Well, more minutes for Bayless to develop alongside the other youngsters would have been nice, but I meant that he's now handed over the majority of the play-calling to the point on the floor, instead of calling them from the bench. They've always seemed to sell Blake as a veteran guy they could trust, when justifying his starter role - so why didn't Nate trust him with the play calling before?
The guy has won 10 more games each season he has been here. He was picked to be an Olympic coach. His players, especially his best player, respect and play hard for him. I just don't see how people can say he's a bad coach. The facts say otherwise.
So years ago means last year? Handing over the reins of a playoff team to Bayless. Good idea. Who needs playoff experience, we can be like a farm team, and just continue developing people.
How'd he do in Seattle again? I think he was ok, but not particularly good. And do you REALLY think that any old coach wouldn't have won more and more games because of the improvement of the roster? Those things don't point to him being a bad coach, but I don't see them as great evidence of him being good. Ed O.
So if Nate doesn't win 10 more games this season is he a bad coach? PJ Carelsimo was also an assistant coach for the olympics. (dream team actually). Kudos to you though for talking to Roy and him telling you he respects Nate. Joe Torre was fired as manager of the Cardinals in 1995 with a record of 20-27. The following year he was hired by the Yankees and won the World Series. Did he all of a sudden become a better coach? He had a .605 winning % in NY, but only has a .552 winning % in LA. Has he become a worse coach? I mean it couldn't have anything to do with the talent that the coach is given could it? Did Phil Jackson become a worse coach when Jordan took two years off, or was the talent he had on the roster the primary reason for his success?
