2019 NBA Playoffs thread

[tlance]

Actually, the jury is pretty much in on Phil. The consensus seems to be that he was great at managing egos, but pretty average at the X's and O's.

For Ty Lue, we know he can manage Lebron's ego. Kevin Love says that he's very good at the X's and O's, others seem to think he's not.

Managing egos is far more important than Xs and Os when dealing with a championship caliber roster in the NBA.

So while I like to criticize Kerr's in game decisions at times, overall he is absolutely a difference maker as a coach because of what he has created in Golden State.

Coaching talent is not nearly as easy as people want to make it seem. Because if players don't work together efficiently or if they don't stay hungry, they get beat.

 

[dtgold88]

Sorry for the late response. Missed this post.

And no, the NFL players really don't have a choice. Yes, they could decide not to play. But, the problem is that the average NFL career is just 3.3 years. The players don't have any leverage in these negotiations because the average player can't afford to sit out an entire season and forgo a third (or more) of their potential career earnings.

The NFL CBA takes advantage of its work force and the player's association lacks the power to change it because it would require the average player to sacrifice their own playing career so the next guy can get a better opportunity.

It may happen eventually, but this is why the owners have so much control over the NFL CBA. Other sports have a lot more leverage.

I get it.....you want everything skewed to the players. All you had to say.

 

[dtgold88]

It isn't misguided though.

The majority of the workforce plays less than 3 seasons. They are part of the NFLPA.

The top 20% of the league could afford a work stoppage. Most of the rest probably can't. The NFLPA is made up of mostly short timers. So expecting them to vote for any real change while sacrificing their own career is not very realistic.

short timers because they are not good enough. You didn't answer, so I'll try again......as skewed to players as you are do you want owners also to pay guys who just cannot cut it, too? Maybe they should come up with some glorious system where they could send them to Podunk cities, make them ride buses, and pay them less than kids making Nikes in a 3rd world country?

 

[dtgold88]

Yeah. That is true.

Difference being, I don't sign a multi-year contract at my job. And for me to get fired mid-contract it would require something more than just poor performance. It would require cause.

All I want is for NFL owners to be required to keep their promises made when they sign these contracts.

They do love up to their promises. Your contract states you can be let go at any time in the NFL. You don't think Progressive workers would take these parameters........

sign, say, a 3 year deal and get 20-40% of your money up front, but know if you don't live up to your value you could be let go? As opposed to agree to work and get nothing up front also knowing if you don't live up to your value you can be let go?

Come on.

Oh, and be paid 500K to $20 mil guaranteed depending how strong an applicant you are.

Yeah, they'd struggle to get anyone to work there.

 

[dtgold88]

BS.

So, while the league is making billions upon billions of dollars, your response to an unjust labor system is:

"Pick another career"

Well yeah. Most do when their time is up. Still, makes me sick to see a billionaire basically steal a few hundred thousand from an injured player because he can't perform to level of the long term contract the owner signed.

A contract is a 2 way promise. Unless the player does something (like commit a crime) to justify getting fired, the owner should have to live up to their promise like in every other professional sport.

agree....that bastard billionaire who gave that kid millions before even knowing if he could do the job up to standards. If the player cannot do the job and never sees the field I can only assume since you want fairness you also think he should give that back, right?

 

[dtgold88]

I do care about that.

If a guy in the world world signs a multi-year contract to do his job, I fully expect his company to honor the deal unless they have cause to fire him.

I don't know very many regular people who sign multi-year contracts.

nor do I, but I bet they'd sign an NFL type deal and get a large portion of their first 4 years of work up front and guaranteed.

I get probably not in you to change your tune here, but come on.....

Real world guy gets these 2 offers.....

A) Come work for us and you get nothing guaranteed and we can fire you for any reason whenever we want. Oh, and your starting salary is $50K. and these are for the best applicants

B) Come work for us and we will guarantee you nearly half to all of your first 4 years up front, but if you don't live up to your value, you can be let go and get to keep your signing bonus. And those 4 years will guarantee you $2 mil or so for the best applicants. The lesser applicants might only walk away with $60K or so.

Oh, and the guys in the B category have no college debt

You taking A or B?

 

[dtgold88]

Also, we didn't hear about Belein to the Cavs because nobody outside Cleveland cares who their coach is.

They aren't currently relevant.

The Lakers are whether they win or not because they have LeBron and LeBron draws a ton of attention.

you didn't hear about Beilein because college coaches do not want their names getting out as it hurts their school. Doesn't matter what team it is.

