Yes, and I actually believe a flip-flop of positions would be ideal. Nate is a far better judge of players than KP, and KP has the potential to be a far better coach than Nate.
Actually, the "average" coach is not a good talent evaluator. That's why they put together gameplans and try to shoehorn players into them, rather than looking at the players and building a gameplan to fit them. That's what made Wooden such an exceptional coach. He maintained certain key philosophies, but he constantly tweaked the details to fit the talent available.
This is actually quite clever. It would greatly improve our team. McMillan is such a serious guy that I think he'd learn the job. I know he wouldn't waste time trying to impress the media like Pritchard does. Pritchard would suck as a motivator coach, but a conventional running game would give us more wins, so it would be a wash compared to McMillan. What do YOU know about Wooden?
Actually, I am trying to provoke you into telling what you knew about Wooden when he coached, as opposed to a newbie telling me what he's read about him since then, since I think you were around then. I only came on board in his last years.
Ah. Well, the short answer is that I grew up in Portland before it was an "NBA" city, and college basketball was on the air far more often than the NBA. I was fascinated that one guy could go from the "midget" teams with guys like Goodrich, to the Kareem team, to the Wicks/Rowe era, to the Walton gang, to the Washington/Johnson team....and somehow keep winning. In particular, I had the chance to see the Walton teams and the Washington/Johnson teams live on several occasions - and the transition was rather amazing. It was also interesting to watch Wooden's demeanor on the bench when he was up against a more emotional coach like Dick Harter or Ralph Miller. I have never seen a coach who had such a calming influence on his players. In a situation where another coach would have been yelling and trying to fire his team up, Wooden became the eye of the storm - steadying his players down and getting them to focus.
He was considered the greatest teaching coach, but no great shakes at gametime adjustments. He just sat there, nervously shaking his rolled-up program. As for his versatility at winning championships with all sorts of players, I've always found this quote from an NBA scout I read in 1971 to be instructive. A reporter asked the scout, "Is it his great players or his coaching? Is Wooden the best recruiter and talent evaluator on the college level, or the best teacher?" The scout answered, "Both." Finally his style seeped into the NBA, in the form of the 1980s showtime Lakers with Jabbar and Wilkes (and a little of Nater). If not for the Wooden style adapted by the NBA in UCLA's hometown, the Celtics would have owned the 1980s.
One more quote I liked back then. A reporter asked an NBA coach or scout or someone, "Wow! Who would you rather get! Wicks? Rowe? Look at all these stars Wooden has! Patterson? How bout this young guy Bibby?" etc., etc. And the NBA guy said, "I'd like to get WOODEN." He never considered coming to the NBA. He didn't like it. He never motivated his players by dangling the pros in front of them. That was no more relevant that getting any other job after college. The college game was all they were playing for. He had some little heart problem, retired in about 1975, and is still alive. I guess I shouldn't dream about, what if he'd come to the NBA, because it might have killed him, and remember, he spent many years becoming a top college coach, and would have spent at least a decade learning to excel at the pro game. By 1985 he would have been just too old to have the energy.
