What's new
By:
Filters

Mike Longabardi (Defensive Guru)

This guy made no name guys play defense. And worked under the Boston defensive scheme which Thibs was the master behind.

Hollins had Gasol to anchor his defense. I honestly think Hollins is a bigger risk because we don't know for sure how great of a defensive coach he actually is. He doesn't have much of a sample size without having one of the best defensive bigs in the game.

Longabardi had guys on the roster that were lucky to be in the league
 
George Karl is available. His last year as a head coach at Denver (2012-13) he won 57 games. The most he won as a head coach was 61 with Seattle (now OKC).
 
homeytennis said:
George Karl is available. His last year as a head coach at Denver (2012-13) he won 57 games. The most he won as a head coach was 61 with Seattle (now OKC).
Click to expand...

George Karl is the type of guy you bring in when you have plenty of veteran talent but can't put it together on offense. And know he will only be the coach short term.
Not a good long term solution for these guys.

We need defense and George Karl has never taught that. The reason why his teams always lose in the playoffs.
 
green said:
I've thought for a month now he would be our next coach. After this last weekend and reading what JVG has said about Lindsey, and Lindsey's history, I believe the Jazz go after Hollins first.
Click to expand...


Say no to Hollins.

LazyD said:
Much rather have this guy than Hollins, tbh
Click to expand...

Me too!

fishonjazz said:
Me too
Click to expand...

Oh, wait. Me three!

green said:
That's fine, then. I was trying to lead you along then hit you with truth, but you didn't bite. Ha ha.

My point was, I'd rather go with experience, and a known quantity (Hollins wasn't fire because of his on court performance) over an unknown, even a really good unknown like Longabardi.

I love Longabardi and think he'll be a great coach. I was calling for Horny to take over two years ago. BUT, I'd take Hollins because it is a more sure bet. Especially when it comes to developing young talent.
Click to expand...

Hollins was fired because he was/is at odds with analytics.

I agree that I would like to see a proven coach take over the Jazz so we're not developing a coach at the same time we are developing talent, but beyond Jeff and Stan Van Gundy I really don't like the available options.

A few reasons why Hollins is wrong for us:

1. He has a reputation of being an overzealous vet lover.
2. He is at odds with analytics, while our GM sees their use. Hollins style of coaching is better suited to the past era of NBA coaching, and not the one that the league has transitioned into.
3. Pace of play is a real issue that will determine the success of our roster given its personnel. His pace is just too damn slow for what we want and need.
4. His offense is inside out, which is contrary to where the league is heading, and for good reason.
5. As Twin Towers already pointed out, Hollins had Gasol. How gdo you know he is a good defensive coach? Can he teach it to our guys?
 
Sexual Favors said:
Say no to Hollins.



Me too!



Oh, wait. Me three!



Hollins was fired because he was/is at odds with analytics.

I agree that I would like to see a proven coach take over the Jazz so we're not developing a coach at the same time we are developing talent, but beyond Jeff and Stan Van Gundy I really don't like the available options.

A few reasons why Hollins is wrong for us:

1. He has a reputation of being an overzealous vet lover.
2. He is at odds with analytics, while our GM sees their use. Hollins style of coaching is better suited to the past era of NBA coaching, and not the one that the league has transitioned into.
3. Pace of play is a real issue that will determine the success of our roster given its personnel. His pace is just too damn slow for what we want and need.
4. His offense is inside out, which is contrary to where the league is heading, and for good reason.
Click to expand...

Did you see how Grizzlies beat OKC last night? Their pace of play suited them just fine for the playoffs.



kkKKKkkkKKKKkkKKKKKkKKKkkkkkKKkkkkkkkkKKKkkkkkk
 
Hotttnickkk said:
Did you see how Grizzlies beat OKC last night? Their pace of play suited them just fine for the playoffs.


kkKKKkkkKKKKkkKKKKKkKKKkkkkkKKkkkkkkkkKKKkkkkkk
Click to expand...


A couple things:

1. Hollins isn't their coach anymore.
2. We are NOT them.

We have an athletic group who needs a faster pace of play to succeed. They don't have athletic wings like Hayward, Burks, Evans, etc. When people try to comp us to Memphis, it is BS. I think they do it because we have two burly bigs, and Trey is often comped to Mike Conley. But, Favors and Kanter are a lot more athletic than Gasol and Randilph ever were. Just cause Trey is currently comped as Conley for a best case scenario doesn't mean ****. As far as I' concerned, Trey isn't defined yet, and he also hasn't won me over as PGOTF. We don't have the skills to dominate the half court, and that's why we ended up with a lot of low percentage late shot clock shots and violations this season. We need pace.



Don't be stupid.
 
