When the Sacramento Kings narrowed down their coaching search to the three finalists, Monte McNair opted for experience. Mike Brown, Steve Clifford, and Mark Jackson will all meet with McNair and company in the near future, and the team is no longer considering Mike D’Antoni, Darvin Ham, Charles Lee, or Will Hardy.
Even with D’Antoni out, it’s hard not to see those final three names and think the Kings have a strong preference for previous head coaching experience. In a year that saw many first-time coaches thrive—Taylor Jenkins in Memphis, Ime Udoka in Boston, Willie Green in New Orleans, and Chris Finch in Minnesota—McNair decided not to meet face-to-face with any of Ham, Lee, or Hardy, all promising young coaches waiting for their first shot at a head coaching opportunity. Many fans, myself very much included, were hoping for an up-and-coming ambitious young coach who could grow with this team, but whether intentional or not, there seems to be an experience requirement to meet in person with the Kings first-time general manager.
But even while the Kings final candidate list does lack some ambition (and indeed, the presence of one name threatens to toss myself and many other fans further into apathy), the common label I see bantered on Twitter – “retread coaches” – doesn’t always seem to fit any of these three remaining candidates.
Mike Brown has decades of experience, but is only 52 years old and has had a positive record in six of his eight years as a head coach. He also (unlike a certain candidate on this list) spent the last six years as an assistant coach, and helped prove his defensive chops by taking over the Warriors’ defense in recent years. If a retread coach is a candidate with multiple failed stops across the NBA, can we really assign Brown that label given the crazy Lakers firing in 2012 (six games into the season after a 1-5 start) or for that second stint with Cleveland given their young, middling roster?
Steve Clifford seems to fit more with the retread label, but the team context makes it difficult. He saw some quick success with an arguably overachieving Charlotte team for a few years, but failed to replicate that in his second stop with Orlando. Indeed, Clifford reportedly was fine to leave the Magic job and “was not prepared to sign an extension” with the team last summer after the team swung to rebuild mode. His 292-345 record may be concerning, but (and it feels weird to type this sentence out) this Kings roster, warts and all, might have the most on-paper talent of any of the teams Clifford has overseen in the past five seasons. He may have tons to prove about his coaching ability with a team trying (desperately, desperately trying) to be good.
And if we do consider either of these two to be retread candidates… wouldn’t we have said the same thing in 1998, when the Kings hired the best and only truly successful coach in franchise history? The great Rick Adelman was fired by Portland in 1994 after multiple 1st round playoff exists, then oversaw two years of the Warriors where the team went a combined 66-98. How would modern Kangz Twitter reacted to the hiring back in 1998? Just take a look at how the Sacramento Bee framed the hiring – “If (the Kings) wanted excitement, Scott Skiles was the man. If they wanted pedigree, Kurt Rambis got the call. If they wanted presence, that was Paul Silas…” Sounds like a lede that could be repurposed now considering the ambivalence many fans have towards Brown or Clifford.
https://twitter.com/lhx04/status/1520636114712727552?s=20&t=gjFiCPWsC8WKKJD7CjWqhA
(Side note – I will say, the similarities between Brown and Adelman are pretty funny. Their expertises may be on the opposite ends of the basketball court, but Rick was 52 when the Kings hired him, same as Brown is now. Plus…
https://twitter.com/Touchdown_al/status/1520622425330778112?s=20&t=gjFiCPWsC8WKKJD7CjWqhA
Mark Jackson is also not a retread coach; he’d have to have been trusted with another go-round to earn even that snarky label. He certainly was a strong part of the Golden State Warriors assent, helped instill a strong defensive identity for the squad, and it’s absolutely true that most of his star former players have publicly supported him. But Jackson can’t be a coaching retread when he’s had one head coaching gig, and—for one reason, or another, or many, many others—he hasn’t been a coach since 2014. He’s had interviews since then, including one with the Knicks in 2018, but as dozens and dozens of NBA head coaches have been hired and fired in that time, he hasn’t gotten a second gig… or even seriously considered (at least publicly). The Kings should absolutely not hire Mark Jackson.
