Head coaches do have assistant coaches that help with offense/defense in the NBA. What do you Tom Thibodeau was doing in Boston? On most defensive possessions last year he was the one up standing and yelling not Rivers. This can't be an uncommon occurrence, Boston can't be the only team doing that. Unless Rivers said "Hey, the Bulls are talking to you, how about you get some head coach reps?" You think head coaches aren't using any ideas from assistant coaches? C'mon now. I also was saying the Knicks worried me as a Bulls fan. Given how shitty the East is, and let's say the Bulls end up at a 4 seed, and the Knicks end up as a 5 seed, I don't want to see a game like that again. And if you think the Bulls lost that game and the Knicks didn't win it, I'll be happy to go with that line of thinking. Also, my quote did not have an exclamation mark. There is a very bad habit of blowing things up on this board. In that same vein, I didn't say Phil Jackson was "bad coaching" or should play him more, I said he should have played him earlier, the same amount of time would have been just fine. Putting him in when the Lakers were already down I don't think was the wisest move, given his injury and the hustle requirement of a comeback. Alas, I am nothing but a arm chair coach. This is of course theoretical but going back to the gameplan, with Pau (guarded by Bosh) at PF, Kobe (guarded by LeBron) and Fisher (maybe guarded by Wade) on the wings, if Kobe passed it to Pau on the strong side, who could take it up or pass it right to Bynum on the weak side to score, was Dampier or Johnson going to stop him? I'm just running the play in my head, I see it being effective for a few buckets before any adjustments possibly opening it up for the other players. And the Heat's defense isn't THAT dominant. They've only beaten a few +.500 teams. I just looked at their schedule and not doing any math I'm going to toss out the average points scored against is somewhere around 90 +/- 5. If you know where to get accurate stats, let me know. Also with the game planning there is a different from having a plan and it not being executed, then having a plan and the other team just having a total answer for it. I believe the Heat fell into the latter with this game. The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over getting the same result but expecting different.
Not only is it a highly uncommon occurrence, I can't remember something else like that happening in the history of the NBA. That is usually not what assistant coaches do at all. As proof of how unique those circumstances are, Thibodeau is the only assistant coach who has ever had a celebrated, big market franchise (Chicago) from another team falling over itself to sign him, despite a lack of ANY head coaching experience. Anyways, which of D'Antoni's staff do you think is "helping" him with the defense? There is not a single defensive specialist that I know of on his staff of Herb Williams Phil Weber Dan D'Antoni Kenny Atkinson Furthermore, this is all a moot point anyways, since having watched more than a single Knicks game, I can tell you that their defense and rebounding absolutely suck, and there has definitely been no improvement or "help" in that area so far this season. Your problem is making statements about a team based on a single game, which is never enough of a sample size in the NBA. Well, here is what you wrote; "The Lakers played Bynum way too late in the game against the Heat. By the time he got in the game was over. Also they stuck with the triangle way too long and got blasted in the face by the transition and fast break points. That and Kobe was the only one on the team who really gave a fuck about the game, and he didn't start to care until the third quarter, and stopped caring 5 minutes later." Basically, you were unaware that Jackson's goal with Bynum is a slow, steady rehabilitation, and that he has been pretty poor so far this season, so him playing 30 minutes still wouldn't have changed anything. Yes, the Heat defense is THAT dominant. According to NBA.com, they have the 2nd best defense in the entire league. Only Boston is better, and by a tiny bit at that. Their strength of schedule is not as good as some other teams, but they have beaten plenty of winning teams; Lakers, Jazz, Magic, Atlanta, New Orleans, and the Knicks. Focus- Screw it, I'm going to write about the Utah Jazz. So I watched their