George Karl Anyone?
- Thread starter Kingster
- Start date
Not entirely inexplicable. There have been Denver fans calling for his head because he seems incapable, lately, of getting his teams beyond the 1st round of the playoffs. I have a feeling, in few years, they may end up feeling similarly to how we did about letting Adelman go, where in retrospect it seems like a true bonehead decision. We'll see how this all works out for them...
Yeah, I've had the feeling Denver fans are somewhat spoiled They were fortunate to get some decent players out of that Carmelo debacle and had a coach that got them to outperform their skill level. If Iggy leaves due to continued cheapness of the ownership I have a hard time seeing them getting anywhere close to last year next season.
He may want to coach, but then again, maybe not. At the very least I'd make a call to discuss the position, to discuss the Kings and get his insights on the league, talent, scouting, and potential GMs (if he's not at all interested). Maybe there is another position in the organization he can take, like a Jerry West for example.
He is too good at coaching and will take best available roster.
This is kind of the funny thing with Karl being fired. On the one hand NO!! You don't fire a guy with that many wins/such a track record. On the other hand he's really turned into a smallball run n gun coach and is suffering from Don Nelson disease because of it. he'll get you to the playoff with everybody running around throwing up threes and being undisciplined, but his teams flame out. And so as big of a NO!! as it looks, as with Nellie there may be an idea that Devner, after basically playing the same style of ball for 3 decades without ever breaking through, might finally be rethinking the run n gun take advantage of the altitude stuff.
And for the same reason, while I have said and will continue to say that hiring Malone was a risk with so many big veteran WINNING coaches out there, I like his proposed style better than Karls. I like JVG's style better than Karl's. I am not confident that Karl would do more for us than a glorified Smart. A really really glorified Smart mind you, but no culture break. Still offense first run and chuck...and I'm over that. And you get the feeling a little bit after the Memphis/Indy showing in the playoffs that there may be some movement away from that in the NBA overall.
And for the same reason, while I have said and will continue to say that hiring Malone was a risk with so many big veteran WINNING coaches out there, I like his proposed style better than Karls. I like JVG's style better than Karl's. I am not confident that Karl would do more for us than a glorified Smart. A really really glorified Smart mind you, but no culture break. Still offense first run and chuck...and I'm over that. And you get the feeling a little bit after the Memphis/Indy showing in the playoffs that there may be some movement away from that in the NBA overall.
In discussing the principles for a successful Kings team, Malone said he wanted to run the ball. He didn't mention disciplined sets, screens, timing, or slowing the ball for a half court game. That doesn't mean he's not going to do those things, but it is telling that he emphasized running the ball. So why do you think his style will be any different than Smart's, who also preached defense with the intent of running the ball? The principles are identical. The execution of those principles will determine whether he is successful or not.
To group Smart with Karl, who is a HOFer coach, is over the top.
To group Smart with Karl, who is a HOFer coach, is over the top.
You run with the ball only after you defend. If the choice is don't run or don't defend, you don't run. Any defensive minded coach will tell you that.
And we'll see with Malone as an offensive coach. He doesn't have to be a success. That remains the question with him. But he talks a good game. Defense first. Defensive rebounding first. Play inside out on offense. The "we want to run" is standard coach speak for every coach from the run n gunners down to the slowest walk it up guys. The difference is just how they prioritize that/when they think its appropriate. All coaches advocate running on clear breakouts. Then there is a progression of guys who also advocate running when you have numbers, to those who advocate running every time you grab a d-board numbers or not, to those who advocate running even if you are taking it out under your hoop. We'll see where Malone falls on that.
However I know where Karl falls on that. He emphasizes defense far more then Nellie has in decades, but he has run high pace undisciplined offenses for a long long time, and like Nellie gotten nowehere fast with that in the playoffs forever. There is absolutely no doubt you get better hiring a George Karl, hence the risk of hiring a Malone. But in the long run perpetuating a more for show than for success style of play isn't doing the franchise any good. New era, new philosophy, time to get serious.