Neither Brown or Clifford were my first choices for Kings coaches, but there are certainly reasons for optimism for both men. While I was quick to dismiss Brown when his name was first put on the list—he wasn’t the Warriors assistant we all wanted!—I’ve grown to respect his track record, doubt that either of his two final stops are truly indicative of his coaching abilities, and think that he might be the structure-based, defensive-first coach who is hungry enough to put in the work with this Kings team. And while I’d have loved to have seen the Kings hire an ambitious first-time coach, I can’t help but wonder what I’d have thought about the Kings hiring Adelman back in 1998. Adelman sure didn’t lack ambition, and I doubt Brown or Clifford do, either.
Clifford and Brown can win if the talent is good enough . It isn’t ! Sorry, just not a supporter of anything related to Jackson and hope he is not hired . Overall, very sad Ham was not on the list .
I see where you are going with this, but isn’t this basically true of almost every coach in the NBA? At best, you hope you get a coach who has a system that is in sync with the general manager, so they can maximize the talent, add a few wins, and then outcoach others in the playoffs.
But even most very good NBA coaches aren’t adding more than a handful of wins. And arguably, Brown at least has done that. Ironically, probably easiest to see in his last stop versus when he had LeBron or Kobe.
The 2013-2014 Cavs team that is held against him as they “only” won 33 games was nearly the same roster as the season before, but with Brown coaching instead of Byron Scott, they improved by 9 wins (24 -> 33) and increased their D-rating by 9 spots (28 -> 19).
In all seriousness, how many games do we think a lineup of 2nd year Kyrie, Hawes, Dion Waiters, Jarrett Jack, Tristan Thompson, and a 31 year old Varajeo is winning with Spoelstra, Popovich, Kerr, or whomever else you respect?
A good coach can help us, but the FO also needs to upgrade the talent. There’s a lot of focus on some great success stories of new coaches this season. But take someone like Udoka – he’s done a phenomenal job. But he’s also had Smart, Brown, Tatum, Horford, and Timelord.
Do we really think that if we had fired Luke and hired Udoka, we would have made the playoffs? I think we would have done better and maybe had a shot at the play-in. But I don’t think any coach we hired was going to be a miracle worker who elevated a rag tag roster of misfits to playoff glory.
Mark Jackson is not a retread, he is a full blown tire fire.
Steve Clifford is a retread because he does not excite me.
Mike Brown is not a retread because I like his experience and I like him as a head coaching candidate.
This isn’t hard, it’s what I say it is!
If those are the only 3 options, I’d say Brown is clearly the best option. Can’t discount the experience he’s gained under Kerr and the W’s teams of the last half decade plus.
Mark Jackson’s coaching record is 121 – 109 after starting 23 and 43. For those who like to look at coaching records as a proxy for qualifications he’s as qualified as any. Personally I don’t think any of these guys will make a difference with this roster and front office including ownership.
Him not having a job for 8 years has nothing to do with his coaching record.
Oh, and his coaching history does not scream, “well worth the side dish of toxicity!”
It’s not like you are hiring Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, or Spo/Pop and concluding, “screw it, I am willing to take on distractions due to the coaching prowess.”
And this goes way beyond just the Ws saying no one liked him after he was fired. We can’t just ignore crap like: 1 throwing Festis Ezeli under the bus to motivate his team; 2 mutinizing the Jazz against John Stockton to become the starter; 3 “praying for” an openly gay NBA player; etc.
Point is, there is way more to his H/O toxicity than just the Ws saying no one liked him.
I’m not an advocate for Jackson or any of these guys, I’m an advocate for improving the roster because that’s 99% of the problem. When it comes to coaching you really don’t know despite what your mind is telling you.