home loss yesterday against the Portland Trailblazers, and here are my thoughts; On the Jazz, Deron Williams was unstoppable as usual, scoring 31 points on 11-16 shooting, including 6-8 for threes. Portland threw Andre Miller on him, and then made a wise adjustment by switching to Wesley Matthews, an athletic, strong 6' 5" shooting guard. It didn't work, but did slow Deron down a bit. Sadly, the rest of the Jazz were relatively lethargic, even Millsap, and Jefferson was limited on both ends of the floor. However, most of the credit for this has to do with the outstanding play of the Blazers. I think they are about as energetic and intelligent a team of basketball players as I have seen in the league this year. (Right up there with the Mavs and Spurs in that department) They severely lack talent with the injuries to Oden and Roy, (and they even lost Camby in the second half), but they fight incredibly hard on both ends, are a terror on the offensive glass, make great cuts on offense, and have some of the best defensive rotations and adjustments in the league. No wonder they are still above .500 in the tough Western Conference despite having less talent than the freaking Minnesota Timberwolves. A bunch of the credit has to go to Nate MacMillan, who I have always considered one of the great coaches in this league. After losing the first quarter 20-27, MacMillan switched to a zone, had his perimeter guys harass the Jazz ball-handlers, and then constantly had them switch up the defense based on which Jazz players were in the game. It absolutely killed the Jazz second unit, which is normally quite effective, and slowed all the starters except for Deron Williams. On offense, LaMarcus Aldridge looked excellent. Jefferson, a terrific defender, played him about as tough as one can, but Aldridge was unfazed, scoring with a dazzling array of turn-around jumpers and hook shots. Despite the loss, it was a very good game, and showed how tough and well-coached the league is this year.
The Lakers game against the Spurs kinda supports my argument about the Lakers and Bynum. He had a pretty good game for 22 minutes and being injured, its how he should have been used against the Heat. What in that sentence makes me unaware of Phil Jackson's plan? I'm well aware that Bynum is fragile, he hasn't played a complete season. Same amount of minutes, just earlier in the game. Playing him earlier in the game would be better for his health because most games start off slow and putting him during catch-up, causing him to hustle is counter-productive. Also wasn't that game against New Orleans the Heat played is right when Chris Paul put on the Iron Man knee braces? And that defense rating is against mostly below .500 teams as I said. Yeah, they played some good teams, but like 70% of their games have been against shitty teams. I want to see that ranking AFTER they've completed a full round around the NBA. Dude, talk about the Jazz as much as you want, that is what this thread is for. Mike, do you want to discuss your 76ers in more detail? Please do.
FUCK. KG just hurt his "lower leg", originally it was reported as his knee. X-rays at halftime were negative, MRI tomorrow.
Here's a fairly in-depth article I wrote about the Utah Jazz roster. Hopefully, people will recognize at least half the names.
Not much to say sadly. Nice win against the Suns but then quickly lose to the warriors. I watch when I can but it's hard to really get passionate about a team that you know has no chance of going anywhere. It's not like football when you only have 16 games so even if they're bad you watch, or like baseball when you can to enjoy a relaxing sunday by watching the game regardless of standings, honestly when I go to sixers game I try and see them play a good opponent. It's just so obvious when a team is better then another team. You can always have an upset but the separation gap in basketball is probably the biggest out of all the major sports. Take hockey, did anyone expect the Flyers to go to the cup last year? No, not at all. The Giant's were anything but a favorite in baseball, but basketball if you allowed someone four choices they probably could pick the champion at the start of the season. I think that's why I'm so excited about the NBA this season, the changing of the guard is great. Not only is Miami a whole different team but Utah and Oklahoma are an absolute pleasure to watch right now.
