Various articles round out our info on the firing of Boylan: KC Johnson lays blame on the players: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Boylan's stint was marked by improved offensive numbers from earlier this season under Skiles but also an inability to depart from the same defensive and offensive philosophies that were used by his close friend. The career assistant spent 14 seasons in that role with various teams before assuming the head job and weathered several off-the-court incidents without the benefit of a training camp. Players, mostly working on individual agendas, blew off practices and shootarounds, argued with assistant coaches and also were injured. Boylan weathered most of January without Ben Gordon, Luol Deng and, for a lesser absence, Kirk Hinrich.</div> Goodness. Hard to imagine a coach would not totally reinvent the offense and defense of a team in mid-season, eh? And for that matter, who's individual agenda included getting injured. And what cause is there to use weathered twice in a row like that? What dreck. Meanwhile, Mike McGraw reports on what Pax had to say: <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Some might call it a coaching search, but John Paxson plans to spend the next few weeks collecting thoughts and opinions on how to revive the disappointing Bulls. As expected, the Bulls' general manager relieved interim head coach Jim Boylan of his duties Thursday morning. Boylan took over for Scott Skiles on Dec. 27 and posted a 24-32 record while dealing with unhappy, sometimes unruly, players as well as a rash of injuries to his top scorers. "It's hard to put it in a nutshell, but I do think we need a new type of vibe with our team, a different kind of energy," Paxson said. "It really just came down to the fact that I think we need the opportunity to look at things differently from a coaching standpoint." Paxson says he has no timetable and no preconceived candidate for the job. When he addressed the media at the Berto Center, Paxson made it sound as though he'll accept the best sales pitch. The process could take some time, since some of the likely candidates are working for teams that should go deep into the playoffs. "I'm not going into this thing, 'I've got to have this kind of person,' I can tell you that," Paxson said. "I'm going into it open-minded and with the belief that I'm going to try to find someone that I think can connect with our organization, resonate with our fans and be the right guy that can get us back on the winning track. "Contrary to what has been written, I don't have any one person in mind that I want to go after to get this job. I'm not going to worry about a timetable. I'm not going to worry about anyone getting hired in the meantime. "I'm going to do as thorough a search as I can to find someone that I think will fit the organization and give us direction going forward. I think we need some real leadership from that position." The Bulls' list of candidates is believed to include former NBA head coaches Jeff Van Gundy, Rick Carlisle, Terry Porter, Mike Fratello and Celtics assistant Tom Thibodeau. Porter could be a fit for the Bulls, since he's a former player who got his feet wet during two seasons in Milwaukee, then spent the past two years as an assistant to Flip Saunders with Detroit. Without a superstar on the roster, the Bulls need to follow the Pistons' team-oriented blueprint for success. .... "For the last few years, we were a team that everyone around the league said, 'Hey, the Bulls come ready to play every night. They compete, they defend, they get after you, they're not going to give up in any game,' " Paxson said. "And that went away. It went away quickly. I told the guys that (Wednesday) night. Somewhere along the line this year, we lost our spirit."</div> If it sounds like Pax is going to audition cheerleaders then Matt at Blog a Bull might agree with you.
Empathy. I think that's what I lack now. I used to get so mad at everyone of ass-backwards management decisions/statements. Now I just don't care.
The whole "no timetable" thing, I think is a big indicator of who our next coach will be. Thibodeau will likely be Paxson's man imo. He is a defensive wizard, player friendly, and likes working with players to develop them (that has been one of the biggest knocks on our organization, that we don't develop players). Other coaches who might get fired are Avery Johnson and Mike D'Antoni. Although I think Thibo is still going to be our guy in the end.
Thibodeau might be a good coach, but the whole idea that that he's somehow a defensive genius because of this year's Celtics team strikes me as pretty silly. You've got Kevin Garnett and two of the best swing players in the league, especially Pierce who was considered one of the league's better defenders early in his career. Rondo was projected as a defensive stopper coming out of school at PG and Kendrick Perkins is a shot-blocking big man. All the pieces were there.
He also did a good job in Houston and New York. Although, if we hire Van Gundy, there is a good chance that Thibodeau comes with him...of course, that is if Thibodeau doesn't take a coaching job elsewhere.