Sexual Favors said:
A few reasons why Hollins is wrong for us:

1. He has a reputation of being an overzealous vet lover.
2. He is at odds with analytics, while our GM sees their use. Hollins style of coaching is better suited to the past era of NBA coaching, and not the one that the league has transitioned into.
3. Pace of play is a real issue that will determine the success of our roster given its personnel. His pace is just too damn slow for what we want and need.
4. His offense is inside out, which is contrary to where the league is heading, and for good reason.
5. As Twin Towers already pointed out, Hollins had Gasol. How gdo you know he is a good defensive coach? Can he teach it to our guys?
Click to expand...

You are wrong on a bunch of issues. Here is what happened with Hollins:

1 - He is not an overzealous vet lover. That is crazy. He developed Mike Conley and Gasol, Gay and Bayless and even Mayo looked good under Hollins. He probably has the best track record at developing young guys in available coaches.

2 - Not necessarily true. He liked Rudy Gay. John Hollingsworth (who was bashed constantly on here when he worked for ESPN) didn't think Gay fit in analytically, so Gay was traded. Hollins let management know he didn't like the trade.

Here is what really got him fired though: Hollingsworth came to practices and started pulling players out of Hollins' practices and holding his own practices. Hollins didn't like that, complained, and was fired.

Anyways, Lindsey isn't John Hollingsworth. He isn't so obsessed with analytics that he'd fire a coach that took him to the WCF's over it. JVG said it best when he said, "And Dennis combines old-school, traditional scouting methods with cutting-edge analytical methods. Because he can cross into both worlds, it allows him to be very, very unique."

3 - His pace of play averaged out to 18th his three years in Memphis. Not D'Antonio, but not Corbin either. His offensive efficiency was always middle of the pack as well. His defensive efficiency was top 10.

4 - It definitely is. And if Utah drafts Embiid or Randle, their offense had better be inside out as well. As far as the league heading that way, here are playoff teams that are inside out:

Indiana
Charlotte
Brooklyn
Atlanta
San Antonio
Clippers
Houston
Memphis

That's exactly half. Look at last year's conference finals: Indy, SA, Miami, OKC. So, unless you have Durrant or LeBron, your best shot is being a tough defensive team, who goes inside first.

5 - Yeah, Hollins had Gasol. And Hollins developed Gasol. I know he is a good defensive coach because his teams were top ten in efficiency. I know he can teach it to our guys because he has taught it to young guys. He has done it.
 
Sexual Favors said:
A couple things:

1. Hollins isn't their coach anymore.
2. We are NOT them.

We have an athletic group who needs a faster pace of play to succeed. They don't have athletic wings like Hayward, Burks, Evans, etc. When people try to comp us to Memphis, it is BS. I think they do it because we have two burly bigs, and Trey is often comped to Mike Conley. But, Favors and Kanter are a lot more athletic than Gasol and Randilph ever were. Just cause Trey is currently comped as Conley for a best case scenario doesn't mean ****. As far as I' concerned, Trey isn't defined yet, and he also hasn't won me over as PGOTF. We don't have the skills to dominate the half court, and that's why we ended up with a lot of low percentage late shot clock shots and violations this season. We need pace.



Don't be stupid.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about Hollins you numb nut , I'm talking about your point being slow isn't the "new fad" in the NBA, etc, etc, etc, and therefore you feel we have to avoid it like the plague. Without Hollins, Grizz still plays really really slow, but my point is they're still able to get the job done in beating the ultra athletic OKC.
 
This whole inside out/outside in stuff is kind of silly. To be successful, you have to be able to hit the three and get layups. You need both. One won't cut it. You can get it two ways:

1 - pick and roll

2 - through the post.

If you don't have a post player, run the P&R, drive to the lane and get the layup or kick to shooters.

If you have a post player, get the ball in the post, get the easy "restricted" area shot, or kick it to shooters.

It's the same exact concept. You end up with the ball going towards the restricted area, and if the shot is available you take it. If the shot isn't available, you have hopefully pulled a second defender to the hoop with you, leaving someone open for the three.

Both work just fine. "Outside-in" is sexy right now because LeBron and Durrant are so good. When Shaq, Ducan, Malone were around, "inside-out" was all the rage. Inside-out vs Outside-in is irrelevant. What matters is having LeBron/Durrant/Jordan/Duncan/Shaq. Then having a coach to put them in positions to succeed.
 
green said:
You are wrong on a bunch of issues. Here is what happened with Hollins:

1 - He is not an overzealous vet lover. That is crazy. He developed Mike Conley and Gasol, Gay and Bayless and even Mayo looked good under Hollins. He probably has the best track record at developing young guys in available coaches.

2 - Not necessarily true. He liked Rudy Gay. John Hollingsworth (who was bashed constantly on here when he worked for ESPN) didn't think Gay fit in analytically, so Gay was traded. Hollins let management know he didn't like the trade.

Here is what really got him fired though: Hollingsworth came to practices and started pulling players out of Hollins' practices and holding his own practices. Hollins didn't like that, complained, and was fired.

Anyways, Lindsey isn't John Hollingsworth. He isn't so obsessed with analytics that he'd fire a coach that took him to the WCF's over it. JVG said it best when he said, "And Dennis combines old-school, traditional scouting methods with cutting-edge analytical methods. Because he can cross into both worlds, it allows him to be very, very unique."

