Missing out on coaches?

[Realjazz]

There is this guy I know from Russia that thinks we should fire Sloan.

 

[Lost_Jazz_Fan]

Um, no, you don't fire Sloan to hire Ty Corbin; you don't renew his contract so that you can hire a coach who actually enforces his own philosophy and develops players.

Sloan does neither. He has allowed Boozer and Okur to play poor defense for years (NOT saying that they should be DNP'd; they should be sat down for a possession or two until they get the message), he doesn't play players who have actually produced, he overplays some players, and he has a long string of poor relationships with especially "foreign" players not named Okur (Kirilenkogate (although it's been patched up now, it deteriorated far too far before), Giricek (was no reason to bury him like Sloan did), Arroyo (no need to escalate the way it did), and Amaechi (rumors of not just poor use of him but of outright discrimination)).

Thibodeau is a missed opportunity. He came from a relatively small-market NBA town. He worked under a head coach who was both a disciplinarian and a player's coach who was especially good with foreigners). The Jazz would've been a more attractive destination than the Hornets. All Miller had to do was not renew Sloan. The Jazz don't owe Sloan any job security whatsoever, and unless Sloan changes the way he handles players and in-game situations (which is unlikely beyond what he has already changed), I don't see Utah being able to get above the ceiling that they have been vacillating at for decades on end.

You have a lot more to gain. Such as a championship from a coach who can lead teams better. Being a hard-nosed tough guy only accomplishes part of that role.

I agree with some of your post but other parts are way off. You seem to have a blind hatred for Sloan and don't actually see the things he does year in and year out. He develops his players very well, maybe not to your liking but you can't blame a players laziness or ineptitude on Sloan (Fesenko and Koufos comes to mind). Sure he's stubborn at times but who out there right now is actually better? Who? The majority of players that have left Sloan's system have ended up being afterthoughts in the league and never reach the heights as a player that they did while playing under this system.

 

[Sean]

Remember when Marc Ivaronie was considered one of the best up and coming coaches? What's he doing now? I think he's now an assistant with the Raptors.

That's the problem here. The Jazz certainly might be missing out on an assistant who could step into the role and win right away. They could also find themselves in a situation where the assistant is no better and, frankly, worse than Sloan.

I get there is a group of fans here that believe Jerry Sloan is a bad coach. That the Jazz win in spite of his ability and that, most importantly, he is keeping Utah from that elusive NBA championship.

I disagree. I don't think Sloan is keeping Utah from anything. I don't believe, with this current roster, a new coach could step in and win more and do better than Sloan has the last four seasons.

I do believe, however, that there is a good possibility a coach could step in and force the franchise back a bit.

Look at Minnesota since they forced out Flip Saunders.

Or Detroit, for that matter.

How are the Kings doing since they fired Rick Adelman?

That's the unfortunate aspect of professional athletics. It's not like college ball where you can go out and get a proven winner. A coach who is looking for a step up, but has actually been a head coach and done something with that position. It's not the Utes with Urban Meyer or Rick Majerus.

You're not going to poach Doc Rivers from Boston or Scott Skiles from the Bucks. It ain't going to happen.

So you've got to rely on a retread or an unknown. Well those unknown coaches, regardless of how successful we perceive them, are still assistants to the head man. Is Boston's success due to Rivers or Thibodeau? Maybe neither. They do, after all, have a pretty damn good roster.

But is there enough evidence to toss Sloan aside for him? Of course not. He's not a proven get. He isn't a sure thing (and I know in sports, it's hard to find a sure thing).

If that's the case, then why risk it?

How many franchises have dumped a successful coach and actually gotten better without dramatic roster moves? And I mention that because even the best coaches struggle when they don't have the parts.

 

[calijazz]

Yes, some work out wonderfully, but most don't. Are there some things I don't like about Sloan? Yes, but I doubt a different coach would make us any better.

I agree. I don't agree with all of Sloan's decisions either. But, I'll take my chances with a coach that has won over 1,100 games over a hot prospect assistant coach who has won ZERO. Call me conservative, afraid of change, or whatever. I just think it's rational. Trading a proven for an unproven is irrational.

 

[InGameStrategy]

I agree with some of your post but other parts are way off. You seem to have a blind hatred for Sloan and don't actually see the things he does year in and year out. He develops his players very well, maybe not to your liking but you can't blame a players laziness or ineptitude on Sloan (Fesenko and Koufos comes to mind). Sure he's stubborn at times but who out there right now is actually better? Who? The majority of players that have left Sloan's system have ended up being afterthoughts in the league and never reach the heights as a player that they did while playing under this system.