I hope you are right, but I believe that the problems within this organization run much deeper than that, and doubt that they’ll be fixed by a better roster.
Especially given the limited resources available to improve that roster, asset wise and money wise.
I mean you’re making different points. A good roster will cure the other perceived problems and yes limited resources makes it difficult to improve the roster significantly.
True, I wasn’t very clear.
I think a good roster does not cure all other problems, unless you have a very specific definition of “good roster”.
And in that regard I also think that it will be very hard to build a good enough roster here, given the limited resources, to overcome these problems in the near future.
We disagree on what a good roster will do but I don agree it’s a difficult but not impossible task in Sacramento.
I wonder what Harrison Barnes thinks about Jackson coming in and trying to exorcise his demon.
Q.1) So, what is the possibility that those interviewee assistant coaches wanted NO part of the head coach of the Kings, so they just had a bad interview so as not to be considered?
But there is only 30 NBA head coach jobs in NBA.
Q.2) The FO is in a hurry to hire the head coach before the draft lottery/ draft day, so that they did not wait until other Playoff coaches being fired ? (And take them into consideration)
Assistant coaches aren’t going to not even consider a HC position with the Kings, unless Vivek’s reputation around the league is that bad. So I guess, who knows.
I could be wrong, but my guess is low. There are only 30 coaching jobs. If they were not interested at all, they could have avoided the interview, especially as they are all still in the middle of their seasons. And it’s a very short road from “hot AC” to no longer considered, if your team dips in performance and other teams excel and their ACs jump to the front of the list.
Overall, maybe one of them did. It’s possible. But I think there’s a couple of factors that I would argue make it likely this was a front office decision.
First, if you look at Monte’s history in Houston, they hired Adelman, McHale, and D’Antoni. 3 proven coaches with track records of success. Not once did they dip into the “hot AC” pool trying to gamble on a new coach. We can argue if that was a good or bad approach, but it appears to be their MO.
Second, we know that next year is probably a make or break season for the front office. There’s an expectation that we make the playoffs. Maybe play-in saves their jobs. Maybe they have a two year runway, but still seems like the pressure and hot seat will start becoming scorching hot if the team doesn’t significantly improve this year. So I think it’s logical that the FO would want a proven coach.
Even if you believed the coach was good enough to get the team to the playoffs, but not win a championship – that would probably be fine with the FO. They can lose 3-4 playoff series before they felt any heat. Get to the playoffs and if you need to replace the coach in 2-3 years, deal with the problem then. But makes sense to me they wouldn’t want to roll the dice on a coach who might take 6 months+ just to learn how to be the head coach while on the job. That works if you hire a new coach to grow with your young, 24 win team. Not the make-or-break season when you need to make the playoffs. A proven quantity becomes a safer bet.
You are correct . Zero assistants with no head coaching experience ever turns down a job since they have no guarantee of ever getting another chance . Plenty of Elston Turners out there with 20 plus years of experience and not even interviewed .
deep thoughts, by Jack Handy
Unfortunately, Jack Handy did not make the list of finalists for the head coaching job.
we should be more worried about whether the tires have belt wedges and a strong skim stock rubber compound.
Touche!
“Some people are like slinkies,
They don’t really have a purpose,
But they still bring a smile to your face
When you push them down the stairs.”
-Jack Handy
Our organization is a slinky.
At this point, King’s fans will take any HC not named Mark Jackson.
I wouldn’t be so sure. Somehow I had missed all the controversy that had followed him until recently so I’m sure there are others that have only paid half attention to him. I’d say those here are more educated Kings fans.
So when you get your first opportunity, if you get lucky and get a hall of fame roster like Pat Riley and you win a championship people think you have some superior knowledge. In reality almost any NBA qualified coach could have coached that team to a championship. When you then win a championship with a loaded roster you have the luxury to pick and chose your next coaching position so the perception manifests itself. If you’re very qualified and you get your first job with a shit roster and a crappy front office and your team doesn’t win it makes it tough to get a quality opportunity for your next position and the cycle continues and then you’re known as a retread. In reality there’s not much difference between these coaches. Hell Doc Rivers won a championship and all that’s happen since is he’s been underachieving with loaded rosters. In reality is he really any better than Gentry.
