a question about the head coach position?

[cyman3]

1)IN GENERAL, do u think a coach that played PG would make a better coach than a coach that played a different position?

Im wondering because... usually, the PG deals with most of the mentality aspects of the game. Thats why John Stockton is slowly losing game, while Mutombo/Olajuwon/Ewing lost their game at a fast rate. I believe that PF/C deals with more of the STRENGTH aspect.

with that in mind, wouldnt the PG have a better feel for the game? anybody feelin me or disagree?

2)having NBA experience as a player... how important is it? does it matter if that player was good?

ex- would Tracy McGrady make a better coach than JON BARRY? We know Phil Jackson wasnt a real game changer back in the day, but hes heck-a-lotta successful as a head coach.

3)just for fun- how good do u think MJ would be as a head coach? i mean, he does have a high understanding of this game and does prepare himself mentally for all obstacles...

[Diesel]

Just to answer one question...

Usually superstar players are much to competitive to be good coaches. That was shown by Magic when he tried to coach. I think Jordan would have the same problem. Not that they lack understanding, but these guys would have problems working with personalities. Bird was able to overcome it, but Bird had a very veteran team also.

As far as PGs making better coaches?? Let's see you have Lenny... You have Skiles, Ainge... vs. Phil Jackson, Karl, Silas, Bill Russell...

I don't think that it really matters. A PG might do the X's and O's well but being a coach is more than X's and O's. It's about understanding Management and the like. ON that level, you can have guys like Bill Lambeer and Rick Mahorn being equally as good as Isiah Thomas and Mark Jackson.

[cyman3]

is there a MIN/MAX number u can have (rule of the NBA?)???

[Guest]

I've never seen a team without at least two...

however, I don't think that there are any league requirements regarding the fact (or doubt that there are...).

[Gray Mule]

Many times, a player who is able to hang on for a long

period of time "By the skin of his teeth" will make a

very good coach or manager, depending on what sport

we are into.

The reason being, these guys have to study the game and

know all aspects of the game just to survive. The star

players, on the other hand, have so much talent and

usually only play one position that they don't have to

have as much study and hard work just to survive.

This is not always the case. Some great players have

gone into coaching after their playing career was over

and been very successful. Lenny W. was an all star and

then became the winningest coach alive.

Check your baseball managers, your football and your

basketball coaches. I'll bet more sucessful ones were

not star players before they became the head honcho.

[BlackHawkDown]

I usually agree with your post, they are for the most part very balanced and reasonable. But I must disagree with you. Only at best have a dozen players made it anywhere off of natural ability. I was an athelete for a while college/pro and truth is as a pro I hung on for my very very short career by the skin of my teeth. Howeverthe difference in myself and a star is truthfully work ethic. Jordan, Vick, Malone, Holyfield, etc. etc. are at the top of their game because of work not ability. Pro atheletes spend 40 - 60 hours/week in intensive training and preparation, save baseball.

That is why it annoys me to hear our team has no heart. I have played against SAR and seen his workouts believe me he is far from heartless. In pro sports everyone is a Rocky, Rudy type underdog. Do you seriously believe that Larry Brown BS about AI's work ethic. AI is 6'0" a buck 90. Yet dominates games. Do you seriously belive he could do that without knowing the playbook back and forth and training relentlessly.

I remember someone complaining to me that "in high school football was art, in college they wanted an automaton." The level of competition at the pro level is so different at the pro level that it is impossible to even compare to anything on the high school or college level.

Talent gets you a college scholarshiop. Hardwork gets you to the pros. Zeke and Bird were great players and coaches b/c they knew the X's & O's. Plus they could create X's and O's

[cyman3]

Im sure all professional athletes are giving it their best... the wins just come harder when u talk about the PROS...

yes Iverson does work hard, but just doesnt necessarily see Brown EYE-TO-EYE... they both need each other and respect one another... they just see different VIEWS of things... nevertheless, they both play a huge role in the SIXERS organization and need to co-operate in order to WIN.

[Guest]

BHD - I'm gonna throw my hat in the ring on this one - very few of the "great" players make even decent coaches. Some players, say in basketball, that attained the on-the cusp all-star level player (i.e. Doc) make good coaches, but a very good steadfast rule is that great players rarely make great coaches. The reason is really quite understandable - the finer points of the game simply "came to them" naturally (most of them). They didn't have to really dig in and fight - not for everything, every scrap.

I assume that you're college/pro experience was in basketball, and on that (your view on work ethic being the difference), I cna't say in basketball. However, I will say this - My experiences in sports, what seperates the tops from the almost tops was in fact talent, not work ethic. I took my abilities about as far as I could - national rankings, college scholarships, state records, what have you. But at the end of the day, the thing that really seperated me from those above me was more talent (in most cases).

Trust me, as someone who has trained 35 hours a week at a sport - it is incredibly easy to put in that time and not really work hard. Just going to practice, giving some effort, doen'st constitute hard work.