I don't have a blind hatred for Sloan; there is nothing more that I would like (or would have liked) as a Jazz fan than to see better player development, better in-game management by the coaching staff, and (consequently) Jerry--along with his players--to get a ring. If had had a blind hatred for Sloan, I would dislike him no matter what he did and/or I would not want him to succeed, and I probably wouldn't give him any credit. The credit that I believe that he deserves is that he has mellowed out a bit and has opened the door a crack to new rotations and new strategies. The reduced technical fouls has limited the frivoulous lost points, and what seems to be an occasional experimentation with strategy has worked sometimes.

But I question his performance because I don't believe that the Jazz have met their potential, and that shortfall can be traced in part to coaching. Players can always do something more (train harder, play smarter, be better teammates, etc.), but coaches have significant control over the game--simply by deciding who is on the court and when, and how to use time outs, plays, and other tactics to optimize the team's success.

 

[calijazz]

I don't have a blind hatred for Sloan; there is nothing more that I would like (or would have liked) as a Jazz fan than to see better player development, better in-game management by the coaching staff, and (consequently) Jerry--along with his players--to get a ring. If had had a blind hatred for Sloan, I would dislike him no matter what he did and/or I would not want him to succeed, and I probably wouldn't give him any credit. The credit that I believe that he deserves is that he has mellowed out a bit and has opened the door a crack to new rotations and new strategies. The reduced technical fouls has limited the frivoulous lost points, and what seems to be an occasional experimentation with strategy has worked sometimes.

But I question his performance because I don't believe that the Jazz have met their potential, and that shortfall can be traced in part to coaching. Players can always do something more (train harder, play smarter, be better teammates, etc.), but coaches have significant control over the game--simply by deciding who is on the court and when, and how to use time outs, plays, and other tactics to optimize the team's success.

Please tell me how the Jazz haven't met their potential? Do you think the Jazz should be beating the Lakers, despite the Lakers significant size/talent advantage? There's a reason why they are in the Finals for the 3rd straight season...they have better personnel. Not because Sloan didn't get his team to play up to their potential.

 

[InGameStrategy]

Remember when Marc Ivaronie was considered one of the best up and coming coaches? What's he doing now? I think he's now an assistant with the Raptors.

That's the problem here. The Jazz certainly might be missing out on an assistant who could step into the role and win right away. They could also find themselves in a situation where the assistant is no better and, frankly, worse than Sloan.

I get there is a group of fans here that believe Jerry Sloan is a bad coach. That the Jazz win in spite of his ability and that, most importantly, he is keeping Utah from that elusive NBA championship.

I disagree. I don't think Sloan is keeping Utah from anything. I don't believe, with this current roster, a new coach could step in and win more and do better than Sloan has the last four seasons.

I respecfully disagree. With better coaching decisions, landing the 2nd or 3rd seed was plenty achievable with this roster, which means that Utah would've likely made it to the WCF (because Utah wouldn't have choked on San Antonio or Portland, even with the existing Sloan strategy).

This year, though, Sloan lost too many games by playing Millsap and Boozer and/or playing too much of Okur. And after three years of playing Boozer and Millsap against Gasol and Bynum/Odom, Sloan should've known that it wouldn't work this year either. If anything, he should've tried it it in the first game and then left it alone (i.e., <10 MPG, and preferably not at the end of games, which is too much of a height disadvantage). But that series might have been lost months ago when he put ZERO effort into finding minutes for the bigs. And yes, you're gonna lose a player's progress when you don't play them for several months on end--barely AT ALL, which is what happened to Koufos in his rookie year. (BTW, Koufos led the team in rebounding rate in this year's playoffs, so he was contributing, but Sloan preferred to give time to a thirtysomething Eurolurp and an undersized PF instead of to a legit 7-footer). A franchise focused on a title would've found time to develop a center, and a coach with any minimal sense of player evaluation would've known that Memo was too slow and too weak to handle the Fakers--and maybe the Nuggets. It is possible that Utah would have not beaten the Nuggets if Memo had been healthy because Sloan would've been too tempted to play Okur, even though MO's matchup vs. the Nugs is not good.