You win with a quality roster and a quality front office who formulates the roster. Also I doubt anyone formulating an opinion on any of these coaches has any clue what they are recommending but it makes for good discussion. I’d rather discuss how to build a winning roster.
Spot on. I think some coaches are good or bad. But talent, roster build, and chemistry with the FO / shared vision plays a large role in success.
Pops is one of the best coaches of my lifetime and the Spurs have won between 32-34 games the last 3 seasons and haven’t made the playoffs. And it’s not because Pops forgot how to coach. He’s arguably gotten the best out of some flawed, rebuilding rosters. Replace him with Luke Walton and those teams might win 24-26 games.
But even the potential best coach of my lifetime can’t take an underwhelming roster with non-playoff talent and just will them to the playoffs via his brilliant coaching strategies. Maybe in college, but it just doesn’t work like that in the NBA.
So true, Pop had a 21 win season, Kerr a 15 win season and Riley a 16 and 17 win seasons . Also, Red Auerbach did not come close to a title until acquiring Bill Russell . Coaching is important but not close to super star talent .
I hope the FO takes its time with the hire.
Still a chance that Quin gets let go. I know he declined the last extension the Jazz offered last offseason, per Lowe. So Quin may want a change of scenery.
If you could have Fox or Lavine on the same contract, who would you take?
LaVine but if a teams top two paid players on max contracts are not even top 35 players and then you add the limitation of staying within the salary cap it is virtually impossible to create a winning roster. That is the challenge with keeping Sabonis. You need to give him a max contract to stay and then you have two sub 35 players on max contracts.
Sabonis is comfortably within the top 35 players.
No he’s not. Start adding them up before you make that assertion. Now maybe if you considered age you might have a better argument but if you picked 35 players for one year he doesn’t make the cut clearly. If he was, Indiana would have been winning more.
Well, I guess I have to just accept your completely unsupported subjective opinion on it. Rather than considering the fact that he’s a 2X All-star, that has been a top player for a play-off team 3 of the past 5 seasons, and ranks comfortably within the top 35 by pretty much every player impact measure (PER, WS, RAPM, VORP, RAPTOR, etc.).
But just for shits and giggles, how about you provide a single piece of objective evidence to support your opinion. You know, to help me “add them up.” And, no, your completely subjective personal “best players” list isn’t evidence. I know it’s out of fashion to think so these days, but unfounded ass-pulled opinions aren’t convincing no matter how belligerent they are.
If you would allow it, I’d very much like to co-sign this argument as well BHE. (I’m not willing to hide behind a thumbs up on this one in any way shape or form.)
Have you looked at the PER list. Just to help you out Whiteside is 18 and Curry 31. You scan the internet, get a list and run with it without analyzing it further. Ass pulled stats are convincing either. You tell me where he ranks.
Sorry. That’s not how burden of proof works. I know PER and its biases. That’s why you incorporate other data. I have no idea what “ass-pulled stats” are, since these stats are based on verifiable in-game data. An “ass-pulled” stat would be saying he’s outside the top 35 without providing any shred of supporting evidence beyond your own arbitrary listing of players you like. But no one would try to pass that off of as actual evidence, right?
It really is amazing how often people use opinions to dispute raw data. There is a reason why every NBA team has an analytics department.
The last time you did this was when we debated the 1968 World Series pitching and you pulled some shit stat our of your ass and made a fool of yourself. I provided a list of players you tell me where he falls on that list. You see I watch and make my own observations, I don’t just pull up data and make opinions without watching.
I love this for so many reasons…
I realize all summary stats are flawed, but Sabonis was #22 last season in BPM. And he was #25 the season before. He was #26 in RPM and #24 in RAPTOR.
