***NBA Playoffs Thread***

Status
Not open for further replies.
so it's riley's fault when you ***** about having no talent, then when he gets you talent, you praise Spoesltra. Pathetic argument.

The funny part is that this whole thing started because CyJack was saying SBrooks was not a good coach because he was "handed a bunch of elite talent" to do the work for him.

But Spoelstra? No, he's one of the best coaches ever. Better than Karl even.

LAWL
 
Don't have one, so why does that make Karl better than Spoelstra?
Just saying dude... Hand any coach in the NBA the reigns of a Lebron/Wade/Bosh/etc team, and I can bet you they make the Finals the last two years.
 
So what did Karl do that was memorable in Denver with Carmelo? You can knock my argument all you want, but you can't make any argument that supports Karl being better and you realize this which is why you're not trying.

Karl lost in the conference finals with Melo.

Spoelstra lost in the first round with Wade.

Keep spinning the wheels. You're great at it.
 
So what did Karl do that was memorable in Denver with Carmelo? You can knock my argument all you want, but you can't make any argument that supports Karl being better and you realize this which is why you're not trying.

Nothing other than finish better than 3rd in his division, win more games, lose fewer games, and take a team to the Finals. That's all.
 
Just saying dude... Hand any coach in the NBA the reigns of a Lebron/Wade/Bosh/etc team, and I can bet you they make the Finals the last two years.

So I'll ask you again, what has Karl done to prove he's a superior coach to Spoelstra?
 
Karl lost in the conference finals with Melo.

Spoelstra lost in the first round with Wade.

Keep spinning the wheels. You're great at it.
No no no! You're doing it wrong!

Karl lost in the conference finals with Melo.

Spoelstra won the whole damn thing with Wade/Lebron/Bosh.

Clearly those are the two seasons we need to be comparing.
 
Karl lost in the conference finals with Melo.

Spoelstra lost in the first round with Wade.

Keep spinning the wheels. You're great at it.

LOL Karl has been there 9 years and got out of the first round once, Spoelstra didn't get out of the first round in his 2 years at Miami pre LeBron. Good, fair comparison LOL.
 
The funny part is that this whole thing started because CyJack was saying SBrooks was not a good coach because he was "handed a bunch of elite talent" to do the work for him.

But Spoelstra? No, he's one of the best coaches ever. Better than Karl even.

LAWL

I won't speak for CyJack but Brooks isn't a mediocre coach because he was handed elite talent, he's a mediocre coach because of the dumb things he does with that talent.
 
I won't speak for CyJack but Brooks isn't a mediocre coach because he was handed elite talent, he's a mediocre coach because of the dumb things he does with that talent.

Agreed, like his insistance on playing Perkins tons of minutes against teams where there is no matchup for him. And his rotation patterns of not getting Harden enough minutes while playing Fisher too many last year.
 
LOL Karl has been there 9 years and got out of the first round once, Spoelstra didn't get out of the first round in his 2 years at Miami pre LeBron. Good, fair comparison LOL.
See! 1>0!!!! Karl>Spoelstra

If you want to really get into the math...

That's a .11111 success rate compared to a .00000 success rate.

There is the CONCLUSIVE evidence that you have been looking for, CyJack! Mystery solved! Bada bing bada boom.
 
LOL Karl has been there 9 years and got out of the first round once, Spoelstra didn't get out of the first round in his 2 years at Miami pre LeBron. Good, fair comparison LOL.

So are you saying that 2 years isn't enough time to determine if a coach is good or bad?
 
Just saying dude... Hand any coach in the NBA the reigns of a Lebron/Wade/Bosh/etc team, and I can bet you they make the Finals the last two years.

Coaching does matter. There are far fewer coaches than you think that could make the finals with that team.

It's not just about having talent, it's about getting that talent to fit the role you want them to have and designing schemes to fit that talent.

Lakers fans are figuring out what Knicks fans already knew: Mike Dantoni is a system coach who is terrible unless his players perfectly match that system.
 
So are you saying that 2 years isn't enough time to determine if a coach is good or bad?

No, I think two years is a good sample size. Obviously it was enough for Riley too. Spoelstra did a very good job on the defensive end with those Miami teams and that has improved even more as he's been given more talent to work with.
 
Coaching does matter. There are far fewer coaches than you think that could make the finals with that team.

It's not just about having talent, it's about getting that talent to fit the role you want them to have and designing schemes to fit that talent.

Lakers fans are figuring out what Knicks fans already knew: Mike Dantoni is a system coach who is terrible unless his players perfectly match that system.

I'm glad Spoelstra, after 2 years, finally figured out a way to win with one of the most elite NBA rosters ever assembled. Must have been tough.
 
No, I think two years is a good sample size. Obviously it was enough for Riley too. Spoelstra did a very good job on the defensive end with those Miami teams and that has improved even more as he's been given more talent to work with.

So more talent = more wins? Wow, profound observation there, dinkus.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Help Support Us

Become a patron