Chicago Bullseye 101: Rank the Coaching Candidates

[Fred]

Mark just posted a show. I'd like to get your take on 2 important questions:

Would you rather have Gar Forman meeting with prospective free agents or John Paxson? I'd take John any day, Mark likes Gar. I don't feel a free agent will care about John trying to punch out Vinny. When John explains that he was trying to protect Noah, I actually think it could make it MORE likely a free agent signs. IMO, Forman is an unqualified dufus.

Rank these coaching candidates on a 1-10 scale, with 1 being "I don't want him", and 10 being "I'd do anything to get him."

Mike Dunleavy
Mike Fratello
Avery Johnson
Byron Scott
Jeff Van Gundy
Lawrence Frank
Kevin McHale
Sam Mitchell
Maurice Cheeks
John Calipari
Tom Izzo

Interesting stuff on Calipari. At first, I said "No way". But after contemplating it further...Rose loves the guy. I don't know...I'd be more open to it. Check this out:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...-0506-bulls-chicago--20100505,0,1180617.story

 

[J-Mart]

Van Gundy did an interview with Waddle and Silvy:

http://espn.go.com/espnradio/player?rd=1#/podcenter/?id=5165206&autoplay=1&callsign=WMVPAM


He sold me, although I dont fully agree with his Gordon comment. He really impressed me and I'd be happy if he came here.

So I will just list, in no particular order, which coaches that I would be happy if we got:

Jeff Van Gundy
Byron Scott
John Calipari
Tom Izzo

I agree with Mark that we have to make a buzz and get the Bulls talked about. We need to distract everyone from the negative media surrounding the organization lately. Other than Byron Scott, I believe the other three do that.

 

[houheffna]

First, it doesn't matter but most likely free agents will talk to both. Players don't care about ANY of that stuff, they want the money and championships...period.

I agree with Mark that we have to make a buzz and get the Bulls talked about. We need to distract everyone from the negative media surrounding the organization lately. Other than Byron Scott, I believe the other three do that.

We have to do no such thing...the Bulls didn't initiate the Third Reich. People within the organization acted petty is all. Hiring a coach for buzz is not a good enough reason to hire a coach. I want the hire to be the best available, who gives the team the best chance to win.

 

[J-Mart]

Well IMO those happen to be the four best candidates, its just so happens that three of them give that buzz I was talking about. If you are saying the players don't put any consideration into who is coaching the team they are playing on, well thats just wrong. I'll agree its not going to be the main reason, but it plays a factor none the less.

No matter how you look at the Pax/Vinny situation, its negative media. I agree with Fred that it was overblown, although it is still negative media. Anything that distracts from that is a good thing. Hiring a big name coach should be a huge priority, in terms of winning and getting us talked about because of it is just another plus.

 

[Bullsman24]

Re:Chicago Bullseye 101: Rank the Coaching Candida

John has a history of protecting his players so I want a free agent talking to him.

Mike Dunleavy-2
Mike Fratello-6
Avery Johnson-6
Byron Scott-9
Jeff Van Gundy-7
Lawrence Frank-7
Kevin McHale-2.5
Sam Mitchell-8
Maurice Cheeks-8
John Calipari-6.5
Tom Izzo-9

 

[Dpauley23]

Re:Chicago Bullseye 101: Rank the Coaching Candida

Mike Dunleavy- -7 billion.
Mike Fratello- 4
Avery Johnson- 2
Byron Scott- 7
Jeff Van Gundy-8
Lawrence Frank- 5
Kevin McHale- 6
Sam Mitchell- 3
Maurice Cheeks- 6.5
John Calipari- 4
Tom Izzo- 2

 

[houheffna]

Re:Chicago Bullseye 101: Rank the Coaching Candida

What is the big deal concerning Izzo? Calipari, Pitino, Tarkanian? Anybody remember them? In most instances, college coaches do poorly in the NBA...I am not sold on Izzo at all at the pro ranks...

 

[pinkizdead]

Re:Chicago Bullseye 101: Rank the Coaching Candida

houheffna wrote:

We have to do no such thing...the Bulls didn't initiate the Third Reich. People within the organization acted petty is all. Hiring a coach for buzz is not a good enough reason to hire a coach. I want the hire to be the best available, who gives the team the best chance to win.

so what you're saying is hinrich as a player coach?