I 100% recognize there are other valid arguments to make against him and summary stats are now all powerful. But I do think it’s meaningful that he was easily top 30 in 3 different advanced metrics.
Additionally, Indiana was overall a mess last year with a ton of injuries. Brogdon, Turner, LaVert, Warren, and McConnell all missed significant time. And no, the team could not overcome that. However, even the prior season missing tons of games from Turner, Brogdon, and Oladipo the Pacers won the equivalent of 39 games (was a shortened season) and prior to that when healthier had won 51, 48, and 48 games. Not bad at all for a team without a top 20 player.
I don’t know the exact number that Sabonis is. And I don’t think the exact one is important. But I do think he is squarely in that 3rd tier of semi-stars who will never be the best player on a championship team. But who are hard to acquire and can play a significant role on a championship team.
I agree with your last paragraph.
Take a look at these and these are just off the top of my head. Your dopey stats exclude guys that have missed substantial time recently.
Lebron
KD
Joker
Embiid
Curry
Thompson
Green
Morant
Donovan Mitchell
Giannis
Middleton
Jimmy Butler
Anthony Davis
Rudy Golbert
KAT
Luka
Harden
Kyrie
Kawhi Leonard
Paul George
Lillard
Tatum
Booker
Chris Paul
Trae Young
Bradley Beal
Jaylen Brown
Ingram
Dejounte Murray
Ayton
Jamaal Murray
Anthony Edwards
LaMelo Ball
Siakam
DeRozan
Zach LaVine
SGA
Then you have these who are debatable
– Cunningham
– Adebayo
– Bridges
– JJJ
– Zion
– Mobley
– Garland
– Vanvleet
– McCullum
Vucivic
Yes, good example of “ass-pulled.” Well done!
Look, I know you’d prefer people just defer to your opinion without you needing to defend or support it. We all would! But apparently that isn’t the mood I’m in today.
Really, this is my fault. I’ve learned this lesson before. I’m not sure why I need to re-learn it every few months, but I’m going to go ahead and go back to simply scrolling past your posts.
You probably should when you’ve got your ass handed to you multiple times. Tell me again about that 1968 World Series.
I didn’t know TKH was crawling with Detroit Tigers and St Louis Cardinals fans…..
Good to know though….
When someone tries to tell me the starting pitching wasn’t good in that series you have to wonder about anything they say. It’s easier to play the sanctimonious act and run like a squirrel when you can’t defend your position. Sabonis is somewhere around 40. Pointing to a stats that have him ahead of players like Kawhi, Anthony Davis, Thompson, Lillard, Murray, Curry and others doesn’t give his argument much credibility somthe next thing to do is put on an act and hide.
Dopey stats? Numbers don’t lie, but eyeballs deceive.
Basically your two best players on max deals (Sabonis will be on one soon) are flawed and non-elite. Whether it’s Lavine/Sabonis or Fox/Sabonis.
I’m very low on Fox but I’d take Fox over Lavine due to the three yr age gap and Lavine’s lingering knee issue. In a vacuum they’re similar players (empty stats, non-elite).
So true. Agree
For me, Fox. Biggest reason why for me is age. Fox will be 24 at the start of next year, Lavine 27. I’d take either of them, though, if forced to choose, I’d take Fox.
Lavine’s knee problems scare me also.
Fun fact; he played more games the last 3 seasons than Fox.
Would have I liked a fresher face like Ham or Hardy? Yes, I would have. Am I upset at Brown or Clifford? No, and I think Brown is an excellent candidate to boot.
Mark Jackson? I think he’s included as a finalist for several reasons. One is that he fits a vague profile of ‘veteran, defensive minded, motivator of men’ type who, if you squint, you can see how it might work. I hate the idea of Mark Jackson, and it’s an absolute turnoff. I just….can see how someone might choose Mark Jackson this offseason. Like Utah or LA.
