Scott Skiles: Yay or Nay?

[europa]

I'm pleased with the move. I might have preferred Carlisle, but his resume is fairly similar to Skiles'. I think the fact that so many veteran coaches were available means some people got wedded to the idea of one guy or the other, but given where this franchise has been and their inability to attract "name" coaches in the past, I think this is overall a good thing. Let's keep in mind JVG never appeared interested and Brown is probably the biggest gamble of any of these guys.

There is no dream coach out there...just a number of guys who have consistently won games while having some flaws. But that's the way the NBA goes...the number of superstar head coaches right now is exceptionally short: Jackson, Pop, and Sloan (and even he has never won a title). Maybe D'Antoni, but I think that's getting ahead of things.

I don't expect Skiles to last ten years or anything, but with a team that's starting over and working with a GM who wants to bring in the sort of players he likes, Skiles has the chance to turn this team around within a year or two IMO. Hopefully he learns from his previous experiences and becomes better at managing the way he interacts with players, but that's part of the deal--being a hardass causes problems at times, but it's also what makes him successful.

Bottom line: if you told me two months ago that we'd have Hammond (and Weltman) in the front office and Skiles as our coach, I would have taken it in a second. Now let's start working on that roster...

Well said.

[Whiteman]

I voted "nay", but would have voted "meh" if that had been an option.

It'll be good to have a coach who knows his X's and O's, has support from the FO (good point Smauss) and has experience as a head coach. But he seems to antagonize players easily, and from all accounts has a very demanding style that few players can cope with over the long haul.

I really hope he can give this team an identity: a mindset that the whole team can buy into, but I'm not convinced.

[europa]

But he seems to antagonize players easily, and from all accounts has a very demanding style that few players can cope with over the long haul.

That sounds exactly like George Karl. If Skiles can duplicate that turnaround I'll be a happy Buck fan.

[MILILL]

No point in questioning it now as it appears to be a done deal. Let's give this guy our support. He's old school, he's a general and I think he will weed out the hard working from the selfish.

I'm almost certain that Skiles will have a say in trade proposals. Perhaps he was told that he will be an integral part in the decision making of the make-up of the new roster.

[Bogut'sBallas]

The Bucks desperately need a "no-nonsense" guy, and they'll be getting that with Skiles.

[Epicurus]

Players!!! The NBA is players.


Every so often the reminder must be offered that the NBA is not like college or high school, as far as coaching. I love the stuff about he, whomever he is, will separate those players offering effort from those who don't. Maybe, maybe not. The players don't start from the same place. Pay matters. Owners get very displeased when those they are paying much to get less time than those whom get less pay from them. So do many fans, not to mention the heretofore goto player.

Now if say Skiles plays hardass and gets some early success, then for awhile it will be accepted. The problem, however, that it must be the threats that work and not the delivery on the threats, since pay correlates decently with performance (not as well as it should, but in all the higher paid layers are substantially better than the lower paid ones). On the other hand, if the threat is delivered upon and the team loses more, all is not loss, as it opens the possibility of a better following year, especially if the fans don't get too restless and the gm uses the time and the disappointments with players to get more Skiles style players.

I think we see in Skiles at Chicago that happening. The Bulls won 23 games before Skiles and won less under him the first year( in 66 games v. 82, but I think a lower percentage or the same)). But then he got what he wanted both from and in players and won 47 games, 41 (when the Bucks won 40 under an idiot), 49, and 9 (of 25).

It should be a nice experiment of a defensive minded coach with a nondefensive squad. I hope the Bucks make no move but the coaching change, so we can see if defense is a matter of player defensive talents or the hard demands of a head coach. And it would be interesting to see that if it is the latter, what effect greater defensive attention means to offensive performance (although this season indicates that offensive performance might have been overestimated).

[europa]

I hope the Bucks make no move but the coaching change

I feel quite confident in saying you're the only person in this forum who hopes that occurs.

[WRau1]

Epi,

Do you think Stotts would take an assistant job in NY if Jackson gets Head Coach? If Larry Harris gets GM would that impact his decision?

