Quin Snyder - Additions/now CHANGES to the Coaching Staff

[RedDawg#8]

4 hours ago, KB21 said:

Milwaukee was bad with Giannis before Bud, and with all due respect to Adrian Giffin, there will be a dramatic decline in wins for them with Bud gone.  

Right, just like our Hawks were bad with Trae before Nate/Quinn. Has nothing to do with Giannis being a younger player before Bud and growing in to his body and developing into a winner, leader and MVP.

Bulls were bad with Jordan before Phil Jackson too. 

Bucks were so bad before Bud got there, I wonder why Bud couldn’t win a ring in Atlanta despite having 4 All Stars. Surely a coach that great would take any team to the promised land since we are discounting him having a generational talent at his disposal. 
 

OR

we can have an objective discussion centered around the fact that having the MVP and DPOY on your roster helps a coaches Xs and Os come to life.

I agree that Griffin is likely a lesser coach than Bud; but if Bud doesn’t go somewhere with a star player of Giannis’ caliber, the Bucks will likely outperform his next team too.

 

[JayBirdHawk]

On 5/26/2023 at 10:12 AM, JayBirdHawk said:

Official...

 

 

All I see with Igor

 

[sturt]

22 hours ago, JayBirdHawk said:

All I see with Igor

 

 

I've heard he actually pronounces it EYE-gore... like this one...

 

[Gray Mule]

Quiet a difference between our old head coach and our new one.

Old coach didn't want an assistant who might be able to take his job.  Quin wants assistant coaches who might be offered a head coaching job.  I believe he ends up with really good assistant coaches.  Just my opinion...

[KB21]

1 hour ago, Gray Mule said:

Quiet a difference between our old head coach and our new one.

Old coach didn't want an assistant who might be able to take his job.  Quin wants assistant coaches who might be offered a head coaching job.  I believe he ends up with really good assistant coaches.  Just my opinion...

We once had a staff that had these assistants:

Quin Snyder - head coach

Kenny Atkinson - head coach

Darvin Ham - head coach

Taylor Jenkins - head coach

[AHF]

On 5/27/2023 at 9:32 PM, KB21 said:

Great coach.  Terrible GM.  Never should have let Ferry go.

[Gray Mule]

It's a two edged sword.

A player cannot arrive at his top potential until he is properly coached.

A coach cannot bring out the best in a player unless and until he's coachable.

Hawk fans are excited.  We believe we now have the best coaches available and we believe we have players with untapped talent just waiting for the proper instructions to break out!!

Now comes the hard part.  Waiting to see what happens!

[sturt]

19 hours ago, Gray Mule said:

Old coach didn't want an assistant who might be able to take his job. 

Pardon the observation, Gray, but that seems more than a little unfair. And, counterintuitive.

To the last part first, who doesn't want to be the root of a widely-regarded coaching tree?

To the first part last, Nate may have had his coaching convictions that some Squawkers took issue with, but the man imo could never be accused of being disingenuous or all about himself. He was/is a quality human being, and anything in that realm that could be taken as self-serving I would argue is likely only the rational after-effects of having been treated as IND treated him--and it's only b/c it's a small market that the idiocy of that situation isn't still talked about years later.

Finishing the thought... I'm as big a Quin cheerleader as there is here... but pray tell... where's the evidence that Quin's done anything more than what Nate did, ie, hire guys he's comfortable with? I don't see it. Let's praise Quin for those things that are worthy of praise, of course, but otoh, let's also resist... I know, I know I'm preaching to the choir, ie the choir in the Church of Satan as it were ... crapping on Nate. He's a good man. He's a good coach, too. But to the specific point here, the relevant point is, he's a good man.

[AHF]

1 hour ago, sturt said:

Pardon the observation, Gray, but that seems more than a little unfair. And, counterintuitive.

To the last part first, who doesn't want to be the root of a widely-regarded coaching tree?

To the first part last, Nate may have had his coaching convictions that some Squawkers took issue with, but the man imo could never be accused of being disingenuous or all about himself. He was/is a quality human being, and anything in that realm that could be taken as self-serving I would argue is likely only the rational after-effects of having been treated as IND treated him--and it's only b/c it's a small market that the idiocy of that situation isn't still talked about years later.

