#FireCasey

[JimiCliff]

Jackson pissed off the GS FO. Demoted one assistant, They had to fire another. Lots of other divisive issues.

Nothing like the Casey situation at all, other than being an OK, but not very good coach of a winning team.

In addition to his problems with the FO, there were a bunch of basketball reasons that it made sense to fire Jackson, most notably that GS somehow only had a middling offence under him last year.

[3inthekeon]

Some posters have complained big time on us passing on KJ McD at 20.

Spurs passed on him at 30.

Spurs drafted Kyle Anderson, a kid who had been often compared to Boris Diaw, who just happens to play for the Spurs.

They certainly seem to have drafted to fit the system.

Edit; Fitting the system is more feasible the lower the pick. Early on, talent/potential matter more. Would the Raps pass on JV in a do-over despite him not fitting the system? Don't think so.

[Bendit]

The bolded contradicts what a system should be though. You don't change a system based on the player, you change the players to fit the system. I have no idea what kind of player that Khawai Leonard or Jimmy Butler were in college, but they didn't enter the team and coach think he needs to change the system to fit their strenghts.

Regarding the Rudy trade...Rudy was traded because he didn't fit the system Casey was trying to employ, and they got players that did fit in. I would think that trade hilighted my point.

Sorry I am going to have to disagree on fundamental grounds....

a) The NBA environment is fluid in that one does not have infinite time to mold a player into an iron-clad system which isnt flexible
b) Every player has strengths and weaknesses....physical/athletic and BB iq (I exclude items like shooting, fts, general fitness etc)
c) the coach cannot wish away his talent for another because the current cast cannot adapt. In most cases he has to.
d) other teams/coaches are improving and adapting (even in-game) all the time. Being system or scheme static is just asking for trouble.

Re Leonard & Butler...these were drafted players. Kawhi was actually traded for draft day so presumably the Spurs knew exactly who they were getting skill set and psychologically wise....they hit quite often. Butler was probably more of a fortunate pick at #30 but Chicago is no slouch of an org either drafting wise. Comparably, the Raptors were a mess when Casey came here and no place to go but up...which he certainly helped in doing but the team is at another level now and the personnel has changed since. Very few coaches can go thru a career without adapting their coaching methods or systems to fit their personnel. Carlisle in Dallas, noted as a very good defense first coach seems to not be that this year...but he still has a team which will be in the mix at playoff time. He even sat down Rondo for a 4th qtr recently. Would Casey have done that? That was probably an unfair shot but serves as an example.

[3inthekeon]

I think it was more about rotations that left him rushing out to cover the 3pt line, which I agree is utter nonsense. Any system that relies on a 7-footer covering the 3pt line is asking for trouble, while certainly not utilizing personnel in a manner that plays to their strengths.

That's not hedging. The word hedge was used. Are you saying he doesn't know what hedge means? I think he does know, but was just repeating what so many other people had claimed as well.

[Mindlessness]

Some posters have complained big time on us passing on KJ McD at 20.

Spurs passed on him at 30.

Spurs drafted Kyle Anderson, a kid who had been often compared to Boris Diaw, who just happens to play for the Spurs.

They certainly seem to have drafted to fit the system.

Edit; Fitting the system is more feasible the lower the pick. Early on, talent/potential matter more. Would the Raps pass on JV in a do-over despite him not fitting the system? Don't think so.

Sure, the Spurs do that, but that doesn't mean other title contenders do; Dallas doesn't, Carlisle designs the system around the team. LAC doesn't, Rivers came and designed around Paul and Griffin. Portland certainly doesn't, Stotts started coaching them after they already had their entire starting lineup. Obviously Kerr and the Warriors don't, Kerr built his system around the talent; and the list goes on and on and on.

[Mindlessness]

That's not hedging. The word hedge was used. Are you saying he doesn't know what hedge means? I think he does know, but was just repeating what so many other people had claimed as well.

This is semantics. Yeah, he misused it, I don't think the idea is lost there. I mean, to me it was quite obvious he meant Jonas had to move and help a lot, which he shouldn't be doing.

