Lewis Wants Hill Back

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">He told me that I could be 50 percent better and gave me a program for the summer</div>



Also, Bob Hill is an ass.

 

All that matters is whether or not Sund wants Hill back as coach, and I'm hoping that he doesn't.

I understand that the business of the NBA is a what have you done for me lately business, but it just seems as the stance that Bob Hill has taken is that 1.) You will lose your job to injury and 2.) You are only as good as your last game.

Do I think that Wilcox should start over Collison? Yes, but why make that an issue when Collison is still a ways a way from being back on the active list.

Do I think that Petro should start over Swift? No, but for whatever reason Hill feels more inclined to play Johan simply b/c Swift suffered from some minor injuries. Swift progress has been stunted for no apparent reason other than Hill wants a better look at Johan. If you want a better look at Johan, don't play Clinton Moore as much.

It's amazing how much players in the NBA fear change. Again we are 13 games under .500 and have a record of 14-23 with Hill as our head coach. Are the Sonics players ready to move forward with a coach just b/c they have a familiarity with him? That was what seemed to be the case with Bob Weiss. These multi million dollar athletes are more inclined to give Bob Hill an endorsement rather than go into the offseason with the uncertainty of what coach could come in and improve the current state of the franchise. So much for being open minded.

Nothing that Hill has done should make him the overwhelming favorite to return to the Sonics next season. In the NBA you are judged on one thing, wins and losses. I'm not saying that Bob Hill isn't capable of getting us back into the playoffs next season but what I am saying is that there are a lot better candidates available for the job who are a lot more professional than Hill.

Jim O'Brien could be a possible candidate. I'm sure that he has learned a lot from his past stint as 76ers coach and he has a proven track record of maximize his team's potential--even if the players on his team can't stand him. Marc Iavoroni is an assistant for the best running team maybe in the history of the league, the Phoenix Suns. If that is the direction that this franchise wants to take than he could be a perfect fit for next year's team. We've all mentioned Terry Porter as a possible candidate. Jim Calhoun, from the college ranks, would be an interesting candidate. P.J. Carlisemo name could resurface. There are too many people out there who could potentially take this job for us to sit back and concede that b/c Hill has some familiarity with our personnel that he'd be the best fit for the job.

Hell, I have some familiarity with our personnel. Maybe I should slip Sund my resume.

 

I disagree Shiek - I think I may be one of the very few here that actually loves what Bob Hill has done.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">1.) You will lose your job to injury and 2.) You are only as good as your last game.</div>

I don't think #1 is fair - Robert is reportedly recovering from a fairly seriously sprained ankle (i think sustained in practice), and has been for a while. Add to that the orbital bone situation and he may just not be ready for higher minutes yet.

I think the Nick situation is more a result of Chris clearly earning the right to start these past few games - I'm with you on why even bring it up with Nick being a ways away still, but it could easily have been the answer to a direct question from reporters. One thing about Hill, like it or hate it, is he'll answer anything.

I don't even understand the "only good as your last game" line. Besides the injuries, he has set a fairly consistent rotation - while also doing some tinkering to see if some pieces might work well together. Judging by the record of this squad, adjustments need to be made anyways.

I don't see how any of the guys you mentioned should be considered more qualified than Hill? He has obviously gained the respect of the players despite working them extremely hard - and is committed to developing the young talent we have while challenging guys like Shard to become even better.

I think that after the season this team has had, nobody should have any guarantees before all options are weighed, but don't think Hill is undeserving of the job either. What would you like to see him do differently?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting M_Cage89:</div><div class="quote_post"> What would you like to see him do differently?</div>

There are two ways that I can criticize Hill. The obvious would be that we have a .400 record since he has took over as head coach. The factors that have contributed to this record are:

He alienated team first guys such as Reggie Evans, Danny Fortson, Vitaly Potapenko, and Rick Brunson for a me first guy in Vlad Radmanovic and two unproven rookie centers (Bob Swift is essentially a rookie).

He was very adamant about changing all of Bob Weiss' philosophies--offensive rebounding as a priority, balanced scoring that include more minutes for reserves, and running sets when the transition game isn't available.

Players, prior to the trade deadline, were not held accountable for poor play. Radmanovic was given a month to prove that there was a reason why he could never cement himself in the starting line up. Ridnour was playing up to 40 minutes a game b/c Hill did not want to give Flip an opportunity to develop as a lead guard. Essentially, Hill was content with poor play just as long as he could induce Rick Sund to be make trading 'disgruntled players' a priority. These were the same players that, a year earlier, were being praised for their patience, positive attitude, and perseverance.

Hill used the media as a way to justify his methods that weren't working. Instead of just coaching his team, he made it a point to try to keep the players that were insecure about their roles and their financial futures even more insecure about their abilities to effectively help the Sonics win games. The confusion and passificity of our club before the deadline was a direct result of Hill's strategic method of divide and conquer.

From a strategic standpoint Hill hasn't developed any type of schemes that I feel will enable us to become one of the elite teams in the league. Defensively we are still deficient. We don't help well and the few times we do we don't rotate well. We have improved defensively since the deadline b/c the players that we acquired after the deadline, in particular Earl Watson, take pride in their defense and have good defensive instincts. We don't channel the ball in places where there are help, we don't trap well at all, and we don't force turnovers. Without a solid foundation we will continue to try to try to play an uptempo style in order to put up enough points to be able to withstand our defensive lapses. That is not championship basketball.

Offensively, we have to many quality offensive players to be content with being just a running team. Can we run with the best teams in the league? Most certainly. But again, champion contenders are able to win games without having to score in the triple digits. We essentially have five post up options when last year we only had two. Instead of watching Ray and Luke jack up jump shots in transition why not make it an emphasis to develop a consistent low post game so that we can win the points in the paint battle and get opposing teams in foul trouble so that we can take advantage of our stellar foul shooting.

Last year we could win grind it out games b/c we maximized our offensive possessions with pick and roll action and offensive rebounding. We aren't as good in the pick and roll game this season, but considering that our personnel aren't as good in the pick and roll (AD was one of the better p&r guards in the league last year and BGJ/Fortson were some of the better p&r finishers), why don't we teach our bigs how to become better pick and roll players and mandate that Ray Allen look for his open teammates when he gets so much attention coming off of those screens.

Bob Hill continues to cater to Ray Allen while he holds every other player to a standard that he feels will keep them under his thumb. Wilcox is above criticism right now b/c of his pending free agency. Nick Collison is an afterthought who is starting to understand what it means not to be in Hill's plans.

Bottom line is that I don't think that Hill's allegiance is to the organization. I think that he is motivated by selfish means and that he isn't talented of a coach to be able to use his selfishness to maximize our team's potential. Hill is a manipulator who is too arrogant to conceal his methods of manipulation. At the end of the day, I'd prefer to have a head coach who has more integrity as a man than Bob Hill.

Hope that answers your question.

 

Do we really want to be paying two coaches next season who aren't coaching the team though? As much as I hate to say it, we may see Hill back next season with the main reasoning being to save some coin.

 

He is under contract as an assistant though, so I'm guessing that his deal isn't one that will break Howard Schultz.

I do think that Hill will return next season, I just don't want him back. No team wants to have four head coaches in a two year span. Just ask the Philadelphia 76ers how that has worked for them.

I don't anticipate Rick Sund spending his summer trying to look for a viable upgrade for Hill. Sund has a ton of decisions in terms of what players are a priority, what their worth is, and for those who do not fit into the plans how we can be compensated in the event of their departures. Finding a coach outside of the organization may not be a priority at this point.

In a perfect world of a fan, money would play no role in the decision making process. But in all likelyhood, continuity and spending will be the main reason why Hill will be given an opportunity to man the ship for at least another season.

 

My main concern with keeping Hill is that we may lose Collison. He's probably not our starter at the 4 what with Swift, Wilcox and Petro but I see him playing 25 minutes a game and doing the little things like helping on D, making the 2nd pass and getting clutch rebounds. I see him as our 4th quarter finisher like he was last year.

I just don't like the way Hill says things in the paper, like he said Smush Parker is probably talking behind Kobe's back right now. Total BS.

And I don't see anything special about his coaching. So he makes guy accountable, so what. That's coaching 101.

 

Shiek, I think you are way off.

As much as I liked some aspects of Flip's game, he just didn't deserve the minutes. He hurt the team most of the time he was on the floor, unless his shot was on, and it was seldom on.