3 - His pace of play averaged out to 18th his three years in Memphis. Not D'Antonio, but not Corbin either. His offensive efficiency was always middle of the pack as well. His defensive efficiency was top 10.

4 - It definitely is. And if Utah drafts Embiid or Randle, their offense had better be inside out as well. As far as the league heading that way, here are playoff teams that are inside out:

Indiana
Charlotte
Brooklyn
Atlanta
San Antonio
Clippers
Houston
Memphis

That's exactly half. Look at last year's conference finals: Indy, SA, Miami, OKC. So, unless you have Durrant or LeBron, your best shot is being a tough defensive team, who goes inside first.

5 - Yeah, Hollins had Gasol. And Hollins developed Gasol. I know he is a good defensive coach because his teams were top ten in efficiency. I know he can teach it to our guys because he has taught it to young guys. He has done it.
Click to expand...


I don't have time to respond to everything here right now, but I will get to it.

What I wanted to point out is your list of inside-out teams is ********.

Most of those teams you listed are hybrids, and some are definitely not. The only two definitive ones are Charlotte and Memphis.

RC Buford in his interview with Zach Lowe just said they are not inside-out anymore, and haven't been for a couple years. They've been scouting players who can create off the dribble.

Houston is outside-in.

Indiana is a hybrid, and when they've played inside-out recently, it hasn't worked.

Atlanta is outside-in with Sap and Antic, and that's how they exposed Indiana, because Hibbert and West can"t keep up.

Clippers are a hybrid.
Brooklyn is a hybrid.
 
Hotttnickkk said:
I'm not talking about Hollins you numb nut , I'm talking about your point being slow isn't the "new fad" in the NBA, etc, etc, etc, and therefore you feel we have to avoid it like the plague. Without Hollins, Grizz still plays really really slow, but my point is they're still able to get the job done in beating the ultra athletic OKC.
Click to expand...

Hotnickkkkk name calling? What about "love your neighbour?"

Once again, since you hdidn't grasp it the first time, it works for them, because of who they are. We are not them, nor are we on a trajectory that will make us them, and with the way the league is shaping up, we shouldn't try to be them. We've played extremely slow the past couple seasons, and as a result we haven't seen success. Our strength is with our athleticism, and to capitalize on that we need pace.
 
If you think Indy was successful as an outside in team....yikes.

All of their success has come from tough defense and good post play on offense from Hibbert and West. When they went away from the post, they struggled.
 
green said:
If you think Indy was successful as an outside in team....yikes.

All of their success has come from tough defense and good post play on offense from Hibbert and West. When they went away from the post, they struggled.
Click to expand...

I agree that there success came from the tough defense, but when they play isnide-out, they have some matchup nightmares, i.e., ATL.

At the beginning of the year when Paul George was shooting well, they ran more outside-in stuff, and that's when they were really good. I just don't think Paul George has the offensive talent to be a #1 option.

But running things through Hibbert and West isn't potent enough to beat teams who can really play outside-in.
 
Sexual Favors said:
I agree that there success came from the tough defense, but when they play isnide-out, they have some matchup nightmares, i.e., ATL.

At the beginning of the year when Paul George was shooting well, they ran more outside-in stuff, and that's when they were really good. I just don't think Paul George has the offensive talent to be a #1 option.

But running things through Hibbert and West isn't potent enough to beat teams who can really play outside-in.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you wrote, which is why I keep saying George isn't a superstar and Indy won't ever win a title. BUT, when they utilize the post more, pulling defenders into the pain, George looks amazing. That's why I call them an inside out team.

With OKC and Miami, the outside guy initiates the offense and the ball then travels in.

I will give you the hybrids though. :)

Basically it boils down to this: You better have LeBron, Durrant or Duncan, or you really don't have a chance.
 
Sexual Favors said:
Hotnickkkkk name calling? What about "love your neighbour?"

Once again, since you hdidn't grasp it the first time, it works for them, because of who they are. We are not them, nor are we on a trajectory that will make us them, and with the way the league is shaping up, we shouldn't try to be them. We've played extremely slow the past couple seasons, and as a result we haven't seen success. Our strength is with our athleticism, and to capitalize on that we need pace.
Click to expand...

LOL.. bro, newsflash, the reason we haven't seen success is having Ty Corbin as our coach.
 
Hotttnickkk said:
LOL.. bro, newsflash, the reason we haven't seen success is having Ty Corbin as our coach.
Click to expand...

Who didn't have schemes that allowed for a faster pace. He'd yell on the sidelines for the team to run, but then he'd call out a set play, etc.

Pace. Hollins doesn't have it, and Corbin didn't have it. Our team can't play this slow. Hayward griped about it in his exit interview, and DL agreed.
 
Man can you imagine if the GM came on the court when Sloan was coach and started pulling guys away from practice. Now that would have been fun to watch. I like Hollins but I would rather have Messina or Longabardi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top