 

[senrad]

Re:Chicago Bullseye 101: Rank the Coaching Candida

Mike Dunleavy-(-10)
Mike Fratello-4
Avery Johnson-5
Byron Scott-7
Jeff Van Gundy-9
Lawrence Frank-6
Kevin McHale-5
Sam Mitchell-6
Maurice Cheeks-7
John Calipari-7
Tom Izzo-0 Won't happen

 

[clonetrooper264]

Re:Chicago Bullseye 101: Rank the Coaching Candida

pinkizdead wrote:

houheffna wrote:

We have to do no such thing...the Bulls didn't initiate the Third Reich. People within the organization acted petty is all. Hiring a coach for buzz is not a good enough reason to hire a coach. I want the hire to be the best available, who gives the team the best chance to win.

so what you're saying is hinrich as a player coach?

Where in the world did you draw that conclusion from?

Mike Dunleavy-5
Mike Fratello-4
Avery Johnson-5
Byron Scott-9
Jeff Van Gundy-7
Lawrence Frank-8
Kevin McHale-2
Sam Mitchell-5
Maurice Cheeks-7
John Calipari-5.5 (The whole Rose situation intrigues me, but idk if he'd be a good NBA coach)
Tom Izzo-4

 

[Kush77]

Re:Chicago Bullseye 101: Rank the Coaching Candida

I want no part of a college coach. Fred, I know you have lots of Izzo love, but no. I gotta disagree with ya.

Hou listed a few of them. I'll throw in a couple Tim Floyd, Lon Krueger, PJ Carlesimo.

I'm not taking that chance with the track record of failure that college coaches have.

Byron Scott is my man.

I listened to the show and Fred, you wouldn't trade Noah for Bosh? Did I hear that right?

I would do it in a minute. We can't afford another Deng/Gasol situation. We gotta make the move for the better player. If that trade scenario actually presents itself.

 

[Diddy1122]

Mike Dunleavy - 3
Mike Fratello - 1
Avery Johnson - 7
Byron Scott - 9
Jeff Van Gundy - 5
Lawrence Frank - 5
Kevin McHale - 5
Sam Mitchell - 7
Maurice Cheeks - 7
John Calipari - -999,999.99
Tom Izzo - 2

There's absolutely no way in HELL the Bulls should even consider Calipari. He coached Rose in college, WHOOPITY DOOOOO! The guy sucks. His offense works well in college, it will be awful in the NBA. Plus he already tried the NBA & was Tim Floyd bad. That's enough to send me screaming toward the hills. Izzo will never coach in the NBA & even if he did I doubt he would be that great either. He would not have the patience, just like Coach K, to deal with the oversized egos & immature antics of the majority of NBA players. Coach K has even listed that as a reason why he won't coach in the Association. And that's the biggest reason to me why college coaches usually fall flat on their face in the NBA.

Scott is the man I want. If not him, then Mo Cheeks. I would take Johnson too, but he did slam the organization recently so I doubt he's even a canidate. Alot of people like Van Gundy but his offensive style is a horrible match for this team & I don't see him changing it even with a player of Rose's star caliber on the team. Byron Scott should be tops on the Bulls list. Now they just need to go out & get him to sign on the dotted line.

 

[Fred]

Re:Chicago Bullseye 101: Rank the Coaching Candida

Kush77 wrote:

I want no part of a college coach. Fred, I know you have lots of Izzo love, but no. I gotta disagree with ya.

Hou listed a few of them. I'll throw in a couple Tim Floyd, Lon Krueger, PJ Carlesimo.

I'm not taking that chance with the track record of failure that college coaches have.

Byron Scott is my man.

I listened to the show and Fred, you wouldn't trade Noah for Bosh? Did I hear that right?

I would do it in a minute. We can't afford another Deng/Gasol situation. We gotta make the move for the better player. If that trade scenario actually presents itself.

If you can sign Noah for 5 years at 60 million, I'd take him over Bosh with a max deal. I think Bosh is far better offensively, but I feel that Noah is the stronger defender. And Noah has made more strides in one year than any Bull I've ever seen...I don't think he has reached his ceiling. It took me several hours of contemplation, but I guess it comes down to these points:

a. I'd prefer Noah at less than max money instead of Bosh at max money. (Obviously, I'd like to add Bosh without giving up Noah. Then we have a title contender.)
b. By adding Bosh and subtracting Noah, I think the Bulls are probably 5-10 games better. But not a title contender.
c. I never had a problem with trading Deng, because I never considered him to be the best player on the Bulls. This might come as a massive surprise to almost no one, but I thought Gordon was far more valuable than Deng. Deng just didn't draw double teams like BG, and that is the true mark of a very good player. Noah is a unique player...his true value comes on the offensive glass, in contesting shots, and leadership intangibles. If he can develop a consistent jumper out to the free throw line, defenders will have to show on him, and he'll become an All-time great Bull.
b.

