Oso planning to go pro
Smart is not a good player. The Cavs have good players.
Watch the games closely. Both his set plays and plays after time out always seem to put the right players in the right position. He is a damn good coach. Unlike Kerr who just seems to roll the ball out there. Golden State plays "sloppy", while Boston seems to play much more disciplined.
I'll stick with my opinion on Gold. He'll be in foul trouble within the first eight minutes.
Don't get me wrong I think he's good enough to coach in the NBA, but any head coach can run good sets out of time outs. Does he have this much success without IMO the best GM in the game building his roster? Would he make any non-playoff team a playoff team? Other than possibly Denver, I don't think he does. I think the trend right now in all sports is to apply to much praise/blame on the head coach/manager, when it should be going to the GM. Kerr didn't build the Warriors roster, but he has certainly gotten a lot of praise for their recent success.
Stevens is an outstanding coach. Watch his in game adjustments, offensive and defensive schemes. Moreover, watch his timeout huddles. He has the utmost attention and respect of his team. GM Ainge pulled off a real coup having him leave Butler. I'd put Stevens up there with the finest NBA head coaches.
If being able to make adjustments and having players attention is the only criteria for being an outstanding coach, then there are quite a few of them out there. If Stevens were the coach of the Raptors this year, how many games do you think they win in the series against the Cavs, going up against a much worse coach in Ty Lue? I'd put the over/under at 1.5. End of the day, the best coach in the world could have been in Phoenix last year, but without a good GM, the Suns would have only been marginally better.
Stevens is obviously a great coach. I don't understand what metrics one could find to argue otherwise.You are judged on performance. He did a great job at Butler - got a mid-major to two consecutive NCAA championship games, for crissakes. He then took over a dumpster fire in Boston and has improved the team's record and playoff performance every single year. Right now, his team is without its PG, who also happens to be one of the NBA's dozen best players; the Celtics also have gone the entire season without the guy who was supposed to be their leading scorer. And yet he has them within one win of the NBA Finals.Obviously Ainge deserves a ton of credit. I know nobody who would argue otherwise. And while we're handing out credit, the players deserve most of it.But jeesh.I guess Stevens needs to light victory cigars to move up a notch in the eyes of some tough critics.
Ok, no where did I say that he was a bad coach. I said he was good enough to be in the NBA, in order to do that, you obviously have to be good. Getting players to play hard and smart is important, but identifying which players can do that and bringing them to your organization is more important. Stevens deserves credit, you don't get this far without coaching ability, but Ainge making the moves that he has is a bigger reason why the C's are where they are. You don't win 53 games, get the number one seed and then return 4 players next year and have this kind of success unless your GM is literally making ALL the right moves.
I give them all credit: the GM, the coach and the players. Not sure how anybody can identify who deserves what percent.I don't think I accused you of saying Stevens was a bad coach. If I did, I apologize.
The point that I am trying to make is that at that level, all coaches are essentially Rain Man about basketball, so I think the level of coaching is just as high as it can go, and there are a bunch of coaches that are at the ceiling, or very near it. You can call and execute a play perfectly, but if I'm out there, the shot's probably not going in. Players make plays, but it comes down to the GM's being able to identify the best players and best trades to give their coaches the best tools to win. Players make the shots and physical plays that none of us can. Coaches get players to work together (to varying degrees), but the GM is the one behind the scenes making the moves that really get things done. That's why I think Danny Ainge should be getting more credit than Stevens. IMO he has been perfect the last 18 months.
Smart is tough, versatile and good defensively. So I think you're wrong about him. And, more importantly, so does Brad Stevens. I'd rather have Smart than Hill, as one comparison.
I probably shouldn't have said "not good". I agree with what you say about him, but I think most are underestimating the importance of:1. Having the right types of players for the roster (as others have noted this is on the GM).2. Having a coach that puts those players in a position to succeed. My point is that the Cavs have a lot of talent, but Lue doesn't know what to do with them. The Celtics have no business being in the finals with what remains of their roster; the ability of Stevens to get them to buy in to his plans, and get them to execute is pretty damn amazing. They are incredibly fun to watch, because all the players have a lot of warts, but Stevens hides them well.
No Kevin Love. Cavs win anyway.LeBron 46-11-9.What more needs to be said? (Except that LeBron obviously wasn't good enough to get a triple-double)
Lebron and a group of replacement level players that can be had at any time in the NBA.I always pooh-poohed the idea that he could be better than Jordan. That has changed this year.Durrant, Harden, Curry, Westbrook, Giannis, etc. may be great, but Lebron is clearly the MVP in this league - this year and every year. He does things on a nightly basis that these other guys cannot do. Durrant and Harden could only get to where they are at with Great players around them. James doesn't need that.
As it is, carrying Cleveland to the Finals as a 22-year-old with a team whose next 3 best players were Larry Hughes, Drew Gooden and Zydrunas Ilgauskas already is one of the most incredible achievements ever ... but most people only remember champions.
Why was it so incredible? The entire East was crap that year (just like this year). Cleveland was favored to win every series, and had the 2nd best record in the East. It wasn't particularly surprising. That roster, although not great, was probably the best roster in the entire East. They had strong defensive players, and enough offense to win games. Whoever won the east that year was going to be swept by whichever team won the west. Saying it was an amazing achievement fails to remember how historically bad the entire east was.Same thing this year, roster has 2 all-stars. He is getting accolades for doing well in a crapty conference. He wouldn't have even made the playoffs if he was in the West.
Same thing this year, roster has 2 all-stars. He is getting accolades for doing well in a crapty conference. He wouldn't have even made the playoffs if he was in the West.
You don't think the Cavs make the playoffs this year had they been in the West? That's nonsense.The East is better this year than it has the last few years. The top of the West is clearly better, but it isn't as deep as it has been recently.
Silliness. The kind of comment that strains the commenter's credibility.
In fact, I don't even think I'd venture to argue that I am even knowledgeable.