[Epicurus]

-= original quote snipped =-



I feel quite confident in saying you're the only person in this forum who hopes that occurs.

But it would help settle many arguments regarding player talent v. head coaching and focus on one area and impact on another. Damn, man, sometimes science must be served.

I should add that besides the new firebrand coach with an established winning percentage and the same players, the experiment would require the type of health the Bucks had this season. No one can make much sense from a situation of the previous season where 32% of playing time went to guys who were not offered NBA contracts the following year. I mean that is just bizarre and no sane person would conclude anything from such a situation, would they?

[Epicurus]

Epi,

Do you think Stotts would take an assistant job in NY if Jackson gets Head Coach? If Larry Harris gets GM would that impact his decision?

If offered and nothing better on the table, yes to your first question. I would hope it would impact his decision to the negative, to your second question. You can only get knifed in the back so many times by one other human being.

[CorporateBucks]

I find that I can't say no. It's been a long time where our offense has been either great, or mediocre, to go along with a defense that is always poor. Now, we are supposedly bringing in a guy who has always turned his teams into top defensive teams, which is what bucks fans have been wanting for a decade.

[Epicurus]

[quote="CorporateBucks"]I find that I can't say no. It's been a long time where our offense has been either great, or mediocre, to go along with a defense that is always poor. {/quote]

Huh?

[CorporateBucks]

Huh?[/quote]

What's the problem fella.

[Epicurus]

The problem, fella, is your claim that it has been a long time that the Bucks has had an excellent or even mediorcre offense. That is simply wrong, fella. Try building your case on accuracy and not erroneous claims that are compatible to your conclusion. Ok, fella?

[Jollay]

The people who say Skiles is a bad hire because he never will take a team to a championship make absolutely no sense.

Yeah, with a real coach they woulda seen Ben Gordon or Kirk Hinrich as finals MVP in no time....

How exactly does one know this? And has anyone informed these people that it is difficult to garner winning records in the playoffs?

[CorporateBucks]

Well I'll give it a shot next time, I just like to keep in mind that I'm on an internet forum, so I try to not take these things too seriously. But I think you could understand what I'm trying to say, everyone wants the bucks to play better defense and it's been year after year of promising that they will. With skiles it seems he's been the only one that we can go into a season feeling he knows what he's doing.

But yes, maybe saying great for our offense was a bit over the edge.

[NeedsMoreCheese]

Well I'll give it a shot next time, I just like to keep in mind that I'm on an internet forum, so I try to not take these things too seriously. But I think you could understand what I'm trying to say, everyone wants the bucks to play better defense and it's been year after year of promising that they will. With skiles it seems he's been the only one that we can go into a season feeling he knows what he's doing.

But yes, maybe saying great for our offense was a bit over the edge.

Well on the plus side, he hasnt called you a terrorist yet, so youve got that to look forward to.

[Epicurus]

Well I'll give it a shot next time, I just like to keep in mind that I'm on an internet forum, so I try to not take these things too seriously. But I think you could understand what I'm trying to say, everyone wants the bucks to play better defense and it's been year after year of promising that they will. With skiles it seems he's been the only one that we can go into a season feeling he knows what he's doing.

But yes, maybe saying great for our offense was a bit over the edge.

Yes, Skiles may improve the defense and it certainly has needed improvement for around a decade. I still don't see why to make that case the offense for a LONG TIME not even being mediocre was said. But like you say, it is but an internet forum, so who cares about facts.

[Jollay]

-= original quote snipped =-



I feel quite confident in saying you're the only person in this forum who hopes that occurs.

That would be a negative. I completely concur at least until the trading deadline next year. Stand pat, bring in another rook and assess these guys for the final time, and come up with our final nucleus.

Unless we get a real sweetheart deal somewhere, which we won't.

[CorporateBucks]

[quote="CorporateBucks"]I find that I can't say no. It's been a long time where our offense has been either great, or mediocre.

I said either they have been great, or just mediocre, I don't think our offense was good this year, but it has been great in recent years. But that seems to be the aspect that is changing, never the defense, which is always bad.