How's about that Evan Turner fellow? Is it? I actually think the difference in talent between a basement dweller like the Clippers and the two-time defending champs, the Lakers, is incredibly small this year. The difference is just professionalism, fundamentals, playing together as a team, unselfishness, and coaching. Which kind of ties in to my focus Focus- I watched the Jazz-Clippers game yesterday. It was a wonderful illustration of the difference between a good and bad team in the NBA, and how relatively little of it has to do with talent. Utah was short-handed, with both Kirilenko and Miles injured or sick. (Their fourth and fifth best players, respectively) The Clippers came out in the first quarter and played positively great, blasting the Jazz off the court. Griffin and DeAndre Jordan were absolutely unstoppable on the inside, getting dunks, putting back their own misses, and blocking shots on the defensive end. And with no Kirilenko, there were no long, athletic Jazz defenders to guard them. The Clippers finished the first quarter up 31-23. But the Jazz stayed within their offense, trusted in the system, and on defense, started doubling Griffin, and switched to a zone. Instead of rotating the ball to get a good look, or continually pounding it to Griffin and Jordan, the Clippers gave in to their intrinsic selfishness, and started jacking up contested threes several feet behind the arc. The worst offender was Eric Gordon, who finished 7-20 for 19 points, 1-7 in threes, and did more harm than good to his team, displaying some of the worst ball-hogging I have seen. DeAndre Jordan finished with a perfect 5-5 shooting for 14 points to go along with 7 blocks and Griffin was 13-20 with 30 points and 12 rebounds. Both of those are actually horrible stats, because both players should have shot the ball an additional 5-10 times, which would have given them a much better chance to win. By the end of the second quarter, and beginning of the third, the Clippers had also stopped giving the same level of effort on defense and rebounding. Despite being vastly more athletic, with far better rebounders than Utah (Clippers are one of the best in the league, and Utah is second worst), they got beat 15-10 on offensive boards, including 3 to skinny, short-armed small forward Gordon Hayward. And while the Jazz struggled shooting the ball from outside for most of the night, they found lots of easy lay-ups around a Clippers defense, that despite DeAndre Jordan's thunderous blocks, just got softer and softer as the game progressed. By the end of third quarter, Utah was already up 11 points, and the Clippers never even mounted a serious run in the fourth. Al Jefferson had the best game of the season, scoring 31 points on 13-22 shooting to go with 10 rebounds and 3 blocked shot. It's funny, because he is nowhere near as fast or athletic as a Griffin or Jordan, but his offensive skillset is way more refined and reliable. Jefferson absolutely humiliated DeAndre Jordan and Ike Diogu the entire night, scoring against them at will, and yet, Vinny del Negro never once doubled him, a decision which I can attest to being very effective against Big Al. In fact, del Negro's moves puzzled me the entire night. He made an odd substitution only 6 minutes into the first quarter, with no one in foul trouble, he didn't have his guys adjust against the zone, he called timeouts for no apparent reason, and generally had me scratching my head as a spectator. On a very positive note, Jazz lottery pick Gordon Hayward scored 17 points on 6-12 shooting with 6 rebounds and 3 assists, looking like a capable shooter, slightly assuaging my suspicions that he will be a bust. On a less positive note, Mehmet Okur looked great, scoring 13 points in 16 minutes...only to leave the game with a strained lower back, in his fourth game back after coming back from wrecking his Achilles tendon, and two games after spraining his other ankle. And he was so damn durable the first 7 years of his career. In the end, it was a fine example of why the Clippers are 10-23 despite some amazing players and a win over the Spurs, and why the Jazz are 22-10.
Let me explain Del Negro to you in 6 words. He should not be a coach. It is like we went to a coaching class in community college and then here you go, a NBA team and a certificate of completion. The Bulls beat the Bucks two days ago. They love beating Scott Skiles because of how he emotionally abused half the players on the team. The Lakers finally broke their losing streak. Answer? Add more Bynum. <a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=301229003" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=301229003</a> Now this is 5 days difference between now and the Christmas game with one tough game in between. 30 minutes. Started him, 6 rebounds, 18 points, 2-2 from the line. 8 minute increase in 5 days, through 3 games. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I think my previous statement is looking less and less crazy. Odom is awesome coming off the bench and Bynum is better a starter. And hey, it was a +500 team. Which brings me to my Heat bashing... The Heat allowed a -.500 team to get to 119 and only won by 3 shots. If Houston didn't try to shoot 9-27 3-pointers they would have been golden. Houston got 120 shot attempts and 40 FT attempts. Let's back off that dominant defense. And I have to apologize to Joel Anthony, I've been calling him James Johnson for the last few posts. He's so useless I can't get his name right. I caught that Utah game online, I watched the second half and everything you said was right. It was interesting to see the wheels turn in not only Sloan's head, but also his players. The Utah play solid, fundamental basketball but aren't as boring as the Spurs so they get points for that. Also Eric Gordon is now a ball hog because Baron Davis froze him out too many times at the beginning of the season., coming off that FIBA championship game he's now mentally shocked. It's like he doesn't want to share his drink with his older brother because he knows he won't get it back anymore. And and Vinny del Negro is their coach.
