Could be. Do you think the Raps fired Mitchell because they were cradling Bargnani?Eric Akshinthala wrote:
Sorry, let me rephrase that, since Mitchell himself admitted that he was tough on Bargnani and that could have contributed to his demise.
Do you think it helped Bargnani's development when the Raptors decided to fire Mitchell because he was too tough on Bargnani?
Last edited by TheGloveinRapsUniform; Tue Jan 22nd, 2013 at 12:36 PM.
I like Sam and I think that the Raps. down-slide started due to his firing but Mitchell saying in a Radio interview that HE THINKS he was fired because he was tough on Bargnani is speculation.
Personally I like strict coaches. There's a difference though between a strict coach and a coach who publicly criticises his players. IMO, no matter what the issue, it should be dealt privately. Going public is simply a lack of self control on the Coach's part which is later perceived by fans as 'helping the players development'.
Attitude Is A Choice.
I liked some of Mitchell's techniques but i was not a big fan of his overall approach. He seemed angry and sarcastic most of the time i saw him with the media and he seemed to feel that nobody was worth his time unless you were a highly accomplished coach or a superstar in the league.
I did not mind him criticizing Bargnani, but the way he handled Bargnani's development i dont agree with. But thats for a different thread altogether.
I agree with you, issues should be dealt with behind closed doors. But what i'm trying to figure out is how come coaches like Rivers, Jackson, Jeff Van Gundy, Popovich, highly decorated coaches who time and time again, but not ALL the time as some people here are trying to insinuate that im saying, publicly criticize their players and seem to be getting results from players that they have criticized. Is it just coincidence that coaches who have criticized their players publicly are the same coaches who have highly successful teams?
Any public comment about a player with the best interest of the player in mind is healthy. Some of the names you have mentioned are highly renowned coaches who most of the time 'know what they're doing.
As far as Sam is concerned, he had his flaws and he's not the best coach out there, but IMO since he was fired the coaches that took his place have not been better than him.
Attitude Is A Choice.
"I have not heard Casey ever go off on his team, when they play like idiots, like the loss to the Bucks, Bulls and specially the Sixers."
Well, he doesn't go off the deep end and rant like he's got anger management issues, but he has criticized the "team" at times to the media, for lack of effort, focus, etc..
"Do the Raptors need a coach who will call them out in the media every game they lose due to stupidity?"
The Doc Rivers example you based this thread on wasn't getting in anybody's face about "stupidity" or anything foolishly aggressive like that, but was merely saying "they want it too easy and not playing hard enough". I've heard Casey say similar things but the media, nor fans, make a big deal of it, because when he says it it's true, and it's not the CELTICS.
"I didnt say call out every player every game, but that hero 3 by Lowry then getting killed by Holiday on the tying drive during the sixers game should have merited a "WTF is he doing" comment during the post game interview. And Calderon botching that inbound, for the third time this season, common. "
Did you hear Rivers target any individual player in his public criticism? Have you ever heard any of the acclaimed coaches you speak of target specific players for public criticism in the media? No, in today's world, people with class do that behind closed doors, keeping it in the "family". Do otherwise and you lose the entire team.
I'll say it again, it's absurd to suggest Casey is soft for not criticizing individual players, for "dumb" play, in the media. In fact it makes him a smart man, dealing with men as men, and with some modicum of class.
Know basketball, know fun. No basketball, no fun.
I agree. Casey had criticized the team before, lack of effort, too many turnovers, sure. But Ive never seen or heard him, and like i said in my initial post, maybe he did say something and i may have missed it, point out situations where an NBA player should have been able to adjust to. He doesnt necessarily have to point directly to Lowry or Calderon per say, but rather point the situation out and what should have been done to have prevented that blunder. The think that irks me the most is that everybody watching saw what happened in that particular situation but Casey seems to, not cover up, but brush it aside as a "miscommunication", "lack of effort", etc.
I think there was an instance where Rivers called his guys "soft" and now he's threatening that guys may need to be moved. to me, thats pretty aggressive.
You are right, players should not be criticized publicly individually, but what im saying is, be right or wrong, why do highly decorated coaches have instances in their careers when they publicly criticized their players (as a team)? Would you say that thats a tactic that possibly works and sort of nudges the players (as a team)?
So when BC came out and specifically pointed out Bargnani, saying he's an enigma (and you know you can never spin that in a positive way) and pointed out his rebounding and defense, what did you think of that?
Would you say thats acceptable because he's not the coach?
It's definitely more acceptable. Managers are definitely able to criticize players more openly. Now, they still try to be diplomatic (where BC is politican-like), but if your team is struggling on D and boards, and your starting PF is a big reason, the GM can totally criticize that guy publicly. In fact, it's almost in his best interest as a PR move. It puts management in a better position with fans. It lets the player know if they don't get their act together they can be traded. For most coaches, saying something does no good. The ones that do are the ones that have been in their position awhile, like Doc, Pop, Jax before he retired, so they have clout. And even then, they're not likely to force out a star player on that team.
Coaches have to be liked (to a certain degree), and very highly respected and trusted by the players. The strength of those last 2 has to be almost familial, where guys have to want to sacrifice for each other. They can criticize the team as a whole because that's fine, as long as they keep that "we're in it together" attitude. The second the sense of being a group is broken, the season is lost. They can maybe mention individuals, but they'll never just throw a guy under the bus. IF a reporter tries to trap a coach like Casey to say something bad about Andrea (or whoever), the worst he'll probably say is something like "we need Andrea to be better, and he can be, but we need everybody to play better because it takes a team effort to have a chance to win every night".
But if one man's play is clearly impacting the team negatively, or just so horrid even just on his own, the GM has every right to go out and criticize him, and talk about making changes. He's responsible for choosing teh talent and changing the talent. While you can blame a player for their play, you can blame a GM for getting that player. The coach actually has very little impact on individual play, and the level depends on how much players buy in. If everyone buys in, usually everybody looks good, and when someone doesn't, it's probably not the coaches fault and probably more like the Raps PG situation, where you have 2 players and just not enough minuts for them. So a GM has every right to say something like "so-and-so isn't giving us what we need, especialy on the glass, so we could have to make a change in the best interest of our team moving forward".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote