Q: Do you believe Pierce is "Schlenk's guy," or do you think Pierce is a bridge to that next head coach? And why?

[Spud2nique]

From what I’ve seen of Lloyd. I love him for being the guy. I live in the present. Hawks fans will grow to love Lloyd. Not acting like I know him well, I don’t. But I think I’m an ok judge of character and this guy is a no nonsense coach who will have guys playing hard. Depending on the progress, he should be able to keep his job moving forward...having said that, he could be our Mark Jackson to build player confidence, then go out and get our trophy coach...(which I don’t agree with if Lloyd deserves to continue the job at the time.

[Spud2nique]

3 minutes ago, sturt said:

It makes sense to me that it was an option that Ressler was very much open to, and that Schlenk was more than happy to put forward during the interview phase since, really, selling the GSW template was his best shot at getting the ATL job.

But at that stage, I think Ressler still held out hope that he could successfully hire a new GM and that the new GM and Bud would be able to forge enough chemistry and commonality of philosophy that there would be the best of both GSW and SAS worlds.

Nice dream, anyway.

===========================================

Back to the OP...

I know I said I wanted to hear others' opinions on who Schlenk's guy is and that I'd sit on the sidelines, but I'll go ahead after all...

I pick "c"....

I don't think Schlenk has a guy.

No one with whom he's been associated in all his years in GSW and MIA really seems to me to be a natural target for when ATL gets good again. I think if Pierce ends up being a bridge, it will be a matter of who are the hottest names on the market who have some degree of proven success. Not thrilled with that conclusion, but it seems most reasonable.

But here's a dark horse name that could conceivably surface if, in a year or two, a certain former college coach leads his team to the NBA finals: Gregg Marshall.

 

Your name Jamal? Do you also like Wendell Carter?...

[Jungle Jack]

2 hours ago, sturt said:

Good thoughts, but I'm not sure that this situation is that situation. There, you had a transparent from-the-top decision to effectively mandate NBA history's most intentional and thorough tank job ever. So, it wouldn't seem to be important to be changing coaches every 3 years or so in the first place under that narrative.

Now, perhaps we're actually implementing a similar thing, and Schlenk just won't admit to that plan in the way that Hinkie did. But so far, his public comments have only indicated that we're taking this draft and next year's draft to try to infuse the roster with top-shelf talent.

And... am I missing something???.... they have "dug out" at this point, no? By virtue of them making the playoffs, I think most would see it that way. And Brown does seem to be getting that shot.

My question effectively tries to get at this... if we seem poised to turn a corner at some point, do you see someone out there that you figure is Schlenk's guy, or even strongly suspect that there is?

 

 

In these strange times of tanking, I suppose I would mean by dug out that the Hawks were actively seeking talent as opposed to taking on junky contracts to keep the salary floor high enough and getting picks.  Likewise when simultaneously an upper tier (sadly not meaning the Durants and the like) free agent.

 

On the whole, I am neutral to positive about Schlenk and dig that part of a GM's job is to take cover for the owner.  As for whether or not our newest HC is Schlenk's guy, he certainly is now.  As for his ideal HC, I sadly do not know enough about him to hazard a guess about the coaches that have truly impressed him.

Just now, Jungle Jack said:

 

In these strange times of tanking, I suppose I would mean by dug out that the Hawks were actively seeking talent as opposed to taking on junky contracts to keep the salary floor high enough and getting picks.  Likewise when simultaneously an upper tier (sadly not meaning the Durants and the like) free agent come here.

 

On the whole, I am neutral to positive about Schlenk and dig that part of a GM's job is to take cover for the owner.  As for whether or not our newest HC is Schlenk's guy, he certainly is now.  As for his ideal HC, I sadly do not know enough about him to hazard a guess about the coaches that have truly impressed him.

 

[Buzzard]

He is a Schlenk guy. He has 12 years of experience and has been talked about in positive terms at every stop in his career. All this means is Schlenk thinks he got the hire right. I hope Pierce is nothing short of a brilliant hire!