 

[houheffna]

Re:Chicago Bullseye 101: Rank the Coaching Candida

If you can sign Noah for 5 years at 60 million, I'd take him over Bosh with a max deal. I think Bosh is far better offensively, but I feel that Noah is the stronger defender. And Noah has made more strides in one year than any Bull I've ever seen...I don't think he has reached his ceiling. It took me several hours of contemplation, but I guess it comes down to these points:

a. I'd prefer Noah at less than max money instead of Bosh at max money. (Obviously, I'd like to add Bosh without giving up Noah. Then we have a title contender.)
b. By adding Bosh and subtracting Noah, I think the Bulls are probably 5-10 games better. But not a title contender.
c. I never had a problem with trading Deng, because I never considered him to be the best player on the Bulls. This might come as a massive surprise to almost no one, but I thought Gordon was far more valuable than Deng. Deng just didn't draw double teams like BG, and that is the true mark of a very good player. Noah is a unique player...his true value comes on the offensive glass, in contesting shots, and leadership intangibles. If he can develop a consistent jumper out to the free throw line, defenders will have to show on him, and he'll become an All-time great Bull.
b.

Uuuuhhh, bruh? you serious?

You gotta be kidding me with the Noah over Bosh stuff....Bosh would be THE BEST PLAYER ON THE TEAM...Noah will never be that good, c'mon man....this is a no brainer...

I like Noah a lot but asking me if I would trade Noah for Bosh is like asking would I trade Rose for Lebron...hell yes!!!

That said the Deng vs. BG and this drawing double teams stuff...stop it! I addressed that on your show. NOBODY drew a double team, nobody! It is why that offense was so stagnant and depended on jumpshots and defense. It is also hypocritical to talk up Noah's defense, and totally ignore the fact that Deng was and is a better and more effective defensive player than Gordon ever was. And again, Kobe didn't insist on having Ben Gordon on his team before coming here, nor did the Lakers insist on having Gordon be a part of any trade concerning Gordon. Magic Johnson went on TNT and said that as a member of the Lakers' board, no Deng, no trade...simple as that. Deng was the best player on the team's best post championship team...period.

At the end of the day, Noah is the 2010 version of Deng as far as hype and being a fan favorite. Deng was beloved around the league after that season...about as much as Noah is now...then, people were saying "don't trade Deng for Kobe"...which was absolutely stupid...now, Bosh is not as good as Kobe was then, but Bosh may be the best big man not named Superman in the league. He is young, talented and can improve his game and consistency. Noah for Bosh? Hate to see Noah go, but Bosh is a player worth Noah leaving...

 

[TheStig]

Re:Chicago Bullseye 101: Rank the Coaching Candida

Noah's skill set is much more replaceable than Bosh's. There are a lot of near double double centers in the league that play with less energy and can't run as much but there aren't nearly as many 20/10 bigs. What PF is really better than him? I'd easily say he is a top 3 pf. Noah isn't a top 3 center and their is less quality there. I'm also curious what Asik can bring to the table, he is supposed to be a good defensive center?

 

[TheStig]

Re:Chicago Bullseye 101: Rank the Coaching Candida

houheffna wrote:

That said the Deng vs. BG and this drawing double teams stuff...stop it! I addressed that on your show. NOBODY drew a double team, nobody! It is why that offense was so stagnant and depended on jumpshots and defense. It is also hypocritical to talk up Noah's defense, and totally ignore the fact that Deng was and is a better and more effective defensive player than Gordon ever was. And again, Kobe didn't insist on having Ben Gordon on his team before coming here, nor did the Lakers insist on having Gordon be a part of any trade concerning Gordon. Magic Johnson went on TNT and said that as a member of the Lakers' board, no Deng, no trade...simple as that. Deng was the best player on the team's best post championship team...period.

I'm not getting in this debate again but why would you want BG around when getting Kobe? It would make no sense to demand he stay, he and ben wallace were the big pieces going out in scenarios to match salary and give the lakers a scorer. If we sent out Deng in the trade we would look like a don nelson team.

 

[houheffna]

Re:Chicago Bullseye 101: Rank the Coaching Candida

I'm not getting in this debate again but why would you want BG around when getting Kobe? It would make no sense to demand he stay, he and ben wallace were the big pieces going out in scenarios to match salary and give the lakers a scorer. If we sent out Deng in the trade we would look like a don nelson team.

Are you arguing that demanding Deng stay in a possible trade with Kobe was sensible?