I get the impression Pax wants someone... ... who'll do his job for him. He's looking forward to hearing the players ideas about what went wrong and how to get back. He's looking forward to hearing coaching candidates' ideas about what the best way to go is. I understand the need to listen to what other people have to say, but in the words of Scott Skiles, "This is not a democracy". Pax is the GM. He's the guy who has to lead this thing, and he gives every impression of looking around for someone to tell him what to do.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Apr 18 2008, 07:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Thibodeau might be a good coach, but the whole idea that that he's somehow a defensive genius because of this year's Celtics team strikes me as pretty silly. You've got Kevin Garnett and two of the best swing players in the league, especially Pierce who was considered one of the league's better defenders early in his career. Rondo was projected as a defensive stopper coming out of school at PG and Kendrick Perkins is a shot-blocking big man. All the pieces were there.</div> You've got it backwards Mike. Not only does he have the coaching resume prior to Boston to back it up, but you are greatly overestimating the individual defenders on Boston.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Apr 18 2008, 07:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Thibodeau might be a good coach, but the whole idea that that he's somehow a defensive genius because of this year's Celtics team strikes me as pretty silly. You've got Kevin Garnett and two of the best swing players in the league, especially Pierce who was considered one of the league's better defenders early in his career. Rondo was projected as a defensive stopper coming out of school at PG and Kendrick Perkins is a shot-blocking big man. All the pieces were there.</div> In 12 of his 15 years in the league, he has coached his team to finish in the top 10 in team defense. Last year, he set a bunch of defensive franchise records with Houston. This year, of course, he orchestrates the league's top defense. Thibs is no joke.
On the surface, Thibodeau would be a fine choice. We'd be hurting the Celtics, a team in our division, at the same time. He's got about the same experience that Boylan had. Which leads me to the beneath the surface part. The 85 Bears were great. Then Buddy Ryan left to coach the Eagles. The Eagles didn't do very well. Seems Ryan was best suited to be a defensive coach under a better rounded head coach. So why is Thibodeau any different? As a defensive coach, he's specialized and excelled at one side of the court. It's the other that makes me wonder.
Look at Paxson's comments from yesterday, and you can conclude that our coach will be one of two men. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>An argument can be made that, in trading away Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler, the Bulls built their current team around the forceful personality that is Skiles. Paxson is stressing to prospective candidates or their agents, as well as in his public comments, that the new coach will have to fit the team. "This is still a business of developing guys you have," Paxson said. "We can't just abandon that. And we're not going to. We're going to try to get our guys better and turn it around.</div> It'll be Thibodeau or Van Gundy imo. Thibodeau is only on a one year contract with Boston, so he is gone after this year imo. He will either be on our bench as the head coach, or an assistant next to Van Gundy. Thibo's MO is player development.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ Apr 19 2008, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Look at Paxson's comments from yesterday, and you can conclude that our coach will be one of two men. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>An argument can be made that, in trading away Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler, the Bulls built their current team around the forceful personality that is Skiles. Paxson is stressing to prospective candidates or their agents, as well as in his public comments, that the new coach will have to fit the team. "This is still a business of developing guys you have," Paxson said. "We can't just abandon that. And we're not going to. We're going to try to get our guys better and turn it around.</div> It'll be Thibodeau or Van Gundy imo. Thibodeau is only on a one year contract with Boston, so he is gone after this year imo. He will either be on our bench as the head coach, or an assistant next to Van Gundy. Thibo's MO is player development. </div> Honest question: Has there been any actual link between Thibo and the Bulls? Because what makes the Bulls so special, that he would jump to be an assistant there?