[GameTime]

They say a picture says a thousand words....

Haven't seen Schlenk this giddy since Curry won MVP.

[Jungle Jack]

Schlenk kinda looks like Putin in that shot.  

[sturt]

I guess I was trying to draw a distinction between hiring the best candidate, and hiring "your guy," in this case, Schlenk's.

I don't begrudge the notion at all that Schlenk and Ressler feel great about their choice. The cynical part of me, otoh, says that is only natural, and it's exceptionally rare that one can ascertain anything but positive vibes when any new head coach is hired.

So again, I don't think Pierce is anyone that Schlenk has targeted all along as someone he someday wanted to work with because he knew he'd be successful... he just happened to be the best option of the options on the table this time.

Nothing wrong with that.

And, if I'm right that Schlenk doesn't have someone like that who you could call "his guy," then Pierce has a real opportunity here to become his guy by default. But most of us acknowledge, Pierce is going to lose a lot, and then at some unknown point, he's suddenly going to see that the timer has went off and expectations have suddenly turned upside down on him... suddenly he's going to be expected to win, and that had better happen right then and there.

[KB21]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

I guess I was trying to draw a distinction between hiring the best candidate, and hiring "your guy," in this case, Schlenk's.

I don't begrudge the notion at all that Schlenk and Ressler feel great about their choice. The cynical part of me, otoh, says that is only natural, and it's exceptionally rare that one can ascertain anything but positive vibes when any new head coach is hired.

So again, I don't think Pierce is anyone that Schlenk has targeted all along as someone he someday wanted to work with because he knew he'd be successful... he just happened to be the best option of the options on the table this time.

Nothing wrong with that.

And, if I'm right that Schlenk doesn't have someone like that who you could call "his guy," then Pierce has a real opportunity here to become his guy by default. But most of us acknowledge, Pierce is going to lose a lot, and then at some unknown point, he's suddenly going to see that the timer has went off and expectations have suddenly turned upside down on him... suddenly he's going to be expected to win, and that had better happen right then and there.

Schlenk set out looking for only one qualification in this head coach.  That qualification is that the coach is willing to accept losing as the norm for the now.  There were more qualified coaches who wouldn't even look at the job.  A guy like John Bonamego is infinitely more qualified, and the Hawks didn't even interview him.  They didn't even try to get a seat at Igor's table either.  

[sturt]

36 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Schlenk set out looking for only one qualification in this head coach.  That qualification is that the coach is willing to accept losing as the norm for the now.  There were more qualified coaches who wouldn't even look at the job.  A guy like John Bonamego is infinitely more qualified, and the Hawks didn't even interview him.  They didn't even try to get a seat at Igor's table either.  

Again, you make a valid point and/but then overstate it.

I agree that a primary qualification was someone who was willing and eager to be the coach of a bad team for at least a couple of years if not more.

But then, can we please be honest that there's no shortage of NBA assistants who would sacrifice almost anything to get to be one of the chosen 30 HCs. It's not like Pierce had no credible competition. But for sure, his competition was from the second shelf, not the top one. Again, that's okay. There has been the occasional surprise who emerged from that shelf.

 

[KB21]

10 minutes ago, sturt said:

Again, you make a valid point and/but then overstate it.

I agree that a primary qualification was someone who was willing and eager to be the coach of a bad team for at least a couple of years if not more.

But then, can we please be honest that there's no shortage of NBA assistants who would sacrifice almost anything to get to be one of the chosen 30 HCs. It's not like Pierce had no credible competition. But for sure, his competition was from the second shelf, not the top one. Again, that's okay. There has been the occasional surprise who emerged from that shelf.

 

It's not OK to me, because it is just more of the same with their decision to not even try to be competitive.  They just hired a coach based on the fact that he wouldn't screw up the tank.  That is not OK by any stretch.