Finishing the thought... I'm as big a Quin cheerleader as there is here... but pray tell... where's the evidence that Quin's done anything more than what Nate did, ie, hire guys he's comfortable with? I don't see it. Let's praise Quin for those things that are worthy of praise, of course, but otoh, let's also resist... I know, I know I'm preaching to the choir, ie the choir in the Church of Satan as it were ... crapping on Nate. He's a good man. He's a good coach, too. But to the specific point here, the relevant point is, he's a good man.

I definitely think Nate stacked his bench with people who would be obviously unqualified to take over for him.  And that was the opinion of a lot of posters before Nate was ever let go so this isn't 20/20 hindsight or anything.  At a minimum, reasonable minds can differ on whether Nate truly went out with a mission to get the best and brightest on his bench.

[Gray Mule]

I'm not saying that Nate is not a good man.  I'm sorry if I left this impression in my post.  I sincerely believe he hired assistant coaches that he was comfortable with.

[macdaddy]

Joe Prunty has a .590 coaching record including undefeated as a Hawk HC.  

[sturt]

7 hours ago, AHF said:

I definitely think Nate stacked his bench with people who would be obviously unqualified to take over for him.  And that was the opinion of a lot of posters before Nate was ever let go so this isn't 20/20 hindsight or anything.  At a minimum, reasonable minds can differ on whether Nate truly went out with a mission to get the best and brightest on his bench.

I see no evidence of that. None. And I can't help but notice, you only offered "it was the opinion of a lot of posters"... as-if a lot of posters here is some highly objective, highly informed jury? I don't even have anything that's been set in front of me as some serious reason to reconsider. Meanwhile, what I set in front of Gray, and now you, is that Nate McMillan's coaching may be worthy of your criticism and scrutiny... but to make this assertion is to suggest, from where I sit anyway, that Nate chose to hire assistants who would be less likely to contribute to his team's winning while under his watch... and again, that makes no sense in view of the quality of the man; and, even if you don't think highly of the man, the whole idea is counterintuitive since it's his win-loss record that ultimately is harmed anyhow.

It's really really really over the top around here.

And another thing.

Did Nate even have full control over who was hired? Or was that a shared responsibility thing.

Pretty sure if we go back and dig out the archives, we find that it was shared. The GM was part of the decision, if not the lead dog. That's my recall anyway specific to the hire of Mike Longabardi. And Chris Jent. It may have varied.

 

Circling back to the original point... the comparison is flawed not only looking at Demon Nate, but again, who are these "brand name" coaches who Angel Quin supposedly is bringing to our bench? His lead guy was one of his coaches before... so, importantly, even though Igor had a cup of coffee as an NBA head coach, it's not as-if Quin's bringing in someone from outside his matrix in the interest of some new blood and new ideas. And it's arguable whether the more admirable hire would be Angel Quin's Igor or Demon Nate's Chris Jent.

 

Kinda pissed, really, that we're even still having these damning attitudes about one of the NBA's really good guys as a player and as a coach. The venom here is thick, and ubiquitous. And to the point of stupid. Lay off the guy. He doesn't deserve any of this. And by "this," I don't mean people shouldn't criticize his coaching, any more than people shouldn't criticize Quin's later (... and that day is coming, of course, lest any of us kid ourselves). These kinds of assertions go to the character of the guy. When it gets to that point, people have reduced the man to, not a real person, but a pinata... a pinata's entire purpose of being, of course, is to take a beating. That's how too many posters here think about Nate McMillan. It's wrong.

[sturt]

4 hours ago, Gray Mule said:

I'm not saying that Nate is not a good man.  I'm sorry if I left this impression in my post.  I sincerely believe he hired assistant coaches that he was comfortable with.

And I sincerely believe Quin has hired assistant coaches that he is comfortable with.

Same.

Nate just doesn't strike me as a person who operates out of fear. But as suggested previously, I'd think he would strike me as that kind of person, having went through the ordeal in IND that he did.