It's probably a stretch to say that Utah had the potential to win a title, although doing so wasn't out of the question. But they did have talent to go further than they did. Some teams would love to have the track record that Utah has, but again, I wouldn't have a problem with Utah's success if they had maximized their potential, even if they hadn't made the playoffs at all.

If you want an example of a coaching change that worked, look no further than Phoenix. Alvin Gentry stressed playing on both ends of the floor, and Stoudemire tried to play D for the first time in his career. Oh, and he actually gave his young center some PT.

 

[KhaOZ]

What do you suppose the Jazz do? Fire Sloan so they can hire his assistant? Ludicrous. If you have a proven coach, just stick with him (which we clearly do). You have a whole lot more to lose than to gain.

This

 

[Sean]

The problem comes down to you, InGame, and not Jerry Sloan. You have unreasonable expectations. That might sound defeatist, but I do not believe, regardless of who is coaching, this team is capable of going out there and exceeding that potential. I mean, if I believed that, then I must believe they're capable of beating the Lakers and I can't ever concede that. In fact, I question anyone who really believes this team is built for that.

But your point still doesn't stand because there is not enough to back up the claim Utah would be better off without Sloan. This isn't a case where Utah is woefully underperforming or continually missing the playoffs. They're not doing either. We're not the New Orleans Hornets or the Houston Rockets. This team was a win away from probably being in the exact same position as the Suns were this season (meaning losing in the West Finals to the Lakers instead of the second round). Maybe that would have eased concerns. Maybe it wouldn't have. However, to act like the Jazz are at the point where they need a coaching change is down right hooey.

I say this not to fully exonerate Coach Sloan - but rather because the situation isn't as easy as you make it sound. In a perfect world the Jazz would cut ties with Sloan and find a coach who could step in and maximize this talent to the point where they are, unquestionably, the best team in the NBA.

Unfortunately, I don't see any coach doing that. Certainly not an unproven assistant who has never been a head coach at this level. That's important because while the most optimistic outlook may potentially be attained in your highest dreams, there is also the potential for a hire that sets the franchise back years.

Like maybe the next coach comes in and clashes with Deron Williams. We know Williams has not turned on Sloan (well to the point where I feel comfortable in saying this). Is it likely? Who knows. But all we have to do is look across the NBA to see failed coaching experiments. It happens every year. It happens to every franchise. Some luck out, like L.A., and others fire and fire and fire until they finally make the moves necessary to pull in the talent needed to compete.

How many NBA teams would you say made the perfect hire? I'm not suggesting a good coach (someone who constantly gets their teams to the playoffs, wins 50+ games and often makes it beyond the first round - that's Sloan). I mean a really great coach. Someone who steps in and wins a championship with the talent the team was not winning with prior to his arrival.

There are only three coaches in the NBA recently I can think of who had that ability: Phil Jackson, Larry Brown & Pat Riley. Jackson did it twice. Once with the Bulls when he took over for the fired Doug Collins (who has somehow found a job coaching the Sixers) and when he took over the Lakers after Kurt Rambis was fired. Brown with Detroit. And of course, Riley with Miami. The others who were fortunate to win titles (Popovich, Rivers) only won those titles when they found the pieces needed (Duncan for the Spurs, Allen and Garnett for the C's) to do just that.

How many other teams have failed in that regard? Lots.

So yeah. You may, possibly be right that there is a better coach out there. But what are the odds the Jazz land him? If you think about it, with how high turnover is in the NBA, it isn't good.

That's the problem with your argument. You've made no legitimate point Sloan deserves to not be re-signed. And stating that you believe the Jazz haven't lived up to their potential is subjective and, with a bit of rational and factual debate, could probably be debunked.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

I am flabbergasted. To think that Koufos' rebound rate was a big enough sample size to show anything is unfathomable to me. Hell, I'll do the box scores.

2:40 1 Def Reb
1:37 1 Off Reb. (The infamous "Boom Bitches" game. He freakin' got this rebound because his first shot was stuffed in his face.)
2:18 0 Reb
0:58 1 Off Reb. (Another rebound off his own miss)
0:56 1 Def Reb (garbage time)
4:37 0 Reb
Laker Series
9:10 1 Off Reb 2 Def Reb
6:46 1 Def Reb
DNP
1:39 0 Reb

How those minutes can be constituted as reason for playing him over Millsap or Boozer I have no idea.

You can polish a **** all you want, but in the end, it's still a ****.

t u r d is censored out? Interesting.