Hill did hold players accountable. He showcased Vlade to try and get a trade. He said flat out that Reggie was the only guy who had a right to complain. Everyone else was playing what they earned.

Nick's PT was fine under Hill until he got injured. Hill has stated plainly that Wilcox and Nick make a perfect PF pair. He loves Nick's smarts and defense and loves Wilcox's athleticism and desire to put the ball in the hole.

I love Danny Fortson on the floor, but face it, he has been a putz this year. Hill told fans that Danny wants a trade next year to a contender and they will try and get him that this summer. Danny didn't take it to the press and neither has Hill. They are working it out internally.

Hill is a straight talker...he may use the media at times, but mostly I think he just says what he is thinking instead of dancing. Nate just didn't answer questions or he gave a non-answer. Hill always answers, and his answers aren't always "nice."

Any coach who doesn't "cater" to the best player on the team who is also the highest paid player and the on/off court leader is an idiot. Should he call the player out for his weaknesses, yes. Should he take away his offensive touches because he is slacking on defense...no. He is the best offensive player on the team and he is going to have the offense revolve around him. They won't win any games if it doesn't.

Nate implied that Ray doesn't look committed to defense this year in an interview this week on KJR. He was asked whether he was surprised at the state the Sonics are in and if he feels justified for harping at them on defense for the past few years. His response was that Ray made a visible commitment on defense last year and it set an example for the team and set the tone and everyone followed it because of who he is and what he does for the team at the other end of the floor. The unsaid piece is that it is obvious that Ray didn't make the same commitment this year.

I know you don't care for Ray. There are lots of things not to like about him in general, and some others that are probably personal for you. I just think that your strong feelings about Ray cloud your otherwise sharp insight on a few points. In particular I think you are jumping on Hill more over Ray than you are over what he actually is or isn't doing with the team.

 

psheehy, you are not only hurting your own argument with some of your statements and but you have also misinterpreted some of mine.

You complimented Hill for "showcasing" Vlad for a trade? Aren't we in the business of trying to win games? Why wasn't Reggie showcased for the sake of increasing his trade value?

I never blamed Hill for Flip's ineffectiveness. I blamed him for not holding Luke accountable for poor play--and then blaming our losses on not having a back up point guard. If Luke was being burned out then either develop Flip as a back up point or develop someone else at back up point--like a Damien Wilkins or a Ray Allen.

Nick Collison should have been the starting PF from Day One this season. Wilcox has earned the right to start with his strong performances in Collison's absence but I don't think that anyone in hindsight would in argue that prior to Wilcox arriving in Seattle that Collison was our best PF this season. So no, Hill didn't give Collison the minutes that he deserved this season.

Danny Fortson was not on his best behavior this season but that being said, Hill alienated him to the point where he felt it necessary to not risk reaggravating an already nagging injury and hang it up for the season. Fortson has a tempermental personality and needs to feel wanted and appreciated in order to be at his best on the floor. There is no doubt that if Hill wouldn't have treated Fortson like a side show (remember when he benched him after two fouls against Miami--and then stated that he wasn't ready to play?) then Fortson would have pushed through the pain in his knee to try to help the team win this year.

As far as Ray Allen, I have never asked for him to be benched or for him to assume the role of a secondary player on this team. The problem that I have with Ray Allen is his shot selection, his defense, and his motives. Ray is supposed to be the leader of this team but it seems this year that he is only worried about having his highest scoring average of his career this season. Hill should hold Ray accountable for his poor shot selection and his lack of defense by either running sets for other players or by cutting his minutes. At the very least admit in the post game comments that Ray needs to improve those aspects of his game. But at the end, this "straight shooter" in Bob Hill seems to waver when it comes to holding his best player accountable.

Every time this season I think that we are on the verge of turning the corner we would play so horribly that I would wonder how we even were able to win 30 games this season. I blame Hill for our inconsistency, I blame Hill for our lack of continuity, and I blame Hill for our lack of defensive focus. I know that we had all of those problems with Bob Weiss but the difference is that Hill doesn't hold himself accountable for any of these problems--and outside of our numbers defensively they have all gotten worse with Hill running the ship.