But I can’t see how it’s not Mike Brown or Steve Clifford at this point. Their resumes are there, they actually are involved (either as an assistant or consultant) in other teams day to day operations, and they fit what Monte McNair is likely looking for in this turnaround.
If I had to handicap it, I’d guess (and this is pure gut guess) that it’s 70% Brown, 25% Clifford and 5% Jackson. I suppose anything is possible, but I think it’s Mike Brown’s job to lose. And since he has interviewed but not gotten a job as of yet, there’s a question as to which opening he’ll ever get again if he doesn’t want the job in Sac. I think the fallback plan is Steve Clifford if Mike Brown decides the job isn’t for him. Again, pure gut guess.
Man, I sure hope you are some kind of guru or seer or something …
I just hope Monte gets it right……and am going to have an impossible time understanding Mark Jackson if he ends up being the choice.
We’re owed being right on this one ’51. We are long overdue.
If the Kings miraculously produce a quality roster next year, it will be perceived they got the coaching position right. If nothing improves with the roster, you’ll start hearing rumblings about the coaching. I remember when Walton got fired a celebration ensued. When Gentry went 5 and 3 in his first 8 games, many were saying see it was Walton who was the problem. We are on our way now. When the record began to again reflect the roster it then became as the target and the voices who were shouting after his 5 and 3 start went silent. But wait, they resurrected themselves and now it was Gentry who was the problem. Had we only kept that coach who won 39 games one year despite having three losing seasons we would be contenders. On and on it goes with the coaching and nobody really knows. Get a roster and then talk about the coach because you really don’t know as Jim Mora once said.
First, I said firing Walton was a mistake as it wouldn’t produce anything. And ultimately, it didn’t.
Second, I think a coach is part of the solution but not the only part. It’s part of acquiring talent that makes you better, and that’s why the coaching search matters.
Third, this is the time to have a coaching search. Before the draft, and especially before Free Agency.
All that said, I get the criticisms. But you can’t do what you can’t do, and right now there aren’t trades to be made anyway. So do your coaching search, get it right, and go forth.
yes if you can show me a guy that can influence quality players to Sac then yes. Also when you say part of the solution what does that mean. I said roster is 99 percent of it so yes I guess the coach is part of the solution. Again I’m not comparing a NBA coach to a CYO coach I’m saying the marginal difference within the NBA is minimal.
reply fail!
Here we go with the perceived inside information. At least I’ve heard for myself this guy commentate and can hear him point out nuances of the game and has the ability to communicate. Beyond that I can’t distinguish these guys and nearly can anyone on this blog. We can look at empirical data that has gobs of variables and try to draw conclusions but it’s really superfluous.
(I just replied to the wrong comment. Didn’t mean to weigh in on this particular sub-tread! Whoops.)
100 lashes with a wet noodle ’51!!!!
I think that Ham or Hardy or one of those guys would have been the call had the Kings taken the “blow it up” path. Once they obtained Sabonis for Hali, the die was cast as it pertains to the win now attitude of the organization. This may wind up being a very myopic approach. As has been discussed here over the past several months, it is, at the very least, a much narrower approach.
I think that Brown is probably the best rounded of the remaining candidates, but the bottom line is that if your three best players are Sabonis, Fox and Barnes, winning even 40 games in the West would be a Herculean task. Stack these guys against the big three of the WC teams above them (of which there were eleven at the end of the season), and the top of the Kings roster does not stack up well. Add Mitchell (or the current roster player of your choice) as the 4th best player and check the WC and it does not get any better.
I can squint and see the current roster sniffing 40 games if they hit on their draft pick, nail their MLE signing, have well above average health and play with unmitigated desire on the defensive end. But absent of a major infusion of upper end talent and with average health and luck, this is a team that is battling its collective ass off to reach even a playin spot.
I sure hope that the organization turns out to be right in its decision to walk this much narrower path. But I’m not setting any money aside for playoff tickets right now, and may not have to worry about it for quite some time.
