
That's so NOT a relevant parallel, it almost seems like you're parodying bad analogies.
But as ridiculous as your example is, I'll bite anyway: A better analogy would be teaching style. I've had great teachers who ran intensive, interactive class discussions, and I've had terrible teachers who did the same. I've had terrible teachers who just stood up there and lectured the whole time, and I've had great teachers who did the same. I've had teachers who have required tons of reading and writing, and other teachers - in similar classes - who have required less reading and less writing, but spent more time on each assignment. There are benefits to both. I've had great teachers who used a lot of visual aides and great teachers who didn't.
There is not necessarily one right answer. Teachers teach differently; coaches coach differently - and that applies at every level of their teaching/coaching.
This is why, anonymous, that some posters on this board differ with some of the tactics that Sloan uses. Even if not watching game film was adequate for when the team already knew the offense, it's probably appropriate right now with at least a couple of young players (Hayward, Evans) and a half-dozen new ones.
Disagreeing with tactics is fine. Not knowing anything about something and then disagreeing with those tactics is....well, it's just irrelevant. Not once on this board has anyone come up with any kind of legitimate analysis/argument about the benefits of individual film study vs. the benefits of team film study. Common sense says there are benefits to both, and apparently Sloan in general prefers the former. He likes the results he's gotten, I guess. (Considering that coaches across the league consider his staff as one of the best - if not
the best - at pure teaching, I would have to assume his behind-the-scenes tactics have, in fact, worked quite well. But, as I've said, I don't really have any expertise in that area, so for all I know Sloan and Co. may legitimately be missing out on something here.)
But no, instead of any concrete arguments - nor, more importantly, any acknowledgment that preparation tactics (what works, what doesn't, and why, and how) are a subject of which we have a limited understanding - we get stuff like, "God, what an idiot! EVERYONE knows you have to study film as a team! Gaaah!" No other argument beyond that, because these posters don't really know what they're talking about - but "team film study" sounds good to them, or it makes sense to them (and hey, it kinda makes sense to me, too!), and so they assume that that's the way everyone has to do it, and anyone who doesn't is simply failing.
That is the extent of the logic on display here.
And to tell you the truth, I would bet that the majority of the most successful coaches in the major sports are fairly unconventional - they do certain things that no one else is doing, or don't do things that everyone else is doing, etc. Again, I'm not saying not watching film as a team is necessarily a
good unconventional tactic. I'm only saying I don't really know, and that neither do people on this forum, and that criticism of something like that HAS to be tempered by some nuanced thinking and more than a little humility, or it's worthless.
And what is disappointing is that Sloan isn't giving any hints that he would consider possibly giving it a try.
Oh, you mean except for the part where this week he said he WOULD consider it, and that a team film session was planned for Friday? Except for that, you mean?
Back to the fatal flaw of lack of adjusting to the situation, both in games and out.
P.S. Experience or authority is definitely not an assurance of correctness; just ask Richard Nixon.
(He was a U.S. president, btw.)
This floored me, I've gotta admit. An arbitrary Richard Nixon reference gratuitously thrown in. I love it. With that line, this officially became my favorite post of the week. I don't even know you and I can already tell that your friends secretly hate you. A Nixon reference? Really? Who does that?
Anyway, I didn't say that experience in and of itself equates correctness, and I made the point that I have no problem with fans - especially knowledgeable fans, and there are plenty of knowledgeable Jazz fans - criticizing a coach or player or anything, and that sometimes they're absolutely right. What I have a problem with is the absurdly simplistic way people were reacting to something that they really don't understand at all - behind-the-scenes preparation is one of the things we know about LEAST, and yet people were acting as if it was common knowledge that This Is The Way You Do It. I'm sure if you go to the coaches around the league, you'll find plenty of differentiation in a lot of different areas - for instance, there have been coaches (i.e. Riley) who have long, brutal, intense practices on a regular basis. And there are those who prefer to run lighter practices. There are arguments and counter-arguments for both. But both styles have been successful. That's just one example, but I'm sure there are plenty of others.
And anyway, I never said that I thought Sloan was correct - I said it's in an area so obscured to those of us who are merely fans, that having an authoritative view of what Sloan "should" do about film study in order to correctly do his job is delusional at best, if not plain idiotic.
