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.
I've clarified my analogy above. What still does hold from my analogy is this: that more interaction with the instructor is better. There's probably a limit to this, too, but too much instruction doesn't seem to be the problem with this Jazz team. They're apparently not watching film together
at all.
Disagreeing with tactics is fine. Not knowing anything about something and then disagreeing with those tactics is....well, it's just irrelevant.
Um, this is a message board, and most of us are operating from limited information of what goes on behind the scenes, including you. In this case, though, both players and coach pretty much acknowledged that not much film watching as a team is going on, so we have that info on pretty good sources.
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.
The past two games are not satisfactory results IMHO, and the situation has changed, and several posters including myself are opining on a change, probably based on "common sense" (your words) that more instruction from teachers (e.g., coaches) is better than less. With my hangups with Sloan, even I acknowledge that.
(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.)
You're playing the authority card here again; that's why I brought up the Richard Nixon example. There are plenty more where that came from. Just because a person has the power or experience doesn't mean that they do things correctly. And our ability to praise and criticize people in power (such as Sloan) is a rather fundamental tenet of our society
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!"
Actually, I gave several citations of how Kobe and Phil Jackson do bring the team together to watch game film, and I also cited football as another example where game film is crucial, so your broad-sweeping claim of no concrete arguments is bunk, especially that you have brought no outside examples to the table where teams have been more successful not watching game film than if they did.
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?
I wasn't aware of that comment by Sloan. "Consider it" is pretty weak. It should've been in place already. Let's see if Sloan remedies it. I support Deron in being an impetus behind making it happen, but players shouldn't have to catalyze such changes any more than students and manager should have to catalyze changes in teaching or leading, respectively.
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?
I do. Would you like more? It's not hard to find examples of leaders who consciously or unconsciously misuse power. In this case, the misuse is somewhat innocuous, because it's just a game, but my criticism of Sloan started with horrendous substitution patterns years ago and continued with poor communication with players who aren't already self-motivated. Such Sloan behavior continues today.
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.
Um, many people on this board have experience and training in managing groups or organizations, and many such concepts are tranferrable to professional basketball. In any case, this is a message board where opinions are expressed.
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.
Yes, and that's why I'm posing one set of arguments, stemmed from the information available.
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.
Welcome to JazzFanz. If you can't hack it, then you can remain . . . anonymous.