100% agree. Even a good young coach can take time to learn how to be a head coach on the job and is a bigger gamble. If we had fired Walton a year ago, I think there’s a much better chance we take the gamble and let a young coach grow with our core for multiple seasons.
With Sabonis on board and next season looking like a make-or-break year, I can understand the FO feels a sense of urgency and wants someone with a proven track record who can hit the ground running from day 1. If someone like Brown gets us to the 2nd round of the playoffs, but gets badly out-coached 2 years in a row, then you can always replace him at that time.
And to the point of Bryant’s article, Brown in particular isn’t some retread who has failed to elevate multiple teams. He has a strong track record and has elevated basically every team he has coached. Even his 33 win Cavs still improved by 9 games and 9 spots in defensive efficiency despite a nearly identical roster that Scott had coached the year prior.
And he’s done a fantastic job with the Warriors defense and they had the #1 defensive efficiency despite having the majority of their minutes played by Poole, Curry, Wiggins, Looney, and Porter Jr. Not all bad defender, but not as if he had Embiid, Thybuelle, Maxey, and Danny Green.
So overall, I can see the immediate appeal for Monte.
It is premature, as no formal announcement has been made of a Head Coaching hire – and I don’t know how that works with Mike Brown currently employed and active elsewhere but I agree that it’s early to set expectations. Of course –
Hiring a coach is only one part of machinery to manufacture a winning team. Having a GM and Head Coach working as a team then determines how to build a roster to fit that common strategy. And that requires starting with talent in some form and then adjusting it to the GM/HC preferences. And that takes time. And that takes patience. And patience is in short supply after 9 Vivek seasons and hopefully, GM McNair will take a Petrie-esque conductor’s stance and turn his back on the audience to orchestrate a winner (not a jazz ensemble).
The Kings could hire Brown if they wanted. They have permission to talk to him so conceivably they could hire him if they can agree on terms.
The plot thickens …
https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania/status/1521171925090934786
https://twitter.com/SactownAnthony/status/1521173948938915841
https://www.detroitbadboys.com/2011/6/11/2218558/mark-jackson-pistons-head-coach
I guess record only matters when you want it to matter. I’m not concerned about pissing a few people off if someone gets results. I’m not an advocate or dismissing any of these guys but if pissing off Festis Ezeli is part of someone’s criteria I wouldn’t want them in my HR department.
Or you know, hire someone equally as qualified to get results but who doesn’t play toxic BS games.
This isn’t hard.
“I’m baaaaaack…”
This would be such a Vivek Ranadive thing to do.
“Hey, I was a former King AND a former Warrior! My turn!”
The best/worst part of this is that it should be 100% dismissible…but it’s not!
I am generally a fan of the simplest solution is usually the correct one. And, I think, this is probably true in this case: Dumars time had run it’s course with th Kings and he’s moving on to a better position that suits him at this time.
It also falls in line with a lot of the changes that have been made already and all the people already let go from the franchise. What that all means, well, I guess we’ll find out!
I’d be fine with either Brown or Clifford, preferably Brown. Neither strikes me with much excitement but I can see team structure and play improving at least a little. Neither are going to be able to do much without major roster improvement, but this could be a good first step by having a coach with some success elsewhere. If McNair views one of them in that light I can see how they are the finalists instead of the likes of Ham, Hardy, or Lee.
Which means it’s going to be Jackson, because disfunction invites disfunction.
Mike Brown will be the coach and a modernized version of the Princeton offense will be implemented.
When the original, longer list came out, I thought “As long as it’s not Mark Jackson… and D’Antoni would be cool.”
When the list was shortened to three, I thought ” As long as it’s not Mark Jackson… D’Antoni would’ve been cool.”
Now if it’s true that Mark Jackson impressed Vivek in an interview, that’s surprising to exactly NOONE.
Badge Legend