Woj: Casey will be back

[JimiCliff]

You're forgetting a critical dynamic: adjustments. The Raptors got found out. Teams learned how to abuse Casey's scramble defense and the hard hedges the bigs were asked to do out at the perimeter. They learned how to play the Raptors' highest scoring players - play them tight and force them into difficult jump shots because they'll take them and they won't pass the ball. FFS the Warriors basically wrote "DeRozan won't pass" on their whiteboard.

Lol I forgot about that.

[ebrian]

That's like saying, 'The alternator's busted...but the tires are all flat too…screw it, let's just fix the tires."

That's a terrible analogy. Here is what I'm saying:

The car is slower than all the other cars, but you think replacing the driver will help us win. I say replace the car.

[white men can't jump]

I said it before and will say it again.

There are three basic theories as to what went wrong this year:

1.) Casey brutally mismanaged the team.
2.) The team stopped listening to Casey and did their own thing.
3.) Both 1 and 2.

Now, a lot of people here subscribe to theory 1. That's fine. None of us know for sure what happened and everybody can theorize. But the thing is that, with less overall talent and less time to create plays for that talent, Casey arguably did better in 2013-14 than he did in 2014-15.

Coaches can be bad but they don't magically get worse. Casey did not forget how to coach in 2014/15 the way he coached in the previous season - where he created a reasonably good defense and rudimentary but effective offense.

What this means is that theory 1 is probably the least likely of the three theories. #2 and 3 are more likely - which means you either believe it was the players' fault, or a combination of Casey and the players. And come on: we'd been hearing for months before the playoffs that the Raptors seemed to genuinely believe they were a great team and doing the right things even as their record collapsed into mediocrity. They were led by Kyle Lowry, a talented player with a history of not listening to coaches whenever he gets pissy, and it's not unreasonable to believe that his attitude trickled down to the rest of the team. It's very unlikely that the players weren't involved in the decline.

So, here's the thing. If you choose option 2 - it's just the players' fault - then the clear route is "clean house on the roster as much as you deem necessary and keep Casey." But if you choose option 3 - it's on both the players and the coach - then the proper thing to do, although it may be counterintuitive, is to both clean house on the roster and not fire the coach.

Because it's possible that Casey will have more success with a new group of players. It's also possible that he won't. But if you're starting with a mostly-fresh group of players in 2015/16, unless you think Casey is a blithering incompetent - and he's had too much success as a coach for anybody to reasonably conclude that, to be honest - from a cost/benefit analysis it's simply good math to let him have at least one or two months with the new team to see if they click. If they don't, then you fire him.

I think what you don't give enough perspective on is how Casey's ability to coach/lead could be the catalyst for any problems and the drop off in performance we saw. I mean, you say "Casey didn't forget to coach", but we know from interviews just after the season that they didn't even try to run the same offence. So he didn't forget, but instead didn't even try? Is that not forgetting how to coach? I don't know. But anyway, looking at the two options and speculating how coaching can be a central problem to both....

Casey mismanaged the team, the players knew what they were doing wasn't working, and thus the players stopped listening and did their own thing. To me this seems possible due to the timing of the team's decline (or stagnation, whatever you want to call it where they stopped playing anything like a good team, even with flawed schemes). I remember watching that GSW game where Casey tried to match up small against them. It fully looked like as the game went on players were giving up. We went small to what? Outgun them? For speed on D? Guards realized they could do whatever they want, and in fact, sort of felt inclined to given that's clearly how we were going to keep playing. Bigs realized they'd be constantly hung out to dry on D and on the glass with little reward on the other end for all the work they put in, and I'm not just talking JV here. Could just be random coincidence, but PPat's 3pt% up to that game? .463 After that game? .314...could be something was not right physically...or again, guys were just giving up on what they knew wasn't going to work.

Or if one player, Lowry, clashed with the coach, and coach couldn't discipline him or reign him in. Why not bench Lowry? Why not bench him for whole games until he buys in or demands a trade? Maybe not the cleanest situation, but a coach has to be able to exert authority, and if he has the confidence of management, there's literally no reason not to take a hard stance. His former boss, Carlisle, did that with Rondo, and basically Dallas wasted assets to get him for nothing in the end...but management still backed their coach. Now, Carlisle's a better coach than Casey, but again, if the latter has a vote of confidence from the front office, there's no reason to give in and cower in the corner the rest of the season as the inmates run the asylum.