[3inthekeon]

This is semantics. Yeah, he misused it, I don't think the idea is lost there. I mean, to me it was quite obvious he meant Jonas had to move and help a lot, which he shouldn't be doing.

I don't think he misused it, and I don't blame him for saying Jonas is asked to hedge, because a lot of other people have said the same thing.

And people were agreeing - no one bothered to correct what he said, because they've been hearing the same thing as well.

[Mindlessness]

I don't think he misused it, and I don't blame him for saying Jonas is asked to hedge, because a lot of other people have said the same thing.

And people were agreeing - no one bothered to correct what he said, because they've been hearing the same thing as well.

Maybe yeah sure. But I don't think the word really takes away from the idea. ANYWAYS, JV isn't getting used properly on defense.

[3inthekeon]

Sure, the Spurs do that, but that doesn't mean other title contenders do; Dallas doesn't, Carlisle designs the system around the team. LAC doesn't, Rivers came and designed around Paul and Griffin. Portland certainly doesn't, Stotts started coaching them after they already had their entire starting lineup. Obviously Kerr and the Warriors don't, Kerr built his system around the talent; and the list goes on and on and on.

Well Carlisle's system that he designed around the team has a Defensive Rating of 106.9, ours is 106.9.

[Mindlessness]

Well Carlisle's system that he designed around the team has a Defensive Rating of 106.9, ours is 106.9.

Yeah, sure. But over the many years of Carlisle coaching Dallas, Dallas' DRTG has gone up and down, their peak was in their 'ship year, where they had Kidd, Marion, and Chandler (HINT: designing system around personnel). And their lowest was when they started Marion, Nowitski, Calderon, Samuel Dalembert, and Ellis. Where everyone but Ellis was over 30, and Marion was broken down.

EDIT: link http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/

[raptors999]

Well Carlisle's system that he designed around the team has a Defensive Rating of 106.9, ours is 106.9.

As long as Dallas is within 2-3 in the fourth, they have an unstoppable ISO scorer same as OKC. A seven footer with range is a better than 50% chance to win or tie. Toronto doesn't have that.

[3inthekeon]

Actually 2 of the 3 players who do hedge well (Amir and TH) are UFA's this off season. If we bring in a traditional PF, the system may well have to change.

[3inthekeon]

As long as Dallas is within 2-3 in the fourth, they have an unstoppable ISO scorer same as OKC. A seven footer with range is a better than 50% chance to win or tie. Toronto doesn't have that.

What does your answer have to do with a defensive system?

[Bendit]

I think the bold is flawed, as San Antonio is the perfect example of a team targeting players (draft, free agency, etc...) that they think will fit their system, as much as for the player's individual skillset. Leonard is the perfect example of this. Had he been drafted earlier by a weaker team that would have tried to make him a bigger part of their overall scheme (on both sides of the ball), there's no way he would be the NBA darling that he is today. He had the skillset to fit SA's model and has been worked into it seamlessly, as SA has done over the years.

The key is that the GM (roster) and coach (system) need to be on the same page, about both the approach to game-planning and roster makeup/development. There are several players that don't seem to fit DC's style, yet I'd be surprised if MU were to dump them. Ironically, Ross was widely viewed as DC's pick, yet he gets played out of position and in a role that is rarely designed to fit his skillset.

At the end of the day, establishing a system for a team is fine. Personally, I just don't like DC's system, especially when the personnel don't seem suited to play within it.

I dont disagree but you raise the Spurs (an org. which is a model for how an NBA team/business should be aspired to) as example for retaining a system. I suspect much tinkering and tweaking went on before Popovich & Buford settled on their fundamentals. Theirs is as mature an organization as there is with ownership and senior management continuity. I was of course writing of the Raptors and their recent sorry history where all organizational building blocks as well as personnel have been in flux. In that context rigidity of a coach where the system is inflexible is problematic imo.

[raptors999]

What does your answer have to do with a defensive system?

Play to the offense. Dallas could try to play Memphis style grind out games but they don't have to. They can knock down threes and keep games close enough to win on the last few possessions. A team like the Bucks don't shoot well enough to justify playing close. Teams without a dominant ISO scorer have to play defensive. Memphis can't allow teams to get big leads late because they can't recover shooting 2's.