Paxson is giving lip service that indicates that Thibo might be his head coach. If the Bulls hire Van Gundy, Thibo would likely come to the Bulls because he is JVG's right hand man. (was an assistant coach for him in New York and Houston).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Apr 19 2008, 11:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On the surface, Thibodeau would be a fine choice. We'd be hurting the Celtics, a team in our <s>division</s> conference, at the same time. He's got about the same experience that Boylan had. Which leads me to the beneath the surface part. The 85 Bears were great. Then Buddy Ryan left to coach the Eagles. The Eagles didn't do very well. Seems Ryan was best suited to be a defensive coach under a better rounded head coach. So why is Thibodeau any different? As a defensive coach, he's specialized and excelled at one side of the court. It's the other that makes me wonder.</div> fixed it for ya Thibodeau would be great. If you guys got him, that'd be a steal.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#1_Yinka_Dare_Fan @ Apr 19 2008, 12:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Honest question: Has there been any actual link between Thibo and the Bulls? Because what makes the Bulls so special, that he would jump to be an assistant there?</div> Ding. We have a winner. Why would Thibo want to coach this team? The pay? Ha! The talent? Ha ha! The fact that this team is on the ascent and will be dominant for years to come? Ha ha ha. With his resume, Thibo is going to be able to pick and choose. I can't think of one reason he would take this "opportunity."
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (such sweet thunder @ Apr 19 2008, 02:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (#1_Yinka_Dare_Fan @ Apr 19 2008, 12:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Honest question: Has there been any actual link between Thibo and the Bulls? Because what makes the Bulls so special, that he would jump to be an assistant there?</div> Ding. We have a winner. Why would Thibo want to coach this team? The pay? Ha! The talent? Ha ha! The fact that this team is on the ascent and will be dominant for years to come? Ha ha ha. With his resume, Thibo is going to be able to pick and choose. I can't think of one reason he would take this "opportunity." </div> There's always the low pay and the fight with the GM when it's time to renew your contract. Of course, the chance to be head coach is probably quite appealing, and the terms of a contract Pax might give him might be incentive. If he sees eye-to-eye with Pax's world vision of things, it might be appealing. If he thinks he can take this roster with a few changes and make a go of it... Or if he thinks there's a plan to reshape the roster to his liking - regardless of the dismal performance this year, the players do have value in trade.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Apr 19 2008, 10:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On the surface, Thibodeau would be a fine choice. We'd be hurting the Celtics, a team in our division, at the same time. He's got about the same experience that Boylan had. Which leads me to the beneath the surface part. The 85 Bears were great. Then Buddy Ryan left to coach the Eagles. The Eagles didn't do very well. Seems Ryan was best suited to be a defensive coach under a better rounded head coach. So why is Thibodeau any different? As a defensive coach, he's specialized and excelled at one side of the court. It's the other that makes me wonder.</div> The 46 defense got figured out: spread it out. Buddy didn't adapt. Is Thibodeu's defense like that? Is it gimmicky? I think your comparing apples to peanuts....maybe filet mignon.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Apr 25 2008, 04:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Apr 19 2008, 10:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On the surface, Thibodeau would be a fine choice. We'd be hurting the Celtics, a team in our division, at the same time. He's got about the same experience that Boylan had. Which leads me to the beneath the surface part. The 85 Bears were great. Then Buddy Ryan left to coach the Eagles. The Eagles didn't do very well. Seems Ryan was best suited to be a defensive coach under a better rounded head coach. So why is Thibodeau any different? As a defensive coach, he's specialized and excelled at one side of the court. It's the other that makes me wonder.</div> The 46 defense got figured out: spread it out. Buddy didn't adapt. Is Thibodeu's defense like that? Is it gimmicky? I think your comparing apples to peanuts....maybe filet mignon. </div> I disagree anyone figured out Buddy Ryan's defense. The special thing about the '85 Bears is that they stockpiled an awful lot of really good 1st round draft picks due to their crappy play in previous seasons. 20 of the 22 starters were 1st round picks. When Buddy left, the Bears felt they could run traditional defenses because their talent was so good. That "so good" talent running Ryan's 46 made it work that much more effectively. You can run a 46 with weaker players and it won't be as effective or effective at all. You had two linebackers blitzing from the same side creating an extra man that defenses couldn't block in the backfields. The trick to executing it successfully is those blitzers had to be fast enough to make it to the QB or RB fast enough. It took talent. But we digress from the actual point! The analogy is apt - Ryan didn't translate into a very good head coach, but was the best in the game (for at least the one season) as an assistant. Is the same true for Thibodeau? That's the question I ask.