 

[dtgold88]

Managing egos is far more important than Xs and Os when dealing with a championship caliber roster in the NBA.

So while I like to criticize Kerr's in game decisions at times, overall he is absolutely a difference maker as a coach because of what he has created in Golden State.

Coaching talent is not nearly as easy as people want to make it seem. Because if players don't work together efficiently or if they don't stay hungry, they get beat.

As GS did......until they added that Durant fellow.

 

[msgkings322]

nor do I, but I bet they'd sign an NFL type deal and get a large portion of their first 4 years of work up front and guaranteed.

I get probably not in you to change your tune here, but come on.....

Real world guy gets these 2 offers.....

A) Come work for us and you get nothing guaranteed and we can fire you for any reason whenever we want. Oh, and your starting salary is $50K. and these are for the best applicants

B) Come work for us and we will guarantee you nearly half to all of your first 4 years up front, but if you don't live up to your value, you can be let go and get to keep your signing bonus. And those 4 years will guarantee you $2 mil or so for the best applicants. The lesser applicants might only walk away with $60K or so.

Oh, and the guys in the B category have no college debt

You taking A or B?

Your big error is pretending playing in the NFL is a regular job. Regular jobs don't require you to literally almost kill yourself for your employer. Regular careers last longer than 4 years. So, bad analogy

 

[Shanemansj13]

Kerr: KD injury 'more serious than we thought'

No shit Kerr

 

[msgkings322]

I get it.....you want everything skewed to the players. All you had to say.

And you want everything skewed to the owners.

I get that you probably heard the same thing I did as a kid, that one of the big moments in a Jewish boy's life is when he realizes his chances of playing professional sports are much less than his chances of owning a team. But dang.

 

[Wamu]

Kerr: KD injury 'more serious than we thought'

No shit Kerr

Was watching PTI the other day & Wilbon was saying that the Warriors are 27-1 w/o KD in the line up. That's insane.

In the same segment he also mentioned that the Warriors are only 26-26 w/o Steph.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Was watching PTI the other day & Wilbon was saying that the Warriors are 27-1 w/o KD in the line up. That's insane.

In the same segment he also mentioned that the Warriors are only 26-26 w/o Steph.

yeah they are much better without KD then without Steph, like a lot better.

 

[Black Adam]

Was watching PTI the other day & Wilbon was saying that the Warriors are 27-1 w/o KD in the line up. That's insane.

In the same segment he also mentioned that the Warriors are only 26-26 w/o Steph.

Interesting...

 

[Wamu]

Interesting...

That's what I thought watching that PTI episode.

 

[msgkings322]

Was watching PTI the other day & Wilbon was saying that the Warriors are 27-1 w/o KD in the line up. That's insane.

In the same segment he also mentioned that the Warriors are only 26-26 w/o Steph.

Milwaukee though

 

[trojanfan12]

yeah they are much better without KD then without Steph, like a lot better.

That's because KD is their best player, but Steph is why the Warriors work.

When KD is out, Steph steps up and they play like they did pre-KD.

Long term, they are obviously better with KD. But in a game, or even a series, they are still formidable and capable of winning a title without him.

 

[Shanemansj13]

That's because KD is their best player, but Steph is why the Warriors work.

When KD is out, Steph steps up and they play like they did pre-KD.

Long term, they are obviously better with KD. But in a game, or even a series, they are still formidable and capable of winning a title without him.

Yeah no doubt but really it is more about Steph getting more shots and obviously being a bigger part of the offense, the movement and flow is just better in the offense, like what we saw pre-KD.

No doubt, KD adds that scary dimension to the offense and defense but that's why I keep saying "they will be fine if KD leaves". We will see the old Warriors, which isn't too shabby lol

 

[trojanfan12]

Yeah no doubt but really it is more about Steph getting more shots and obviously being a bigger part of the offense, the movement and flow is just better in the offense, like what we saw pre-KD.

No doubt, KD adds that scary dimension to the offense and defense but that's why I keep saying "they will be fine if KD leaves". We will see the old Warriors, which isn't too shabby lol

Agree.

The Warriors minus KD are still really good and still contenders, maybe even favorites depending on who they play. KD just makes them prohibitive favorites against everybody.

In some ways, they are more fun to watch without KD.

 

[msgkings322]

That's because KD is their best player, but Steph is why the Warriors work.

When KD is out, Steph steps up and they play like they did pre-KD.

Long term, they are obviously better with KD. But in a game, or even a series, they are still formidable and capable of winning a title without him.

Milwaukee says nah