TR1LL10N
Hannibal Lecter
I don't assume there is a system devoid of limitations. What I do notice is how the limits of this system cause ancillary effects throughout the team, fatigue and injury being an example.
Phil can't be considered over-rated because he has performed the best. Over rating assumes a player or coach isn't as good as thought of.
Scoring in the paint resulting from the P&R isn't the same as using bigs effectively on the block. So yes Amare who draws fouls may score in the paint- the limitation is illustrated in the offensive fouls he gets by having to be mobile and drive, and increases the likelyhood of injury.
On Kobe or MJ, there are ways to decipher a coaches accumen regardless of his personnel. This includes knowing how to save time outs and using them proprly or deciding to foul. These decisions have nothing to do with talent, and that's the issue, the decisions.
Now when you look at it, Mike's decisions are based on his approach and philosophy primarily, not his players. His approach and philosophy lead to many not so obvious decisions but when things go south, no one wants to attribute that to his approach.
This is illustrated in things like, drafting Gallo, or DNP'ing Randolph etc...
These were coaching decisions as was not fouling with one to give. Analyze this and it comes back to his approach.
I'M NOT SURE I DID THAT. You mention the ned for a floor general, but when it was pointed out that that is exactly what Billups is, you had other plans.
That's just it. On one hand you say with who we have we can defend just fine, but before you were saying we need more. Don't get me wrong, first I agree we need a true center, and really I'm not blaming coach for anything even though I feel he was outcoached, but middle of the road isn't a mislable.
Here's the best way I can put it.... first Mike isan't a bad coach, he doesn't suck, and really even if we get eliminated, I saw enough fight and potential to be satisfied, but...
There are a million ways to skin a cat, right? So here's an analogy:
If I said choose your best way to drive down a mountain, and there were bike paths, roads, and many obsticals to navigate; many different choices may be used. Many factors would be considered. Is this a race or time limit, is your vehicle equipped for off-road etc... (stay with me)
Then I said your fastest way to get down the mountain. Some might calculate driving time, biking time, can they climb etc...
Then I gave you historic stats saying MOST choose to drive even though its longer, but safer. Some have tried hiking but they took days, and no one has biked down without failure although its not impossible.
Well Mike is the one who chooses to bike it. Sure he may make it. But by the time he does, he and his bike are mangled to sh*t!
Mike doing things unconventionally can probably get there, but everyone who has done it didn't do it that way. A mistake here and there and it adds up.
For us I see squandered drafting opportunities, overuse injures, poor financial managment in terms of assets, lost winnable opportunities, reduction of player moral, etc...
All this plus more, all because he decided to bike down that mountain.
Now, some things actually worked out in our favor, thank goodness, can't complain. But what I can say is ok you chose the difficult route, and came out bruised and battered, but got somewhere.
As a decision maker (if I were), I would have the ultimate goal in mind. And I would know (like you) we ain't there yet, there's still work to be done, still more mountains to navigate. Knowing Mike is prevy to the difficult unconventional route, knowing there is little to no margin for error, why would I continue to emplore such techniques?
In business, you maximize your assets and returns. You do everything possible to reduce risk to promote maximum efficiency. This approach has too many risks involved, too many ancillary obstacles created and is not as proven as other methods. When we were desperate, we took desperate measures.
Currently we are in the black, and from a business standpoint that would dictate taking a less riskier approach. That's what I feel we need. Sure we get down the mountain with Mike, but bruised and battared and weak. When we have a chance to invest in a more efficient, responsible, reduced risk opportunity, that is what would be best.
No offense to Mike.
Those are all fair points.
Just an FYI, when a business is in the black that is a good thing. Being in the red is bad. (no pun intended ) Further, focusing on limiting risk is just one school of thought and has less potential for both failure and success.There is a place for aggressiveness in both basketball and business as well as originality. I honestly think MDA's system is more traditional then is touted...PnR, spreading the floor and pushing the tempo are hardly unorthodox.