Why is it that the ones who didnt have great NBA/ABA careers make the best coaches? Like Nate McMilan (5.9 ppg, 6.1apg , 4.0 rpg). Larry Brown (11.2 ppg, 6.7 apg, 2.7 rpg). Rick Carlisle (2.2 ppg, 1.1 apg, 0.8 rpg). Mike D'Antoni (3.4 ppg, 2.0 apg, 1.1 rpg). Avery Johnson (8.4 ppg, 5.5 apg, 1.7 rpg).And yet coaches who were stars are nowhere near as good. Llike Magic, Bird, West, Bill Russell and Maurice Cheeks.
I think because they had to work twice as hard and they had to outsmart thier opponent to play well. All of those others used thier talent. The great coaches also prolbably studied a lot of tape to be able to play well. They spent a lot of time on the bench as well listening and learning from some of the best coaches as well. I think Bird did a pretty good job coaching. I know he didnt coach that long, but he did do a pretty good job at it when he was.
Well alot of it has to do with those guys knowing how to play and how to win, but they weren't athletic or skilled enough.Mike D'Antoni actually had a brilliant career in Italy tho. He was considered one of the best players in Italian History. He won a few championships and MVPs.
You forgot to add Phil Jackson and Pat Riley to that list.Phil Jackson: 12 years, 6.7 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 1.1 apg.Pat Riley: 9 years, 7.4 ppg, 1.6 rpg, 1.7 apg.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CB4AllStar @ Apr 28 2006, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Serious thought here. Because they learned alot about the game by observing it from the bench.</div>me and you think alike.
