Matches Malone wrote:
I think Thibs is a good coach but nowhere near being an elite level guy.
The guys knows x & o's no doubt, especially on the defensive end. I'd also be willing to bet that if you sat down with Hoiberg and just went over the nuts and bolts of the game you'd probably come away thinking this guy knows his stuff as well. Just knowing the game though doesn't mean you should be in charge.
Exactly - it's so much more than just knowing the game. DB provided the example of Trestman. Trestman knows offense for sure. What he doesn't know is how to do lead at the big league level. Thibs did/does, Hoiberg doesn't.
Matches Malone wrote:
I mean nobody is suggesting that Vinny Del Negro did a great job when the Bull took the Celtics to 7 games and Noah became Noah right before our very eyes. We as fans are very selective when it comes to giving coaches credit and or blame. I'm not immune to that. I know I've been guilty of it too.
The series was fun - no doubt. But it was clear that Vinny had sort of the opposite problem that Hoiberg has - he didn't know how to coach the basics. I remember stories of utterly predictable sets and how he didn't know how to use certain players, like Deng.
Matches Malone wrote:
And I'm not saying this applies to you, but to a lot of people I talk to and read, there like of Thibs stems from the fact that he coaches "hard" so to speak. Fans love a guy who yells and is animated on the sidelines or in the dugout. To them it shows that they care. I happen to thinks that's a ridiculous way of judging someone's ability, but everyone fans differently.
Well personally I don't care for a coach's public demeanor. I also think it's ridiculous to judge a coach based on how he acts on the sideline. My eyes are permanently crossed from rolling them every time I heard some guy complain about Lovie's coaching because he didn't rant and rave on the sidelines like that dumbass Ditka did. But again what makes me think highly of Thibs are measurable metrics like record and defensive ranking. What also contributes to me holding him in high esteem is what his peers and competing players think of his teams. Having LBJ and others essentially complain about having to play the Bulls because, while the Bulls weren't all that talented, it was going to be a fight nonetheless because of how well coached they were, and how well they executed their gameplan, particularly on defense. That's relevant praise.
Matches Malone wrote:
Bringing it back to Skiles, I think both he, Van Gundy and Thibs are very much the same guy. (You can throw Carlisle in there as well, but he's got the title on his resume which sets him apart in my view.) All three come in and seem to get that immediate bump in "effort" but by the third or fourth year players tune them out and their message falls upon deaf ears. Great coaches don't routinely have short shelf lives.
Granted, Thibs is only on his second opportunity HC wise, but you don't see a similar patter to that of the careers of Skiles an Van Gundy?
Yeah, that was/is my concern with Thibs as well. I would quibble with mentioning VG, Thibs, and Carlise in the same breath as Skiles since they all have markedly better records, as far as I know, than Skiles, but yeah essentially the problem they all face from time to time is the same. For Thibs' sake I hope he solves that issue in Minny, but because it's only his second job we don't know yet if that's always going to be Thibs' achilles heal. I agree that great coaches don't have short shelf lives, and that's why I'm hoping Thibs figures that out.