IUFLA Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 1 hour ago, NCHoosier32 said: i personally think these are great debates. on a much smaller level, when i was coaching girls high school bball early in my career we won a conference championship and i yelled and screamed all the time, did the drills and prep that i thought were best, etc., etc. later in my career the players i had needed to be coddled more and i had to be a little more buddy buddy off the court than i really wanted, and mostly had to be creative in my practices with new drills all the time and fun stuff to keep them from complaining and to keep them engaged and working hard. that's honestly when i decided i didn't want to do it anymore. i believed in order to get my girls to play hard for me i had to do drills that i didn't believe were as good as other drills i liked for example. i had to take it easy certain days and times to keep them happy. i don't believe that made them as good of basketball players that i could have because they more less wouldn't allow it. unfortunately i think that is a trade off you have to make these days and thus don't get as much out of kids as you could. i felt my strength was getting kids to play hard, but the only way i could still do it was to be who i was not. that was emotionally draining. make sense? No, makes perfect sense to me. And that was my point... In the "Perfect in 76" documentary I watched, RMK said the kind of kids you win with (and he was talking about Buckner and Wilkerson who he said was the greatest defensive backcourt ever...and I believe it) were "tough and smart." They could take RMK's stuff and prosper. That was true in 76, but in the 90s, guys like Andrae Patterson, Luke Recker, and Neil Reed couldn't take the same level of criticism and build off of it... I think RMK did say one time that he hadn't changed, but the kids and parents had... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btownqb Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 42 minutes ago, IUFLA said: No, makes perfect sense to me. And that was my point... In the "Perfect in 76" documentary I watched, RMK said the kind of kids you win with (and he was talking about Buckner and Wilkerson who he said was the greatest defensive backcourt ever...and I believe it) were "tough and smart." They could take RMK's stuff and prosper. That was true in 76, but in the 90s, guys like Andrae Patterson, Luke Recker, and Neil Reed couldn't take the same level of criticism and build off of it... I think RMK did say one time that he hadn't changed, but the kids and parents had... It's a coaches job to adapt to the times. That's the sign of a good/great coach. Stubbornness will only get you so far in the coaching world. I coach under a HOFer in football (83% winning percentage in 27 years, 13 sectionals and 19 conference titles). The man is probably as hot headed and foul mouthed as I've ever been in contact with, BUT.. when we're in the coaches office or the office.. he is CONSTANTLY allowing assistant coaches to make decisions and listening to their opinions. There are millions of things he's adjusted/altered over the years in his Xs and Os, but also the way he goes about handling players and parents. Whether its him being able to be more calm or simply allowing an asst coach to handle these situations more often, he can swallow his pride because he understands that it's for the betterment of the program for him to at times. Bob Knight never understood that, he always assumed he was right, he couldn't swallow his pride and he damn sure didnt adjust with the times. That's on him, not parents and players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUFLA Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 21 minutes ago, btownqb said: It's a coaches job to adapt to the times. That's the sign of a good/great coach. Stubbornness will only get you so far in the coaching world. I coach under a HOFer in football (83% winning percentage in 27 years, 13 sectionals and 19 conference titles). The man is probably as hot headed and foul mouthed as I've ever been in contact with, BUT.. when we're in the coaches office or the office.. he is CONSTANTLY allowing assistant coaches to make decisions and listening to their opinions. There are millions of things he's adjusted/altered over the years in his Xs and Os, but also the way he goes about handling players and parents. Whether its him being able to be more calm or simply allowing an asst coach to handle these situations more often, he can swallow his pride because he understands that it's for the betterment of the program for him to at times. Bob Knight never understood that, he always assumed he was right, he couldn't swallow his pride and he damn sure didnt adjust with the times. That's on him, not parents and players. I'd make the distinction that coaching in high school vs college is different simply by fact of the practice of recruiting alone. RMK use to be able to recruit kids that could take his stuff...toward the end, he couldn't. And you're absolutely correct in saying he was never going to swallow his pride and adjust. I guess my point is, even if he had adjusted, would he have been able to get the level of effort out of kids that he had previously? He was known for being able to take a team with less talent and win, but I believe much of that was through the force of his personality. Lord knows his reputation alone was going to pare down the recruits available to him... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGleas Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, IUFLA said: I'd make the distinction that coaching in high school vs college is different simply by fact of the practice of recruiting alone. RMK use to be able to recruit kids that could take his stuff...toward the end, he couldn't. And you're absolutely correct in saying he was never going to swallow his pride and adjust. I guess my point is, even if he had adjusted, would he have been able to get the level of effort out of kids that he had previously? He was known for being able to take a team with less talent and win, but I believe much of that was through the force of his personality. Lord knows his reputation alone was going to pare down the recruits available to him... I think the bolded is a bit of a myth that's grown over time. Bob Knight's best teams had a crazy amount of talent. Maybe the '87 title team falls under this mantra a bit, though Smart, Alford and Garrett were really talented, even though their NBA careers didn't pan out as great. On the general topic of the discussion, I think btownqb's point is that once Knight couldn't recruit kids that could 'take his stuff', he was then unable to adjust his methods to get the most out of the kids he did have. Instead, he just tried to force feed his methods in a changing environment, instead of adapting to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUFLA Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 10 minutes ago, BGleas said: I think the bolded is a bit of a myth that's grown over time. Bob Knight's best teams had a crazy amount of talent. Maybe the '87 title team falls under this mantra a bit, though Smart, Alford and Garrett were really talented, even though their NBA careers didn't pan out as great. On the general topic of the discussion, I think btownqb's point is that once Knight couldn't recruit kids that could 'take his stuff', he was then unable to adjust his methods to get the most out of the kids he did have. Instead, he just tried to force feed his methods in a changing environment, instead of adapting to it. I don't know...I look at Knights 5 Final 4 teams, and I see some NBA players, but beyond Isaiah Thomas, how many All-Stars? I don't believe it was "myth" at all. Listen to his peers...most of them certainly didn't think so. And to your second point, I was in agreement with @btownqb assessment...my point is, had he been able to adjust would he have been able to win with the talent he could recruit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btownqb Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 13 minutes ago, IUFLA said: I don't know...I look at Knights 5 Final 4 teams, and I see some NBA players, but beyond Isaiah Thomas, how many All-Stars? I don't believe it was "myth" at all. Listen to his peers...most of them certainly didn't think so. And to your second point, I was in agreement with @btownqb assessment...my point is, had he been able to adjust would he have been able to win with the talent he could recruit. From 1976-1993- so 17 years we had 3 NPOY (Isaiah wasnt one of those) and 11 All Americans, we had 15 MCAA, 8 times players were named BTPOY, 4 BTFPOY, 4 players during that span inducted into the CBB HOF. Big time talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUFLA Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 6 minutes ago, btownqb said: From 1976-1993- so 17 years we had 3 NPOY (Isaiah wasnt one of those) and 11 All Americans, we had 15 MCAA, 8 times players were named BTPOY, 4 BTFPOY, 4 players during that span inducted into the CBB HOF. Big time talent. Big time college talent...yes... No one said he didn't have any talent...but, did he have as much as Dean Smith? John Wooden? Coach K? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGleas Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 1 minute ago, IUFLA said: I don't know...I look at Knights 5 Final 4 teams, and I see some NBA players, but beyond Isaiah Thomas, how many All-Stars? I don't believe it was "myth" at all. Listen to his peers...most of them certainly didn't think so. And to your second point, I was in agreement with @btownqb assessment...my point is, had he been able to adjust would he have been able to win with the talent he could recruit. They might not all have panned out in the NBA, but the 74-76 teams had Kent Benson who was the #1 pick, Scott May who was the #2 pick, Quinn Buckner who played 10 years in the NBA, and Tom Abernathy played 4+ seasons. The '81 team had a generational point guard talent, along with Landon Turner would have played in the NBA for a long time, Randy Wittman was a 1st round pick and played several years in the NBA, and Jim Thomas played multiple years in the NBA. Agree, the '87 team probably falls under the less talent matra. But then even the early 90's teams had Calbert Cheaney, Alan Henderson, Greg Graham, Eric Anderson and Brian Evans who all played in the NBA. Cheaney and Henderson were 10+ years guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGleas Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 17 minutes ago, IUFLA said: Big time college talent...yes... No one said he didn't have any talent...but, did he have as much as Dean Smith? John Wooden? Coach K? During that time period Coach K was known as the guy who's talent never panned out in the NBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUFLA Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 1 minute ago, BGleas said: They might not all have panned out in the NBA, but the 74-76 teams had Kent Benson who was the #1 pick, Scott May who was the #2 pick, Quinn Buckner who played 10 years in the NBA, and Tom Abernathy played 4+ seasons. The '81 team had a generational point guard talent, along with Landon Turner would have played in the NBA for a long time, Randy Wittman was a 1st round pick and played several years in the NBA, and Jim Thomas played multiple years in the NBA. Agree, the '87 team probably falls under the less talent matra. But then even the early 90's teams had Calbert Cheaney, Alan Henderson, Greg Graham, Eric Anderson and Brian Evans who all played in the NBA. Cheaney and Henderson were 10+ years guys. But that's my point..."didn't pan out in the NBA." Does that mean they weren't talented enough to be NBA All Stars, or did Knight wring more out of the talent they did have? Calbert Cheaney played in the NBA for 12 years and averaged 10 points per. Scott May 7 years and 10 per? We're they just not good enough to be All Stars even though they were POYs in college? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGleas Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 1 minute ago, IUFLA said: But that's my point..."didn't pan out in the NBA." Does that mean they weren't talented enough to be NBA All Stars, or did Knight wring more out of the talent they did have? Calbert Cheaney played in the NBA for 12 years and averaged 10 points per. Scott May 7 years and 10 per? We're they just not good enough to be All Stars even though they were POYs in college? First, averaging 10ppg over 10+ years in the NBA means you're one of the most elite players on the planet, second, Scott May averaged 14ppg as a rookie, then injuries derailed his career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUFLA Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 1 minute ago, BGleas said: First, averaging 10ppg over 10+ years in the NBA means you're one of the most elite players on the planet, second, Scott May averaged 14ppg as a rookie, then injuries derailed his career. Did he, Henderson, or Calbert Cheaney ever make an All Star team? The point is, sure, they were talented. But they were better players in college for a reason. I understand the talent discrepancy in their opponents in college, but they were MVPs in college, but never rose to those heights in the pros. So one simple question will suffice for me... Do you think Bob Knight was a great coach? Xs and Os wise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGleas Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 1 minute ago, IUFLA said: Did he, Henderson, or Calbert Cheaney ever make an All Star team? The point is, sure, they were talented. But they were better players in college for a reason. I understand the talent discrepancy in their opponents in college, but they were MVPs in college, but never rose to those heights in the pros. So one simple question will suffice for me... Do you think Bob Knight was a great coach? Xs and Os wise? Of course he was. But at the same time, his elite Final Four/Title teams had elite, high-end talent on them. What happens to people in the NBA can come down to a variety of numerous reasons beyond how talented they are. Cheaney is a guy that was averaging 15-16ppg for a couple years, then he had some injuries and I believe some personal issues as well. Scott May was well on his way to a successful NBA career before injuries. Alan Henderson was a "Most Improved Player" and had a 4-year span where he averaged 10+ points. Not every college title team has NBA all-stars on it, but it doesn't mean they don't have elite, high-end talent. Coach K's teams were stacked, yet his 2001 title team had one NBA all-star and it was Carlos Boozer who only a 2-time, fringe all-star. His 2010 and 2015 title teams didn't have any NBA All-Stars, yet they were supremely talented. The Maryland team that beat IU in 2002 was stacked, yet zero NBA All-Stars. Knight Final Four and Title teams were stacked with elite talent (again, maybe 1987 being the outlier). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUFLA Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 Your contorting the argument...my point was many times the teams his teams were beating had superior talent, not that RMK didn't have any talent at all... Look at even 1976. IU beat a UCLA team (and defending National Champs) in the opening game of the season by 20. Beat them again in the Final 4 by 14. That UCLA team had 9 kids, including Marques Johnson, who averaged 20 ppg over a long NBA career, that played in the NBA. 9. Yet they got ran out of the gym twice by Indiana who had 6 guys who played in the NBA. So even given the fact that UCLA had talent as good as IU's, they got smoked. Twice. Why? And how about 1984? Did IU even belong on the same floor as UNC? Uwe Blab and Steve Alford vs Jorden, Perkins, Daugherty, and Kenny Smith...are you kidding me? Even in 81 UNC had Perkins, Worthy, and Al Wood. And IU beat hem by 13. So I don't think 87 is an outlier at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgambill Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 22 minutes ago, IUFLA said: Did he, Henderson, or Calbert Cheaney ever make an All Star team? The point is, sure, they were talented. But they were better players in college for a reason. I understand the talent discrepancy in their opponents in college, but they were MVPs in college, but never rose to those heights in the pros. So one simple question will suffice for me... Do you think Bob Knight was a great coach? Xs and Os wise? Coach Knight was one of the innovators of the motion offense. He was an extremely good coach no doubt. Winning a National Championship is so so difficult. The single elimination tournament is just so tough to navigate. I mean great coaches like Dean Smith indeed had better talented players and won less championships. We all can debate but imo Knight maximized the talent of kids while they were in his program for the most part. I think he sped up the process for reaching their true potential. The fact they didn’t translate mostly to the NBA...just means what makes a great college player and NBA are different. Sure some a transcendent talents across all levels (Jordan, Kareem, Lebron, Magic) but how many guys like Adam Morrison or say Jimmy Fredette etc etc that we’re great college players but there game just didn’t translate to the pros. I think Knight had incredible talent but I would say that he maximized a lot of their potential and played a system that while maybe didn’t exactly correlate to the NBA was immensely successful at the college level. I wouldn’t say it was all Knight but I would say he recognized talent that would fit well into his system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGleas Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 21 minutes ago, IUFLA said: Your contorting the argument...my point was many times the teams his teams were beating had superior talent, not that RMK didn't have any talent at all... Look at even 1976. IU beat a UCLA team (and defending National Champs) in the opening game of the season by 20. Beat them again in the Final 4 by 14. That UCLA team had 9 kids, including Marques Johnson, who averaged 20 ppg over a long NBA career, that played in the NBA. 9. Yet they got ran out of the gym twice by Indiana who had 6 guys who played in the NBA. So even given the fact that UCLA had talent as good as IU's, they got smoked. Twice. Why? And how about 1984? Did IU even belong on the same floor as UNC? Uwe Blab and Steve Alford vs Jorden, Perkins, Daugherty, and Kenny Smith...are you kidding me? Even in 81 UNC had Perkins, Worthy, and Al Wood. And IU beat hem by 13. So I don't think 87 is an outlier at all... You're splitting hairs. Yes, there were a team or two that maybe (maybe being a keyword) had a little more talent, but Knight's best teams had more talent than 99% of the rest of college basketball. Knight's teams were in the "have's" of the college basketball world, not the "have nots". So yes, UCLA had a couple more NBA guys and UNC maybe had a guy or two that ended up being better NBA players than the NBA players on IU, but Bob Knight had elite, high-end talent on his best teams. Like better talent than every team in college basketball except maybe 1 or 2 others. His '76 team has two players who were top 2 NBA picks, and his '81 