 

[Fred]

Re:Chicago Bullseye 101: Rank the Coaching Candida

houheffna wrote:

That said the Deng vs. BG and this drawing double teams stuff...stop it! I addressed that on your show. NOBODY drew a double team, nobody! It is why that offense was so stagnant and depended on jumpshots and defense. It is also hypocritical to talk up Noah's defense, and totally ignore the fact that Deng was and is a better and more effective defensive player than Gordon ever was...

"If you're fortunate enough to have a guard (Gordon) double-teamed 40 feet from the basket that late in an NBA game, we have to move that ball and find an open man and make a shot.” – Scott Skiles after the Cleveland, April, 2007.

Look like the head coach at the time disagrees with you. But feel free to show me some video or Skiles quotes about all the double teams thrown at Deng. I'll save you the trouble...there aren't any videos or quotes, because the teams were too busy doubling BG. And doubling out to 40 feet, acording to Skiles. Heck, you only have to guard Deng with one defender out 17 feet.

Did you catch any of the Celtics playoff series last year? You didn't notice the double teams thrown at him in that series. Freeze frame this classic from Game 5, when Miller had his famous, wide open layup (head smash from Rondo). Do you know why he was wide open? Because Gordon was double teamed on the inbounds pass.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UKANlIfbzQ&feature=related

So throwing out all this statements within nothing to back it up won't get you anywhere. I've had enough of revisionist history with this team. Gordon had his best year in 06-07. Deng had a nice 8 weeks. Luol benefited much more Gordon on the court then Ben did from Luol. This was proven out in 08-09.

And please, can we stop it with this talk that Luol is some kind of great defender. He's not. He's an extremely limited athletically, which is what you need to be a great defender. He's a very good offensive and defensive rebounder, but he can't guard quick 3's. Unfortunately, the league is filled with them. I can go up and down the schedule over the past 3 years to show you guys who have absolutey torched Luol, highlighted with Butler's torch session of 24 on March 6th of this year that cost us a win against Dalls.

 

[??? ??????]

1. Avery Johnson
2. Jeff Van Gundy
3. Tom Izzo
4. Mike Fratello
5. Byron Scott
6. Lawrence Frank
7. Mike Dunleavy
8. John Calipari
9. Maurice Cheeks
10. Kevin McHale
11. Sam Mitchell

I'd really like Avery Johnson or Jeff Van Gundy. Avery Johnson really elevated that Mavericks team to a higher level, and got them to overachieve. Jeff Van Gundy has just had successful team after successful team.

College is a big part recruiting, but Tom Izzo, I feel, did a good job with some lesser talented teams.

Mike Fratello is kind of like Jeff Van Gundy in just having winning team after winning team.

Then Byron Scott, Lawrence Frank, and Mike Dunleavy I would be somewhat comfortable with. Dunleavy is a little iffy because of him being with the Clippers so long, but he coached some pretty damn good teams before then.

And Calipari you only hire if you're getting a free agent along with him. Mo Cheeks might be alright, and I'd avoid Kevin McHale and Sam Mitchell completely.

 

[Fred]

Re:Chicago Bullseye 101: Rank the Coaching Candida

houheffna wrote:

It is also hypocritical to talk up Noah's defense, and totally ignore the fact that Deng was and is a better and more effective defensive player than Gordon ever was. And again, Kobe didn't insist on having Ben Gordon on his team before coming here, nor did the Lakers insist on having Gordon be a part of any trade concerning Gordon. Magic Johnson went on TNT and said that as a member of the Lakers' board, no Deng, no trade...simple as that. .

#1. It's not hyporcritical to talk up Noah's defense when I've always said interior defense is far more important than perimeter defense. In 08-09, Orlando had one of the better defensive teams in the league last year with one great defensive center and some of the worst perimeter defenders in the history of basketball. (i.e. Hedo Turgosuck)

#2. This "Kobe didn't insist on having Ben Gordon on his team" is honestly one of the most ridiculous arguments I've heard over the years to back up the Deng is better than BG argument. KOBE IS A SHOOTING GUARD! BEN GORDON IS A SHOOTING GUARD! HELLO!! Of course he would rather be paired up with the legit 3. BG is a 2 whose greatest assest was closing games. Why would Kobe want to be paired up with another shooting guard who needed the ball in the 4th? Of course he would rather have Deng. Kobe also wanted Artest over Ariza. We'll see how that works out. But Kobe's insistence on Deng sure as hell isn't an argument for why Deng was more important to the success of the 06-07 Bulls.