 

My son... who doesn't even have a 4 year degree in electrical engineering... is right now getting trained by a company to do work comparable to what someone with that degree does out of college. They're even paying him for these 3 months while he's being trained. And paying his room/board. Many if not most people would know this company if I named them, since they've historically been a major US Department of Defense vendor/supplier.

Why would they do that, when they could go out and get much better credentialed people than he is?

We all understand why, don't we? Because they have their way of wanting to train for their specific applications, and so in the application process, they valued experience with certain hardware and software above the normal BA/BS credential, and truth be told, probably preferred the perceived maturity of a 30-something over 20-somethings.

Translated to head coaching, let's set aside the notion that Travis was heavily involved in hiring assistants at all... let's say it was all Demon Nate's doing. Well, there is a merited line of reason that says, "Give me people I can mold to do things the way I prefer those things to be done, as opposed to people who plausibly may constantly be slowing us down, resisting my leadership."

In fact, isn't that line of reason valid for Quin? I think it is.

Goose meet gander.

 

Gray, don't take this as upset with you. Rather, take it just that your post (obviously) struck a nerve. And my words are just for the public at-large, those who have taken every opportunity or so it seems to give Nate the...

 

...treatment.

[SalvorMallow]

26 minutes ago, sturt said:

I see no evidence of that. None. And I can't help but notice, you only offered "it was the opinion of a lot of posters"... as-if a lot of posters here is some highly objective, highly informed jury? I don't even have anything that's been set in front of me as some serious reason to reconsider. Meanwhile, what I set in front of Gray, and now you, is that Nate McMillan's coaching may be worthy of your criticism and scrutiny... but to make this assertion is to suggest, from where I sit anyway, that Nate chose to hire assistants who would be less likely to contribute to his team's winning while under his watch... and again, that makes no sense in view of the quality of the man and even if you don't think highly of the man, the whole idea is counterintuitive since it's his win-loss record that ultimately is harmed anyhow.

It's really really really over the top around here.

And another thing.

Did Nate even have full control over who was hired? Or was that a shared responsibility thing.

Pretty sure if we go back and dig out the archives, we find that it was shared. The GM was part of the decision, if not the lead dog. That's my recall anyway specific to the hire of Mike Longabardi. And Chris Jent. It may have varied.

 

Circling back to the original point... the comparison is flawed not only looking at Demon Nate, but again, who are these "brand name" coaches who Angel Quin supposedly is bringing to our bench? His lead guy was one of his coaches before... so, importantly, even though Igor had a cup of coffee as an NBA head coach, it's not as-if Quin's bringing in someone from outside his matrix in the interest of some new blood and new ideas. And it's arguable whether the more admirable hire would be Angel Quin's Igor or Demon Nate's Chris Jent.

 

Kinda pissed, really, that we're even still having these damning attitudes about one of the NBA's really good guys as a player and as a coach. The venom here is thick, and ubiquitous. And to the point of stupid. Lay off the guy. He doesn't deserve any of this. And by "this," I don't mean people shouldn't criticize his coaching, any more than people shouldn't criticize Quin's later (... and that day is coming, of course, lest any of us kid ourselves). These kinds of assertions go to the character of the guy. When it gets to that point, people have reduced the man to, not a real person, but a pinata... a pinata's entire purpose of being, of course, is to take a beating. That's how too many posters here think about Nate McMillan. It's wrong.

A big part of being a good coach is having a good staff. It's hard to argue that Nate brought the best and the brightest with him to ATL. Not sure why you're so offended by that.

The player development was lackluster at best, borderline nonexistent at worst... a function generally led by the assistant coaches.

Trae had public disputes with Nate's nepotism hire.

Nate could and should have done better.

[sturt]

9 minutes ago, SalvorMallow said:

It's hard to argue that Nate brought the best and the brightest with him to ATL. Not sure why you're so offended by that.

I think I've done a darn good job explaining why I'm offended. Haven't I?

1. First, it's not clear that Nate did anything different from what Quin has just done... okay?

2. Second, it's somewhat clear that Nate was a voice at the table, but was not the only one at the assistant coaching hiring table... okay?

3. Third, the actual offending statement suggested that Nate deliberately hired lesser coaches because he was one to act out of fear... but that's not the Nate I ever saw... that sounds more like a baseless criticism rooted in a general animosity that shows up almost without fail anytime his name appears on this board these days... okay?