In both of these cases, Casey is the main problem. His mismanagement (1) leads to players tuning him out (2). Or one player tunes him out, he can't manage that issue, and so all players tune him out and he cannot regain any type of hold on the team.

I just have a hard time seeing how Casey's escaping this without a big (the biggest?) chunk of blame. It's too easy to look at the situation and conclude that coaching was a significant issue, even if it wasn't the biggest/only one.

[S.R.]

I think what you don't give enough perspective on is how Casey's ability to coach/lead could be the catalyst for any problems and the drop off in performance we saw. I mean, you say "Casey didn't forget to coach", but we know from interviews just after the season that they didn't even try to run the same offence. So he didn't forget, but instead didn't even try? Is that not forgetting how to coach? I don't know. But anyway, looking at the two options and speculating how coaching can be a central problem to both....

Casey mismanaged the team, the players knew what they were doing wasn't working, and thus the players stopped listening and did their own thing. To me this seems possible due to the timing of the team's decline (or stagnation, whatever you want to call it where they stopped playing anything like a good team, even with flawed schemes). I remember watching that GSW game where Casey tried to match up small against them. It fully looked like as the game went on players were giving up. We went small to what? Outgun them? For speed on D? Guards realized they could do whatever they want, and in fact, sort of felt inclined to given that's clearly how we were going to keep playing. Bigs realized they'd be constantly hung out to dry on D and on the glass with little reward on the other end for all the work they put in, and I'm not just talking JV here. Could just be random coincidence, but PPat's 3pt% up to that game? .463 After that game? .314...could be something was not right physically...or again, guys were just giving up on what they knew wasn't going to work.

Or if one player, Lowry, clashed with the coach, and coach couldn't discipline him or reign him in. Why not bench Lowry? Why not bench him for whole games until he buys in or demands a trade? Maybe not the cleanest situation, but a coach has to be able to exert authority, and if he has the confidence of management, there's literally no reason not to take a hard stance. His former boss, Carlisle, did that with Rondo, and basically Dallas wasted assets to get him for nothing in the end...but management still backed their coach. Now, Carlisle's a better coach than Casey, but again, if the latter has a vote of confidence from the front office, there's no reason to give in and cower in the corner the rest of the season as the inmates run the asylum.

I just have a hard time seeing how Casey's escaping this without a big (the biggest?) chunk of blame. It's too easy to look at the situation and conclude that coaching was a significant issue, even if it wasn't the biggest one.

I agree - don't know if we'll find out how much of a locker room problem Lowry was, which I don't blame Casey for (obviously), BUT it is absolutely the coach's job to respond to and manage locker room issues. Casey looked as passive as a Jay Triano defense on that front. Kyle Lowry and Lou Williams just torpedoed the whole season because they chucked too much? Deal with it, coach. You brought up good examples, SVG also shipped Josh Smith out of Detroit because of bad fit. If you have attitude problems, you deal with them. Especially considering the amount of backing it now looks like Casey has from management, I don't see any excuses.

[JimiCliff]

That's a terrible analogy. Here is what I'm saying:

The car is slower than all the other cars, but you think replacing the driver will help us win. I say replace the car.

The idea that the coach is the driver, and the team is a the car, is a terrible analogy. The coach isn't nearly that important to the functioning of the team. A car can't move without a driver. A team can certainly play basketball without a coach - probably much better than most of us would expect. My analogy was poor because a coach isn't as critical as an alternator.

[McRealistic]

Trying to have some faith in this team and their upper management/ownership.. I believe they are smart enough to instil a program not a year over year quick fix Colangelo-esque philosophy to try to hit home runs to win now.

It is easy to come and say " try to have some faith" because in order to have faith you have to see something in the past that tells you the decision making people know what they are doing. I give credit to MU for doing the AB and Gay trade 2 years ago but since then, there has not been anything that shows me this group of management/ownership knows that they are doing.

Our team got destroyed in the play offs and looking at the 2nd round of play offs, I can see both in west and east that our team is simply lacks the system and the talent to belong to the 2nd round of the play offs.

The issue is actually quite simple. Our current problems are coming from either the coach, or the players or both.

By keeping DC, MU clearly send the message that he does not think it is the coaching. If it was both, then MU had to make the coaching changes along side the player changes which he did not.

