Michael Hunt on fire-calls for team to be blown up
Moderators: MickeyDavis, paulpressey25
-
- Senior
- Posts: 657
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jun 05, 2007
- bango_the_buck
- Bench Warmer
- Posts: 1,421
- And1: 149
- Joined: May 11, 2006
europa wrote:I agree that Kohl made a mistake last summer bringing back Harris. What he should have done if he was going to fire Stotts was to fire both the head coach and GM, bring in a new GM and allow that person to have his own head coach and begin plotting the course for the team to take.
And herein lies the problem...
Scott Skiles on being compared by reporters to Hall of Fame coach Pat Riley: "If I thought you guys knew anything, I'd be flattered."
-
- Senior
- Posts: 657
- And1: 0
- Joined: Jun 05, 2007
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 15,488
- And1: 868
- Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Eastside Bucks Fan, engage in shifting sands arguments much? Your intitial post was a prescription against hiring asisstant coaches as head coaches. I responded to that--arguing that the conditions of the team inherited impact upon the assistant to head coach person. You can not refute that, but then you chose to argue that none of the three the Bucks hired from assitant ranks would be hired by other teams. I can't, nor can anyone else, support or refute that point, unable to see into the future, unlike you.
Now if you are saying that it is more difficult for an assistant who inherited a mediocre/poor team to get another head coaching job after being fired by the mediocre team that stayed mediocre under their reigh, you are probably right. But that has nothing to do with my rebuttal of your initial point. Mostly what makes your second conclusion correct is fans like you who can only use winning percentages and not context to evaluate the coaching talents of someone. Owners like to please all fans, even those who refuse or can't engage their higher level of brain capacity.
Now if you are saying that it is more difficult for an assistant who inherited a mediocre/poor team to get another head coaching job after being fired by the mediocre team that stayed mediocre under their reigh, you are probably right. But that has nothing to do with my rebuttal of your initial point. Mostly what makes your second conclusion correct is fans like you who can only use winning percentages and not context to evaluate the coaching talents of someone. Owners like to please all fans, even those who refuse or can't engage their higher level of brain capacity.