And we'll see with Malone as an offensive coach. He doesn't have to be a success. That remains the question with him. But he talks a good game. Defense first. Defensive rebounding first. Play inside out on offense. The "we want to run" is standard coach speak for every coach from the run n gunners down to the slowest walk it up guys. The difference is just how they prioritize that/when they think its appropriate. All coaches advocate running on clear breakouts. Then there is a progression of guys who also advocate running when you have numbers, to those who advocate running every time you grab a d-board numbers or not, to those who advocate running even if you are taking it out under your hoop. We'll see where Malone falls on that.
However I know where Karl falls on that. He emphasizes defense far more then Nellie has in decades, but he has run high pace undisciplined offenses for a long long time, and like Nellie gotten nowehere fast with that in the playoffs forever. There is absolutely no doubt you get better hiring a George Karl, hence the risk of hiring a Malone. But in the long run perpetuating a more for show than for success style of play isn't doing the franchise any good. New era, new philosophy, time to get serious.
Last edited:
Twenty five seasons: 21 winning, 1 .500, and 3 losing. Twenty three play off visits,and the two times he missed he was fired by the Cavs and Warriors.
The guy has a great record in the regular season, and a above average type record in post season. I wouldn't have complained if we had hired him, but I'm equally happy with Malone.
I think the Clippers, Nets or Grizzlies will be his next port of call. Not sure he'd want a gm role, but not harm in interviewing I guess.
The guy has a great record in the regular season, and a above average type record in post season. I wouldn't have complained if we had hired him, but I'm equally happy with Malone.
I think the Clippers, Nets or Grizzlies will be his next port of call. Not sure he'd want a gm role, but not harm in interviewing I guess.
But one of the reasons George Karl was fired was because the ownership and Karl had different views of the team. Karl wanted W's immediately, while the ownership wanted to see the young guys (such as Javale McGee) to get some playing time and to progress.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't want a coach whose interest is to get quick wins and not develop our talent, that's the exact opposite of what we do need! I respect Karl but I don't feel like he would be a fit here with the Kings.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't want a coach whose interest is to get quick wins and not develop our talent, that's the exact opposite of what we do need! I respect Karl but I don't feel like he would be a fit here with the Kings.
Actually, Malone stressed pushing the ball up the court "with discipline", while making good decisions and taking good shots. Smart always seemed to just want to push the ball no matter what. To me, SA is a good example of a team that pushes the ball when it's there, but settles into the half court when it's not. Utah (with Stocton and Malone) were also brilliant at this back in the day. That is the impression I got when listening to Malone on what he wants to do on offense. Smart liked to run-&-gun, which works at putting up a lot of points (but also gives up a lot of points).
No dugh.... And that's what Smart preached and what Malone has preached. So you don't necessarily believe Malone when he says he wants to run. So you are a disbeliever already? I take the guy at his word. The point is: both Smart and Malone have preached the defend, then run philosophy. Whether you want to believe it or not is entirely up to you.
I think you are completely ignoring the fact that EVERY team he has worked for has drastically improved defensively, especially the Hornets and Warriors (his last two stops). Can Smart make that comment? Yeah, didn't think so. I think you are making a mountain out of a dirt clod trying to compare the two.
As Warhawk brought up, if you want to ignore the defensive improvement in Cle, NO and GS, that's entirely up to you. But if you step back and look at this logically, there's much more evidence of Malone's concentration on and success defensively than Smart's.
We still have to wait and see Malone in action here, but there's definitely a paper trail of evidence you're choosing to ignore. You could have said the same thing about Thibs before he took over in Chi, he's just talking and saying the same things a Keith Smart would say. Of course, you'd be ignoring his defensive success in Boston prior to that. And yes, with Rose healthy Chi breaks off defensive stops/rebounds, but that's entirely different than Smart's run and gun philosophy here.
You can run after focusing on defense and doing the hard work, capitalizing on the hard work, the defense you put in, or you can run to make up for a lack of defensive effort/focus. A coach like Thibs falls on one side of the equation while coaches like MDA/Smart fall on the other.