I think Del Negro has some ideas about what he wants to do on the floor, but gets too fancy or cute a lot of the time. That is, I don't think he has a real "feel" for coaching. He is stubborn in instances where he needs to make an adjustment immediately, and is too flighty at other times where he needs to be stubborn. That's not really something that can be taught, it's just a sense culled from a lifetime of basketball, which some guys have a lot of (Phil Jackson, Jerry Sloan, Gregg Poppovich, all the great one), most coaches have an okay amount of, and certain coaches have much less of. I won't pretend to be know more than a professional-level coach, but judging by the results on the floor, I think Del Negro falls into the latter category. Sloan has also made decisions that make me scratch my head...they just happen to work out really well most of the time, as proven on the court. What does this idiotic term "emotional abuse" mean? Would that be anything like Pat Riley, Jerry Sloan, or Avery Johnson berating and cussing out their players, demanding military-like discipline and uniformity, and benching or trading any player that doesn't live up to his exacting standards? Because, you know, it's worked out pretty damn well for those three guys, and Scott Skiles has had a good coaching career, too. Yeah, I'm sure the Lakers training staff of nationally renowned medical orthopedic doctors and trainers are more ignorant about proper recovery and rehabilitation from injury than our very own "Parker". Any other pearls of wisdom you would like to drop on us? You're going off a sample size of one game again? So by that sterling logic, are the Bucks title contenders, considering they embarrassed the Lakers by 20 points at home? And are the Clippers better than the Spurs, since you know, they beat them and everything? Also, you might not be aware of this, having not watched them, but the Houston Rockets are a pretty darn good, well-coached team, and a record of 15-16 in the West is far from bad. And of course the Rockets are going to shoot 27 3-pointers, considering that, you know, that's one of their main traits as an up-tempo team filled with shooters, coached by Rick Adelman. That's like saying the Lakers would have been golden against the Spurs if Kobe didn't shoot 20+ times, except in this case, it actually benefits the Rockets as a team. You confused a skinny 3 point-shooting swingman (whose name is actually James Jones) with a thickly built, rebounding and shot-blocking center? Awesome; do you get Carlos Arroyo mixed up with Zydrunas Ilugaskas occasionally, too? Yeah, except for that whole bit about him playing very well for his role and minutes on the Heat. 1.4 blocks and 3.0 rebounds in 17.5 minutes is solid work for an under-sized 6' 9" center. I've never understood why people think either of those two systems are "fundamental". In the Jazz's case, they run the flex, which is a complicated offense relying on every man making cuts, setting picks, being aware of everyone's position on the court, with detailed, precise movements. It takes a genius point guard like John Stockton or Deron Williams to run it to its full potential, and is a major reason why the Jazz are so big on getting "smart", hard-working players. If players aren't tuned in and making quick, accurate reads, the offense stagnates and looks terrible. Even then, 6 year veterans like Al Jefferson struggle to pick it up, because it's so much more difficult than what they are exposed to before. They don't run the same pick-and-roll offense they did with Stockton and Malone, and I would definitely think the isos and free-wheeling offense of many other ballclubs are more "fundamental".