Then it must be the players. What is MU going to do with that ... My other major issue is the lack of player development. T.R. , Big Val, Bruno, Bebe and ... none of them has shown any significant improvement last season.

As much I put the blame on the players, I think the coaching staff is also responsible for player development.

At this point, I am curious to know what MU going to do in this off season when it comes to the player. One thing is for sure, after 2 season of continuity, evaluation and analysis , I think without the doubt everyone can agree that our current team is just NOT good enough.

So once again, the ball is on MU's court and now that he has put his stamp of approval on DC, he needs to make the team better via player movement and trades.

Lets see what he will do this summer.

Is he going to dress our dire needs in SF, PF and back up C?
Is he going to be able to get a point guard that is able to run a system and get the bigs involved?
What are the developmental plans for our young talents?

and ...
What is MU going to do about that ?

[ebrian]

Wasn't there some announcement about assistant coaching? So then he does find fault in some of the coaching, just not all of it.

Right?

[Axel]

Wasn't there some announcement about assistant coaching? So then he does find fault in some of the coaching, just not all of it.

Right?

That's one way of looking at it.

When the ship is sinking, Captain is supposed to go down with it. Instead, the Captain pushed the women and children out of the way to get on a life raft and let the crew go down with the ship instead.

Either way, from this day forward, everything is 100% on Masai. Hope he's ready.

[McRealistic]

^^^ Yes, but in my opinion, when it is coaching, it is the head coach and not the assistants that should be under scrutiny. It is the head coach who will have the final say and has his seal of approval on everything, being system, player usage and plays in the game.

[McRealistic]

That's one way of looking at it.

When the ship is sinking, Captain is supposed to go down with it. Instead, the Captain pushed the women and children out of the way to get on a life raft and let the crew go down with the ship instead.

Either way, from this day forward, everything is 100% on Masai. Hope he's ready.

THAT !!! End of discussion You summed it up very well Pal.

[MACK11]

Wasn't there some announcement about assistant coaching? So then he does find fault in some of the coaching, just not all of it.

Right?

I guess the assistants were the problem after all eh. What's this gonna like Casey's 3rd different set of assistants.

[OldSkoolCool]

I've said it before: "A coach takes too much of the credit for winning and too much of the blame for losing"

BUT, you have to evaluate the coach on the process...and frankly Casey's process is on of the worst in the league

[Axel]

I guess the assistants were the problem after all eh. What's this gonna like Casey's 3rd different set of assistants.

If Casey's success is so directly linked to the quality of his assistants, then that still says that he isn't cut out to be the Head Coach. Assistants assist, not prop up the coach like Weekend at Bernies.

[magoon]

I think what you don't give enough perspective on is how Casey's ability to coach/lead could be the catalyst for any problems and the drop off in performance we saw. I mean, you say "Casey didn't forget to coach", but we know from interviews just after the season that they didn't even try to run the same offence.

You know that's what Casey said. That's all you know. Media appearances aren't sworn jury depositions. Nobody is required to tell you the truth in them, and the odds that what's said in any media appearance is 100% true is basically nonexistent.

If Casey had said something like "well, I drew up these plays, and I told the guys about them, but Kyle won't run them and DeMar won't pass," then he would have been pilloried - and rightly - for throwing his players under the bus, because one of the biggest sins for a coach is blaming players, rightly or wrongly, for their own flaws. I mean, Christ, Byron Scott got attacked when he called out Nick Young for being an inefficient selfish ballhog. NICK YOUNG. Kyle and DeMar are at least decent players.

My point is: if things totally broke down between Casey and some of the team, then expecting them to say "it's the other guy's fault" during the season is stupid, because that's not what basketball players and coaches do, as a rule. When they DO do it, it's noteworthy - like, for example, Kyle being as clear as possible that he doesn't want to play for Casey in his post-playoffs appearance.

[octothorp]

That's a terrible analogy. Here is what I'm saying:

The car is slower than all the other cars, but you think replacing the driver will help us win. I say replace the car.

No, that's a terrible analogy.

The car is a medium-speed car, but also keeps getting passed in corners where he should be able to block out other cars. Fixing the car won't change the fact that the driver commits obvious mistakes. Changing the driver won't change the fact that the car can't keep up with the fastest cars on the straightaways.