Hill is much like Larry Brown in that he uses the media for self promoting purposes. In the News Tribune he inferred that he had a problem with his current set of assistant coaches. Who is next scapegoat for our underachieving season? If I wanted a man of Hill's integrity as our head coach he better be a coach that could find a way to win with whoever is on the current active roster. I don't think that that is the case so that is why I'd rather take my chances on a coach with a better track record in terms of winning and a coach who has a better track record in terms of integrity.

 

I don't think stating (perhaps incorrectly) that Hill showcased Vlade is exactly a compliment. Vlade is a good offensive player that could have been a power forward for this team. Perhaps Hill felt he needed to see for himself. A Vlade who shot consistently, rebounded aggressively and defended was way more valuable that Reggie or Nick. It was clear that wasn't going to offer that and they got Wilcox in his stead. Again no compliments there (except maybe to Sund for getting Wilcox's potential to replace Vlade's.)

Reggie is a known entity. The whole league knows what he can and can't do. Hill wanted to see what the possibilities with Vlade were and then he moved on to Nick. I don't have criticisms of that choice (though Reggie had been my favorite Sonics player since his first preseason) but that doesn't mean I have praise either.

I didn't think you blamed Hill for Flip's performance. I just didn't think having Flip on the floor was helping so I don't understand why you wanted him to play. Damien is a small forward who can handle the ball OK, he is not a backup point. Ray is better without the ball in his hands, we all know that if he was running the point the ball would not move enough, and it makes him less effective at getting open when he has the ball the whole possession. They needed to trade or bring in a FA that could play the b/u point. It was a fact, why not say it?

I already said my piece on the Vlade over Nick decision. We all knew Nick was the right choice, but the coach gave Vlade a shot to prove himself and he failed. I'd rather the shot was given in camp, but Hill didn't have a camp. Sometimes you disagree with the way the boss does things and you just have to see for yourself. Again, no praise, but I don't have a complaint about it either.

You have proven yourself way to sharp for me to think you wanted Ray benched. However, the guy is scoring more this season because the team STINKS and he wants to win. Look at Kobe...AI, James, Pierce and any number of other scorers who have been on bad teams. Their individual scoring goes up and their shot selection gets worse. Ray has shown that he plays well on a team, distributes the ball and has better selection when the team is playing well. I'm not going to beat on him for scoring points and poor shot selection this year. I will complain loudly about his sloppy defense this year. He has never been great, but he has shown he CAN defend, I just wish he did it every game. I wouldn't be surprised if Hill doesn't harp on the scoring and shot selection for the same reasons.

It hasn't mattered who was coaching this year. The players come to some games ready to play and don't even bother to pretend to try in others. It is the coach's job to motivate them, so your complaint has validity, I just don't think it mattered this year. I don't think they were listening to anybody. Players have been traded. Players have been benched. Perhaps the message is ready to sink in for next season.

I have never seen Hill blame anyone except himself and his players for the performance. He said they weren't going to get better without a backup PG, but that was obvious to everyone. He didn't hire any of the assistants except maybe Detlef. Perhaps he doesn't have the mix he wants. A coach should be able to decide what he needs in a staff and a chance to fill those needs himself. Weiss picked people to fill roles that he needed filled...I assume that Hill needs an entirely different skillset. I have heard him praise Sikma and Detlef for their work with the bigs, particularly Wilcox. I haven't been able to find the article you mention, but since you said "inferred" I assume he didn't complain outright. Perhaps you are interpreting his comments incorrectly. Maybe he just wants a chance to decide what skills he needs in a staff and a chance to go find people with those skills. I always try to build project teams that include people who are strong in areas where I am not strong so the project can be more successful. I imagine a good coach would want to do the same. I think Nate's staff was a HUGE part of his success last year. I don't see Hill touting his own horn in interviews...are you basing your opinion of radio and tv interviews or print interviews? Print reporters (particularly Frank Hughes) are masters at asking questions a hundred different ways until they get an answer that fits the story they want to print. It makes interesting stories, but it doesn't show the whole picture like a live interview session does. Hill isn't the perfect coach, but I don't have any concerns about his integrity, and frankly as much as you don't like Larry Brown doesn't he fit your solid winning record model? I won't make my decisions about Hill until I see a full season under his leadership. I don't know that he is going to be good, or that he has perfect integrity, but I haven't seen ANYTHING to make me think he can't be good or that he doesn't carry himself with integrity. Perhaps you have seen something I have missed.