Individual talent sure but the quality the team put's out? Who on earth would have predicted Cleveland to win the East this year? Who would have picked the Clippers to win the title?? No one. Grifffin is as good as any player in the NBA but the Clippers are not anywhere near as good a team. In the beginning of the year I would have selected one of the following four to win the title. 1. Heat 2. Celtics 3. Spurs 4. Lakers Spurs lead the west, Miami and Boston are top of the east and we all know the lakers prowess. Of course my predictions are completely worthless but I bet I would be closer than the other three major sports. Last year in the MLB my guess would have been 1. phillies 2. Cardinals 3. Yankees 4. Whitesox The Giants, Reds, Devil rays were all barely blips on the radar so was the Rangers. Football same thing I guess The Pats were not an exactly impossible pick this year but I bet a lot plenty of NFL fans had the Colts, NYJ, SD, or a NO repeat. You really never know. I think a lot has to do with the veteran players and the ability to take down best of five and best of seven series. I really would love to see how the Jazz fairs in the playoffs. You have made everybody interested in that point guard, and I hope even a casual fan knows who Milsap is. However can they beat the Spurs, Mavs, or Lakers in a best of seven series?
Cleveland is awful, one of the two or three worst teams in the league based on individual talent, if not THE worst. Meanwhile, the Clippers are one of the most talented teams in the NBA. There's really no reason they shouldn't be a top team, based purely on individual player skill. Like you said, Griffin is as talented as any player in the league, and frankly, Eric Gordon is very close to that benchmark. (He's just selfish as fuck) DeAndre Jordan is a ridiculous, eye-popping talent, Aminou and Bledsoe are terrific rookies, Davis is a former All-Star, and Kaman was close to that level. In terms of athleticism, they blow teams like the Jazz, Spurs, and Lakers off the damn court, too. Beyond being young, they have enough talent to contend with anyone in the league. Obviously, no one was predicting them to do well, but you know why that was? It's because of their lack of winning culture, which is partially because of age, but also due to what I mentioned above; professionalism, playing together as a team, unselfishness, fundamentals, and coaching, all areas where the Clippers are weak.
It's really funny because this is a true mystery. The clippers have always been associated with losing, I can't even remember the last time they made the playoffs. However when you look at the roster you have to wonder how can they be that bad?? Could it be coaching? There is a popular theory that unless you have one of the top ten superstars (or in the Boston -Detroit cases 3 of the top 25) you can't win a title. I'm not sure I'm buying it but looking back on past champions it's easy to see where the argument came from. That is a big issue with watching the sixers, they don't have that stud that fills the seats. I wonder that if what LeBron did was going to start a trend. I have to admit I think it might be kind of cool to see a couple super teams. Carmello to the knicks? Griffin to the Spurs? Maybe Utah can realize the talent and potential they have and make a move for another scorer. We talked about it before but I would love to see Nash go to a legitimate contender. I think it would especially awesome if Griffin ended up in Oklahoma, Chris Paul has mentioned wanting to play with better talent as well. LeBron took a lot of heat from veterans like Charles Barkley and Patrick Ewing who both said they would have wanted to win the championship by themselves. They may want to take a step back and realize that they don't have a ring and it's harder than you think! I have to say KImaster I would venture to say the most surprising team so far has indeed been the Jazz. Because of your post I checked them out on a couple different sites and caught some of the Clipper game. Watching Griffin would have been woth seeing it on my computer as well. Williams is fantastic. I'm not ready to admit he's better than Chris Paul yet, I certainly have not seen anywhere near enough of his game but what a pleasure to watch. Excellent view of the court. In the beginning of the year I didn't think they were bad, definitely above average but this is impressive. Without being biased are we looking at the true team now or are they playing above their talent level and just extremely hot? In my opinion a team like the Hawks is not as good as the record indicates. I have heard the same thing about the Bulls but I wouldn't comment on that because I think I have only seen one bulls game all year.
It's not a mystery at all. Read my post above; the reason why a talented team like the Clippers continually lose is right there, in all their uneven, selfish, lazy play. So let me ask you again; how is that Evan Turner fellow? I haven't seen him in a regular season game all season, only the pre-season and summer camp, so I'm honestly curious. This particular season, Deron Williams has been a LOT better than Chris Paul, to where it's not really even close. Part of that has to do with Williams' improvement, but more of that has to do with Paul's horrific injury last year. He has had a part of his meniscus removed, and just doesn't have that same speed and explosiveness he once did. Sad. They're not really that hot; the Spurs and Mavs have way better records (and are playing better) than the Jazz, and they're even with the "struggling" Lakers, who aren't playing well at all.