We still have to wait and see Malone in action here, but there's definitely a paper trail of evidence you're choosing to ignore. You could have said the same thing about Thibs before he took over in Chi, he's just talking and saying the same things a Keith Smart would say. Of course, you'd be ignoring his defensive success in Boston prior to that. And yes, with Rose healthy Chi breaks off defensive stops/rebounds, but that's entirely different than Smart's run and gun philosophy here.
You can run after focusing on defense and doing the hard work, capitalizing on the hard work, the defense you put in, or you can run to make up for a lack of defensive effort/focus. A coach like Thibs falls on one side of the equation while coaches like MDA/Smart fall on the other.
Last edited:
the difference between an assistant-turned-head-coach like keith smart and one like mike malone will be in the following category: testicular fortitude. smart and his staff actually did manage to coax considerable defensive improvement from the kings in the first ten games of this last season. but the offense sputtered in that time, and smart panicked, perhaps fearing for his job after seeing mike brown canned by the lakers so early...
smart abandoned the notion of developing a defense, of developing a halfcourt offense, and lazily resorted to run and gun tactics to increase scoring, while sacrificing anything that resembles discipline on the court--the very quality a young team like the kings so desperately needs. couple that with his refusal to define the roles of his players, and you have an ineffectual head coach that his team quit on long before the season mercifully ground to a close...
in my estimation, mike malone's commitment to improving a team's defense at every one of his prior assistant coaching jobs has yielded the kind of results that should not be confused with keith smart's talks-a-big-game style of coaching. as has been said, we have to adopt a wait-and-see attitude to determine just how successful malone will be as a head coach in sacramento, but the signifiers of success are certainly bolded on malone's resume where they are utterly absent on keith smart's resume...
smart abandoned the notion of developing a defense, of developing a halfcourt offense, and lazily resorted to run and gun tactics to increase scoring, while sacrificing anything that resembles discipline on the court--the very quality a young team like the kings so desperately needs. couple that with his refusal to define the roles of his players, and you have an ineffectual head coach that his team quit on long before the season mercifully ground to a close...
in my estimation, mike malone's commitment to improving a team's defense at every one of his prior assistant coaching jobs has yielded the kind of results that should not be confused with keith smart's talks-a-big-game style of coaching. as has been said, we have to adopt a wait-and-see attitude to determine just how successful malone will be as a head coach in sacramento, but the signifiers of success are certainly bolded on malone's resume where they are utterly absent on keith smart's resume...
Keith Smart, after an entire off season to prepare and develop his system, came into camp claiming after reviewing decades of basketball that the Harlem Globetrotters were the blueprint he should follow. This guy watched decades worth of film, and couldn't find a template to follow from any of the more successful NBA teams and decided to follow the blueprint of a team outside the league, who's more circus act than substance.
That's truly unbelievable and I highly doubt we'll hear anything remotely similar from Malone.
That's truly unbelievable and I highly doubt we'll hear anything remotely similar from Malone.
This. The Kings were an impressive D team the first 10 games or so of the season; Smart jumped ship because he couldn't figure out how to balance that with an adequately productive offense. My sense is that his D relied on a lot of inefficient running around rather than usable sets requiring a better balance/combination of hustle, discipline, technique and spacing. Smart DID panic when the team couldn't score, and the focus on D entirely disappeared, as he began to rely on diminutive chuckers pushing the ball up the floor.
I don't really have any thoughts on Karl's coaching style, but I do think his small ball was borne out of necessity as much as anything else. He doesn't like JaVale McGee, and his other centers are somewhat plodding. When Galinari and Faried went down with injuries, he was stuck with all his best players being somewhat undersized. Part of his being fired was conflict with the owner, who had resigned McGee to a big contract only to watch him ride the bench. When he asked Karl if he didn't think McGee should be playing more, Karl answered, NO! When Karl asked for a new 4 year contract, the handwriting was on the wall.
He may or may not be a good coach, depending on your taste, but I don't want him as my GM, and he certainly not going to take a job as an assistant coach. How would you like to be Malone as a first year coach with Karl breathing down your neck. Simply wouldn't work!
He may or may not be a good coach, depending on your taste, but I don't want him as my GM, and he certainly not going to take a job as an assistant coach. How would you like to be Malone as a first year coach with Karl breathing down your neck. Simply wouldn't work!