4. Fourth, who's really kidding whom... Chris Jent < Igor Kokoskov?... huh? And moreover, since when did the previously popular undefeated Joe Prunty get so unpopular?

5. Even if we assume all the hiring was Demon Nate's, and Travis was just signing off on Nate's decisions... there is wisdom in hiring people who you have reason to believe are going to buy-in to your way of doing things instead of resisting your decisions/leadership... just ask Quin, since he just demonstrated that point... okay?

 

I said a little more, but this captures enough to debunk the original assertion.

 

21 minutes ago, SalvorMallow said:

The player development was lackluster at best, borderline nonexistent at worst... a function generally led by the assistant coaches.

How do you know that?

What mics and cameras did you have planted in practices to even formulate any opinion whatsoever?

Presumptuous. The contempt for Demon Nate is ridiculous.

Nate did his best. It wasn't good enough. A change needed to be made. But to imply that you question whether the man actually wanted to win is over the top.

Oh by the way... this is a new line of criticism. Previously, there had even been some who had openly hoped to see Quin keep one, some, or otherwise everyone on the 22-23 staff w/o McMillan for a last name.

But now that that's by the wayside, heck, let's get that pinata rehung on the tree branch for a little more bashing, please.

 

28 minutes ago, SalvorMallow said:

Trae had public disputes with Nate's nepotism hire.

Educate me. First time I've ever read that that was a point of contention. Previously, it was all about Nate's... Nate's... adherence to his long-held coaching routines.

(Not sure it even matters, either way, but I say that sincerely... educate me. What, as-if we should regard it as compelling if Trae calls out one of Quin's favorites a year from now???)

 

 

 

 

[KB21]

I’m curious why Nate didn’t try to keep Chris Jent.  Jent was the only assistant on Lloyd’s initial staff that was worth a shit.  

[sturt]

2 hours ago, KB21 said:

I’m curious why Nate didn’t try to keep Chris Jent.

1. Jent and Ham had been friends dating back to when they were both working for Bud.

2. Jent and LBJ had been friends dating back to when Jent was something like his personal coach in CLE.

But yeah, it's Demon Nate's fault.

C'mon people.

[Gray Mule]

Winning or losing will be the ultimate answer to all our questions about assistant coaches.  Until this upcoming season's end we cannot know the answer.  Check back then.

[AHF]

15 hours ago, sturt said:

I see no evidence of that. None. And I can't help but notice, you only offered "it was the opinion of a lot of posters"... as-if a lot of posters here is some highly objective, highly informed jury? I don't even have anything that's been set in front of me as some serious reason to reconsider.

Let's look and see how many of them end up as head coaches and then the facts will deliver the final verdict.  

(Also have to note that I find your objection very strange given that you articulated your view recently that this really is no objective way for fans to evaluate assistant coaches.  So if all we have are opinions why is sharing that opinion wrong?  Many posters here were very unimpressed with his staff and were pining for upgrades.  When Nate's job was in trouble most here were of the opinion that none of his assistants were viable candidates to be his replacement.  This isn't that complex and it isn't an indictment of him as a person.  He is hardly the first or last coach to hire a staff that lacks high end talent whether you measure that through the impression of fans or the subsequent career paths of those gentlemen.)

[sturt]

1 hour ago, Gray Mule said:

Winning or losing will be the ultimate answer to all our questions about assistant coaches.  Until this upcoming season's end we cannot know the answer.  Check back then.

Hmmm... you lost me, Gray.

The question raised as taken from your original post was "Did Nate place a high priority on hiring inferior assistants so that he didn't need to feel threatened?"... under the premise that that's why we've had inferior assistants, and why, now, with a head coach who places a high priority on hiring high caliber assistants, we won't have that problem.

That question has already been answered to the degree it can be answered. Either he did or he didn't.

I stand by the reasoning offered that lead to the conclusion, no he did not, and that it's not even a "he" question, but a "they" question... Travis was at that table, at minimum, and probably Landry, and maybe... knowing what we know now... either Daddy Ressler or Junior Ressler.