CLIPPERS- I had to laugh at "selfish, lazy play." Not that I'm disagreeing but the entire franchise has been awful for years. So now they may be bad because they just don't play as a team but how about other years? They are always bad. I often wonder how much a coach truly matters to a team. Is Phil Jackson that good or a by product of MJ and Kobe? I always thought Larry Brown was who made the sixers in there East championship run, but I still wonder. Evan Turner hasn't really done anything. I liked him out of Ohio State but I knew he wouldn't be the big gun we needed. Our best player is probably Andre Iguodala, people are not exactly racing to see him play. We have had a lot of hope for Lou Williams as well but he seems pretty average to be. The sixers mediocrity is there biggest problem. They almost always overachieve and grab a 7 or 8 seed in the east and proceed to get pummeled by the better teams. Then they limit themselves to getting the monster draft pick they desperately need. That is why we took a dying Iverson back, just for some hope of getting attendance. We have the money it's just nobody wants to play here because the team is average. We sunk to much money into worthless Elton Brand, and really we have no true superstar. It kind of bothers me that the Jazz organization (who almost always is competitive by the way) had the foresight to get Williams and we can't muster up any hidden talent (or obvious) since AI.
Come on Mike, you know this is dumb. Just saying "the team has always been bad!" doesn't explain jack shit when the players and coaches are totally different from season to season. Hell, there was even one year in the 2000s where the Clippers won 50+ games and made the second round of the playoffs. The Clippers have won and can do so again. There is no witchcraft going on here. Different squads suffer from different problems. In past years, it might well have been a lack of quality players and horrible draft picks, due in part to Sterling's incompetence as owner. This years, the Clippers have oodles of talent, as much as any legitimate title contender. However, pure talent is only a certain component of team success, and sadly, the Clippers are missing all the other ingredients. It's a combination, obviously. A coach can't win without good players, but a good coach will get his team to play a little bit harder, a little bit tougher at the end of the fourth quarter, and in a game decided by an extra possession here, an extra shot there, a defensive stop here, that can make all the difference. But how does he look? Is he getting his shot off, playing tough defense, looking for his teammates, displaying good body language, etc?
How is this dumb? First of all your wrong they have NEVER won 50 plus games. At least since 1970 anyway. Since 1990 they have had winning records TWICE. They made the playoffs four times. So I hate to tell you this but the team has always been bad. I am struggling to think of a worst franchise in sports. That's why I thought saying they were lazy and played selfishly was funny. So why did they suck the other 20 years? Again this year I think that is a very valid point, there is some real talent on the squad so it doesn't make sense why they are so horrible. I just find it odd that in 20 years they have not been able to put together a decent team. Especially considering they have gotten numerous draft picks in the top five. So yes they have had bad coaches, bad players, everything but isn't a little odd that the best seasons they have had were from 74-76?? 05-06 they had 47 wins but didn't do much. I'm not really disagreeing with you I just have always found it odd that this team year in and year out is below average. I mean from top office to the floor they can never muster success. I don't have a good answer for this unfortunately. I haven't really noticed him do anything special, he plays about 20 minuets a game and get's anywhere from 6-8 points. I haven't noticed that he particularly shut down anyone, or that his play is better than the other players. He seems like a typical sixer right now, average. The 76ers are struggling to find an identity and he probably is falling into the same problem.