 

[Sean]

I respecfully disagree. With better coaching decisions, landing the 2nd or 3rd seed was plenty achievable with this roster, which means that Utah would've likely made it to the WCF (because Utah wouldn't have choked on San Antonio or Portland, even with the existing Sloan strategy).

This year, though, Sloan lost too many games by playing Millsap and Boozer and/or playing too much of Okur. And after three years of playing Boozer and Millsap against Gasol and Bynum/Odom, Sloan should've known that it wouldn't work this year either. If anything, he should've tried it it in the first game and then left it alone (i.e., <10 MPG, and preferably not at the end of games, which is too much of a height disadvantage). But that series might have been lost months ago when he put ZERO effort into finding minutes for the bigs. And yes, you're gonna lose a player's progress when you don't play them for several months on end--barely AT ALL, which is what happened to Koufos in his rookie year. (BTW, Koufos led the team in rebounding rate in this year's playoffs, so he was contributing, but Sloan preferred to give time to a thirtysomething Eurolurp and an undersized PF instead of to a legit 7-footer). A franchise focused on a title would've found time to develop a center, and a coach with any minimal sense of player evaluation would've known that Memo was too slow and too weak to handle the Fakers--and maybe the Nuggets. It is possible that Utah would have not beaten the Nuggets if Memo had been healthy because Sloan would've been too tempted to play Okur, even though MO's matchup vs. the Nugs is not good.

It's probably a stretch to say that Utah had the potential to win a title, although doing so wasn't out of the question. But they did have talent to go further than they did. Some teams would love to have the track record that Utah has, but again, I wouldn't have a problem with Utah's success if they had maximized their potential, even if they hadn't made the playoffs at all.

If you want an example of a coaching change that worked, look no further than Phoenix. Alvin Gentry stressed playing on both ends of the floor, and Stoudemire tried to play D for the first time in his career. Oh, and he actually gave his young center some PT.

Disagree all you want. I could say that Sloan's coaching was the reason we were even in position to finish second or third in the west.

Your problem is that you're basing your hope on a big unknown. It's like saying when you're a kid you want to run away from home because, in your mind, it's better in another city with another family. Sure, it might be. I mean, there is always the possibility in the end that you'd find success out there. But the reality is that you probably would find that the grass isn't always greener on the other side, as they say.

Frankly, I think that's the situation we're dealing with currently. Sloan isn't a perfect coach. But Sloan has proven to be a winner. You don't average over 50 wins a season if you're a bad coach. Does it mean someone can't come in and do better? Of course not. But again, we're talking about big unknowns here. Nothing you're stating is rooted in fact.

In the end, better the devil you know than the the devil you don't.

As for the Suns' change, are they better than they were under Terry Porter? Of course. But that proves my point. Phoenix forced out Mike D'Antoni (their version of Jerry Sloan) and replaced him with a guy who was not up to the snuff. They're fortunate the guy they moved over a seat was Alvin Gentry. He brought back the system that worked best for Phoenix (something Porter stripped from the franchise) and what do you know, they returned to their winning ways. Of course, it's questionable if they're better off than they were under D'Antoni.

So basically, they fired D'Antoni, hired a retread (Porter had been canned in Milwaukee) and failed. He was 28-23 when let go. That's a winning percentage of only 56%. D'Antoni was 55-27 in his final season, a percentage of 67%, which was better than Gentry's this season.

That's my point. The Suns made a bad hire after wanting to make a change from a guy who had proven to be successful there. And we're lauding them because they eventually broke even with Gentry? ha

 

[calijazz]

A lot of people are scared of change here. They think we'll suddenly become a horrible team or drop out of the playoffs without Sloan.
Of course there is a coach out there that would probably gel better with the players, and get more out of them. There's no
doubt it's risky trying to find that guy, because just getting rid of Sloan won't make us better. We would have to find the right guy.

Since Sloan is clearly at the very end of his time with us, I don't see why we are holding onto him any longer.
He's not going to get us over the top, and he's not the future of this team.
The longer we wait, the more time we waste on finding the right guy to lead Dwill, and be apart of the future.

This year would have been perfect for a coaching change.

You realize D-Will likes Sloan as his coach right? He's said numerous times how much freedom Sloan gives him within the system (calling plays, controlling tempo, etc.). You get rid of Sloan...you're risking alienating your franchise player, among many other things.