team had the best point guard in college basketball who ended being one of the best point guard in NBA history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUFLA Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 50 minutes ago, BGleas said: You're splitting hairs. Yes, there were a team or two that maybe (maybe being a keyword) had a little more talent, but Knight's best teams had more talent than 99% of the rest of college basketball. Knight's teams were in the "have's" of the college basketball world, not the "have nots". So yes, UCLA had a couple more NBA guys and UNC maybe had a guy or two that ended up being better NBA players than the NBA players on IU, but Bob Knight had elite, high-end talent on his best teams. Like better talent than every team in college basketball except maybe 1 or 2 others. His '76 team has two players who were top 2 NBA picks, and his '81 team had the best point guard in college basketball who ended being one of the best point guard in NBA history. Ok, don't believe me... But here's what Jim Calhoun, Dick Vitale, and Gene Keady say... Best with less talent: Keady: Knight. Vitale: Knight could take even mediocre talent and get them to play their hearts out, to play to the best of their ability. Calhoun: Anybody who played for Knight instantly become better. He determined their role. I would say both could judge talent, and both could mold it. Steve Alford was a better college player because of Knight Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeking6 Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 1 hour ago, IUFLA said: Your contorting the argument...my point was many times the teams his teams were beating had superior talent, not that RMK didn't have any talent at all... Look at even 1976. IU beat a UCLA team (and defending National Champs) in the opening game of the season by 20. Beat them again in the Final 4 by 14. That UCLA team had 9 kids, including Marques Johnson, who averaged 20 ppg over a long NBA career, that played in the NBA. 9. Yet they got ran out of the gym twice by Indiana who had 6 guys who played in the NBA. So even given the fact that UCLA had talent as good as IU's, they got smoked. Twice. Why? And how about 1984? Did IU even belong on the same floor as UNC? Uwe Blab and Steve Alford vs Jorden, Perkins, Daugherty, and Kenny Smith...are you kidding me? Even in 81 UNC had Perkins, Worthy, and Al Wood. And IU beat hem by 13. So I don't think 87 is an outlier at all... All day long. People saying the talent Knight had to work with was on par with Carolina or Georgetown or Houston or Kentucky or Louisville or Duke (late 80's)...shoot or even the bought and paid for kids at Michigan and Illinois in the 80's is just plain comical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeking6 Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 1 hour ago, BGleas said: You're splitting hairs. Yes, there were a team or two that maybe (maybe being a keyword) had a little more talent, but Knight's best teams had more talent than 99% of the rest of college basketball. Knight's teams were in the "have's" of the college basketball world, not the "have nots". So yes, UCLA had a couple more NBA guys and UNC maybe had a guy or two that ended up being better NBA players than the NBA players on IU, but Bob Knight had elite, high-end talent on his best teams. Like better talent than every team in college basketball except maybe 1 or 2 others. His '76 team has two players who were top 2 NBA picks, and his '81 team had the best point guard in college basketball who ended being one of the best point guard in NBA history. Carolina maybe had a guy or two ended up being better NBA players? Yep. I think they did. I'd say about 5-6 more than we ever had. To me Dean Smith was one of the biggest (Calipari of our time) failures given his talent related to titles. 1989 team. I understand it might be in the splitting hairs category (since 1987 is considered an outlier now) but he had a starting lineup in addition to Edwards/Jones....he had the formidable Jadlow, Sloan, and Hillman to go with the...Yes..I know Anderson played in the league but 15-3 that year vs what Michigan, Illinois, Ohio St and others had? Yes. Knight's title winning teams had talent....but it was nowhere near the talent 80% of the other top 10 programs (at the time) had. Of course just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUFLA Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, Seeking6 said: To me Dean Smith was one of the biggest (Calipari of our time) failures given his talent related to titles. I think Smith was a great coach, but you're right...the talent he had over the years, and to think he was a Fred Brown pass and a Chris Webber timeout from taking the doughnut... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeking6 Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 1 minute ago, IUFLA said: I think Smith was a great coach, but you're right...the talent he had over the years, and to think he was a Fred Brown pass and a Chris Webber timeout from taking the doughnut... Yep. Again...all day long. Great conversation and thread....but anyone suggesting Knight had or needed elite talent to win just wasn't paying attention for a couple decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IU Scott Posted March 30, 2020 Report Share Posted March 30, 2020 3 hours ago, BGleas said: I think the bolded is a bit of a myth that's grown over time. Bob Knight's best teams had a crazy amount of talent. Maybe the '87 title team falls under this mantra a bit, though Smart, Alford and Garrett were really talented, even though their NBA careers didn't pan out as great. On the general topic of the discussion, I think btownqb's point is that once Knight couldn't recruit kids that could 'take his stuff', he was then unable to adjust his methods to get the most out of the kids he did have. Instead, he just tried to force feed his methods in a changing environment, instead of adapting to it. I think some of that reputation came from the 84 team making the elite 8 and the 89 team that won the big ten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGleas Posted March 31, 2020 Report Share Posted March 31, 2020 2 hours ago, Seeking6 said: Yep. Again...all day long. Great conversation and thread....but anyone suggesting Knight had or needed elite talent to win just wasn't paying attention for a couple decades. I didn't say he needed elite talent, I said he had elite talent. To say otherwise is flatout 100% false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGleas Posted March 31, 2020 Report Share Posted March 31, 2020 1975-76 team: Had 4 players drafted in the first 11 picks of the NBA Draft and another drafted in the 2nd round 1980-81 team: Had 3 first round picks, not including Landon Turner who clearly would have been, and two 2nd round picks. So if you count Turner, that's 6 guys drafted in the first two rounds on one team. 1986-87 team: Again, yes an outlier for Knight in terms of winning a title and the level of talent. This is truly a team that won with less talent. 3 draft picks, but all 2nd rounders Early 90's teams: Had 4 players drafted in the first round of the NBA draft Was Knight phenomenal at getting role players to play above their talent level, absolutely, and he was great at getting his high-end talent to buy-in. He's also a master tactician and motivator. But make no mistake, his best teams, the teams that won titles and went to Final Fours, except for maybe '87, had top-flight, elite talent. The kind of talent that gets your drafted in lottery and first round of the NBA draft. His teams that didn't get that far absolutely fall under the "win more with less" mantra, I'm not disagreeing with that. He got a ton out teams that other coaches couldn't. But to get over the hump, like any coach at any level, he needed elite, NBA level players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeking6 Posted March 31, 2020 Report Share Posted March 31, 2020 40 minutes ago, BGleas said: 1975-76 team: Had 4 players drafted in the first 11 picks of the NBA Draft and another drafted in the 2nd round 1980-81 team: Had 3 first round picks, not including Landon Turner who clearly would have been, and two 2nd round picks. So if you count Turner, that's 6 guys drafted in the first two rounds on one team. 1986-87 team: Again, yes an outlier for Knight in terms of winning a title and the level of talent. This is truly a team that won with less talent. 3 draft picks, but all 2nd rounders Early 90's teams: Had 4 players drafted in the first round of the NBA draft Was Knight phenomenal at getting role players to play above their talent level, absolutely, and he was great at getting his high-end talent to buy-in. He's also a master tactician and motivator. But make no mistake, his best teams, the teams that won titles and went to Final Fours, except for maybe '87, had top-flight, elite talent. The kind of talent that gets your drafted in lottery and first round of the NBA draft. His teams that didn't get that far absolutely fall under the "win more with less" mantra, I'm not disagreeing with that. He got a ton out teams that other coaches couldn't. But to get over the hump, like any coach at any level, he needed elite, NBA level players. So just for conversation and logic you'll also agree that Brad Stevens needed Hayward and Shelvin Mack (2 NBA Players) and Bo Ryan needed 2-3 NBA guys on his Final 4 teams to become classified as tacticians and good coaches? Kind of diminishes the coaching profession if you ask me....basically says the coach doesn't matter unless I'm reading you wrong? Again...fun conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.