In 2005-2006, they won 47 games and made the second round of the playoffs. Yeah, I was off by three games, but the fact remains, that it was a good team. I watched and was genuinely impressed by their play; <a class="postlink" href="http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAC/2006.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAC/2006.html</a> Winning 47 games and the first round of the playoffs is a "bad" team? No, it isn't, and saying "they have always been bad" is exactly the kind of irrelevant nonsense someone like Parker would write, which wouldn't actually address anything going on with the team now. Look, I wrote several long posts with my take on why the Clippers are struggling. You just decided not to read or think about it, and instead wrote "they have always been bad" as if that kind of kindergarten reasoning explained away everything. By that stellar logic, when the Mavericks were bought by Mark Cuban in the late 90s and were averaging 20 wins a year for the past decade, they had no right to expect anything more than losing from now until the end of eternity, regardless of whatever players and coaches they brought in, right? Oh, wait. Hate to break it to you, but witchcraft doesn't exist in the NBA, Mike. What do the last 20 years have to do with right now, 2010-2011? I'll actually tell you what; the team culture. And that ties back in to my earlier points about selfishness, coaching, togetherness, and professionalism. In 2005-2006, they had some responsible veterans, led by Elton Brand. This year, the Clipper talent level is very high, but the team culture is still that of a loser.
I think the topic of the Clippers can be settled by saying the ownership has been horrible and they won in spite of that in 05-06.
Ok I guess I can agree that in twenty some years four of the years they were not bad. Kind of splittling hairs though isn't it? It's not like they made deep playoff runs either, the Clippers are a pathetic franchise I don't see how you can dispute this. Two winning seasons in 20 years?? Knowing this number you are seriously trying to drill home the two years they had when they were above average? No you wrote several long posts about why the team is not good this year. As far as past years you wrote I must tell you that I find it funny that you make fun of me for saying the Clippers have always been bad, (not to be redundant but two seasons with winning records?) yet you consider this some sort of in depth analysis. Really bad draft picks and lack of quality players, god you really went out on a limb there. I was looking for a little bit more of an in depth answer than "the players were not good." Where did I write anything suggesting I thought the clippers were jinxed? I never said anything of the sort. I just find it odd that in all these years they never stumbled on a great player, a true franchise athlete, never got lucky with a good coach, again they had plenty of top picks. No, this had to do with my point that I felt the Clipper organization has always been bad or below average. You dismissed it because they had one good season. [/quote] Again if you read my posts you would have saw that I agreed with your points about the current Clipper team. The whole debate started because I was curious how the franchise could have been so bad for so long. I just kind of feel that somewhere along the line a good coach or a great player would end up there. (They do have Griffin maybe they can build around him) I actually put the one statement in bold because maybe this was the answer I was looking for. Maybe the team has been associated with losing for so long it's almost part of the culture. I'm pretty sure a Clipper fan would be ecstatic if the team had a winning record and won one playoff series, when a Laker fan is satisfied with nothing but a title. I think we have debated the Clippers and the history of the Clippers enough it might be doing the board a favor if we took it to PM.
They have had multiple great players throughout the years, but simply showed no interest in keeping most of them, like Elton Brand when he was a legitimate MVP candidate in 2005-2006, before his ankles gave out on him. Look, what I wrote about the problems of the current Clippers team can be applied to most of their losing seasons. Bad coaching, selfishness, free-lancing instead of playing together as a team, and immaturity in place of professionalism are diseases that virtually all bad teams suffer from. In past years, because of the tight-fisted nature of Donald Sterling, they often lacked quality players, too. In this current 2010-2011 seasons, partly due to the re-structuring of the CBA (collective bargaining agreement) several years ago, and partly because of blind luck, they have tremendous talent, but all the usual problems of the franchise are still there. And as I pointed out, they did this only five seasons ago. Sterling has managed to make a tidy profit on the Clippers for many owners by purposely keeping all the salaries really low (amazing, isn't it? A perennial loser can still make money if their costs are low enough), meaning crappier players, crappy GMs, crappy coaches staying there, and good coaches fleeing as soon as they could. The new CBA requiring a very high minimum payroll forced him to spend more money on the players, so that part is settled, but his malevolent influence remains. This year, I think he has exacerbated problems by heckling his own players. I doubt any free agent will ever want to play for the Clippers in a million years after that, even if it's in LA and all.