[nathan2331]

It's not OK to me, because it is just more of the same with their decision to not even try to be competitive.  They just hired a coach based on the fact that he wouldn't screw up the tank.  That is not OK by any stretch.

We have to live with it. I don't think we will have to wait as long as Sixer fans, but hope we'll come out the other side with talent capable of winning a championship. We were never going to accomplish anything with Millsap and Howard, it's better to cut our losses when we did and hope we draft a franchise changing player. As bad as tanking is, your idea of keeping the core together would do nothing for us. We've seen what it looks like.

[parfait]

Predicting the head coaching success of an assistant coach is always difficult. Even Bud was no sure thing 5 years ago.

But Pierce was as qualified as any assistant on the market this off-season (Fizdale does not count as an assistant).

Just because someone such as James Borrega is from the Spurs tree does not guarantee success. Borrega ended up taking the second worst job available in Charlotte (the worst being Orlando). Two bad teams with bad cap situations.

Based on resume, Pierce has the qualifications to be both bridge coach and long-term coach.

He is a suitable bridge coach because of his developmental background.

And he can be the long term answer because of his league-wide connections.

[JayBirdHawk]

7 hours ago, parfait said:

Predicting the head coaching success or failure of an assistant coach is always difficult. 

Added.

It's a wait and see approach.

[NBASupes]

Bridge 

[Jungle Jack]

As for Bonamego, I believe it would have taken a pretty extreme set of circumstances for us to have hired another of Pop's coaches.  

While I certainly agree that historically Pierce could not be more of a bridge candidate, what I am not entirely certain of is the degree which the tank affects the timeframe.  

 

Beyond no team most likely getting to come close to Philly's level of sustained self inflicted failure as the NBA did get involved there and with seemingly half of franchises rocking the tank.  It does make me sad that we are all but obliged to take on the worst possible contacts (Luol Deng?  Come on down!!) to gain draft picks from playoff contenders desperate to shed anchors.

 

[KB21]

Even Orlando hired a better head coach than Atlanta.

[Spud2nique]

1 hour ago, KB21 said:

Even Orlando hired a better head coach than Atlanta.

Clifford? Wthell has he done. At least with Lloyd we have some defensive pitbullness to look forward to, with Clifford you know what you’re getting and he’s got a low ceiling as a head coach. Specially with orlando...

[JayBirdHawk]

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

Even Orlando hired a more experienced head coach than Atlanta.

Fixed. 2 winning season over .500 with a sub .500 record overall.

And they should, they have enough high lottery picks.

[KB21]

Brett loses Pierce and may end up getting an upgrade in Monty Williams.

[sturt]

16 hours ago, KB21 said:

Brett loses Pierce and may end up getting an upgrade in Monty Williams.

Or, may not.

Without the benefit of hidden mics and cams, we're all just guessing about how good a given assistant coach is (which itself is an inherently subjective activity) based on what we see on the resumes, I think we all can acknowledge that, right?

===================================

New curiosity, not even conjecture... going back to the actual OP question...

I've concluded there is no "Schlenk's guy" out there. At all.

But if we assume there is one, and if that one is not currently the highly successful head coach at one of Schlenk's alma maters in KS...

Could Chris Jent be that guy?

The two have not been professionally associated with each other until now.

But because Jent is the lone hold over from Bud, and because it is reasonable to think his hiring in the first place was Schlenk-driven more so than Bud-driven, it seems there's a possibility that there is more to that relationship than could be gathered previously.

Jent does have one interim HC stint on his resume, in ORL, but years after Schlenk had been there for the brief time that he was.

But then, perhaps the fact that Schlenk was down the street in MIA for some of those years that Jent was an assistant in ORL provided some occasional reason to become familiar with each other. And/or, we know from comments he's made that Schlenk has made it a point in the past to be present for Big Ten tournaments... maybe during both times that Jent worked for his alma mater, Schlenk and he rubbed elbows then.

Just reason for conjecture, no slam dunk conclusions here.