From what I've gathered, Skiles lost the team because he wouldn't stand up to Wallace. I guess it's a conspiracy theory on everyone's part as to why he wouldn't stand up to Wallace, but i don't believe the various stories that he was "afraid". Skiles is the guy who once challanged Shaq to a fight, no? Does it make any sense that he'd be afraid to tell Wallace what's what? My thinking is that management basically told Skiles, or implied to him, "hey, we just paid $60M for this guy, you need to work with him". And so Skiles accommodated him and lost his authority. That doesn't mean I think Skiles was perfect. He definitely fucked up Chandler and possibly scapegoated Tyrus. But looking back, I think the basic thing I see is that the Skiles was the glue of this team. And I don't see any reason that he would have suddenly just started taking Wallace's shit. It really doesn't seem like his personality to do so. Perhaps that's why he was more than willing to quit? He looked at the situation and said "look, you brought me in to coach this team, you gave me this player who doesn't respect me, and you're tying my hands as to what I can do about it. F this" The obvious comparison would be to Jerry Sloan. For several years, Skiles was to the Bulls as Jerry Sloan is to the Jazz. I wonder if Greg Ostertag is comparable to Tyson Chandler in that sense? He and Sloan eventually kissed and made up. But yeah, what makes Jerry Sloan be Jerry Sloan is being in charge. The moment they let someone in that locker room be the boss will be the first time. The Bulls pretty clearly let that happen with Wallace, and I'd be shocked if Skiles were some sort of willing enabler to that.
For what it's worth, Milwaukee is 19-21 right now, and 10-6 in their last 16. They were 16-24 at this point in the season last year, on route to a 26-56 season.
I agree that this team needs a leader in a coach. Also some better defensive sets. Avery Johnson would be on the top of my list. Then Tom Thibodeau for his good defensive sets. Mike D'Antoni would have been great given all the offensive talent that Rose/Gordon possess. But that's in the past. We need to hire a legitimate NBA head coach. And I think you have to skip out on Thibodeau, and go with a guy who has had a lot of success in the past, and Avery Johnson and Jeff Van Gundy are the two guys who fit that bill the most. We've had 2 rookie head coaches in a row, and both were disasters.
Is there any chance that Skiles had a say in personnel moves? Like Pax might not trade for or sign a player if Skiles was against it. My take is that his act really wore thin with the players after 4 years, and the drill sergeant bit wasn't enough to overcome the GM basically saying the team isn't good enough (why play so hard then?) and all the trade rumors surrounding the players who actually did perform (why play hard here when I'm not part of the big picture?) It'll be interesting to see how next season fares for Skiles and the Bucks. FWIW, I think the Bucks are a better and more balanced team than the Bulls were under Skiles. Redd and Jefferson alone give them two players better than the Bulls best 2 were. Add to that a real C (Bogut) and he's got a fine core.
Given the way our players have performed since he left, I don't really have too many qualms with how he used most of our guys. A few quips, but nothing I'd really get in an argument about. He'll probably always have the weakness of being unable to mesh with certain players, in which case you either have to get rid of him, or get rid of the player for someone who makes more sense. I agree with the Jerry Sloan tidbit that Mike said. I also think the biggest reason he left was because the team had grown tired of him and tuned him out. The Ben Wallace factor was complicit in this happening, but his hard-ass ways were at the heart of it.
I think he maximized the talent he had here. Nobody has blossomed since he left, although Tyrus is improving, but he played well under Skiles at times, too. The bulls have a collection of slightly flawed players who really need to work together to be successful. When Skiles couldn't get them to play that way anymore, he had no reason to be coach anymore. There are right ways and wrong ways to play and he lost the ability to get the team to play the right way. I'd say the last year of mediocrity is more an indictment of the players than Skiles.
I suppose my biggest wonder is if they'd nipped Wallace in the bud early and sent him packing, would the rest of the team have still tuned Skiles out? I could see it going either way, but I'm a bit inclined to think he could have kept it together.
