New coach!

I like the way Matt Harping talks about things need to run. Harp for head coach? What cha think?

Richardale wrote:

I like the way Matt Harping talks about things need to run. Harp for head coach? What cha think?

He has less coaching capability than former Jazzmen Corbin and Horny given he has never even been an assistant coach. If I'm Harp, I'm looking into non-basketball related income because even as a color announcer he is pretty weak. He occasionally says some insightful things but has me turning on mute and listening to Locke's play-by-play on a regular basis.

MTJazz wrote:

Richardale wrote:

I like the way Matt Harping talks about things need to run. Harp for head coach? What cha think?

He has less coaching capability than former Jazzmen Corbin and Horny given he has never even been an assistant coach. If I'm Harp, I'm looking into non-basketball related income because even as a color announcer he is pretty weak. He occasionally says some insightful things but has me turning on mute and listening to Locke's play-by-play on a regular basis.

I don't know about that, Harp is pretty bad, but Locke is a caricature of a real play by play guy. His forced stupid catch phrases make me want to poke my ear drums out with a Q tip!

I agree though Matt would make a horrible head coach. We need a proven guy in here NOW!

Romoholic wrote:

MTJazz wrote:

Richardale wrote:

I like the way Matt Harping talks about things need to run. Harp for head coach? What cha think?

He has less coaching capability than former Jazzmen Corbin and Horny given he has never even been an assistant coach. If I'm Harp, I'm looking into non-basketball related income because even as a color announcer he is pretty weak. He occasionally says some insightful things but has me turning on mute and listening to Locke's play-by-play on a regular basis.

I don't know about that, Harp is pretty bad, but Locke is a caricature of a real play by play guy. His forced stupid catch phrases make me want to poke my ear drums out with a Q tip!

I agree though Matt would make a horrible head coach. We need a proven guy in here NOW!

Lesser of two evils in my book. Matt's "color" and Boler's slap-happy buddy buddy schtick makes me want to kill puppies with spoons.

From what my (quick) research tells me, here are a few coaches that are either FA's or in the last year of their contracts; Alvin Gentry (335-370), Monty Williams (92-129), Vinny Del Negro (199-178), Larry Drew (126-97), Jerry Sloan (1221-803), Nate McMillan (478-452), Stan Van Gundy (371-208), Mike Budenholzer (Spurs current top Ast Coach), Brian Shaw (Pacers Assistant), Flip Saunders (638-526).

I don't claim to know every one of these guys' coaching style & if it would fit with the Core 4, but one thing I would bet is that at least 80% of these guys would coach Ty under the table.

P.S. I still like Earl as an assistant under whoever the Jazz have coaching next year.

Romoholic wrote:

MTJazz wrote:

Richardale wrote:

I like the way Matt Harping talks about things need to run. Harp for head coach? What cha think?

He has less coaching capability than former Jazzmen Corbin and Horny given he has never even been an assistant coach. If I'm Harp, I'm looking into non-basketball related income because even as a color announcer he is pretty weak. He occasionally says some insightful things but has me turning on mute and listening to Locke's play-by-play on a regular basis.

I don't know about that, Harp is pretty bad, but Locke is a caricature of a real play by play guy. His forced stupid catch phrases make me want to poke my ear drums out with a Q tip!

I agree though Matt would make a horrible head coach. We need a proven guy in here NOW!

David Locke's "play-by-play" makes me want to stab myself in both ears repeatedly and in rapid fire succession with a rusty, serrated, 100 year old, razor blade and nail studded cutlass sword that is dipped in isopropyl alcohol and set aflame by an acetylene torch. Comparatively speaking, that would be a tiptoe through the tulips compared to listening to that weasel Locke and his feeble, smarmy attempts at calling Jazz games.

I somehow have hard time imagining Hapring as good coach. He was hard working but not very creative and was quite predictable. So I doubt he would be any different as a coach. Hornacek on the other hand was at totaly different level as player and basketball IQ wise, I think he would be way better then Corbin and Harpring.

Calgary Jazz wrote:

I somehow have hard time imagining Hapring as good coach. He was hard working but not very creative and was quite predictable. So I doubt he would be any different as a coach. Hornacek on the other hand was at totaly different level as player and basketball IQ wise, I think he would be way better then Corbin and Harpring.

Speaking of Horny, how come we never get any interviews from him, no fluff pieces, nada? Is there a hierarchy role thing where one simply doesn't interview assistant coaches for insight into the team? I also feel sorry for him in some ways - Ty is his mentor! Not like folks are looking to scoop up Ty acolytes like they do with some other league coaches. And while we are on the topic of Jazzman coaches, I've read some nice things about Vaughn getting his woefully broken roster of players to still play hard every night.

Locke's single and solitary virtue is that he works hard. He's been desperately ambitious his entire career, frequently getting positions before he was ready. Problem is, that effort shows in the play-by-play job, and it's ugly.

The "forced catchphrases" are beyond lame, and while he can argue a point with stats effectively, he isn't the most charming guy in the world. Put it all together and he's not really cut out for the job. But who knows? He might get better. If he can improve by sheer effort, he'll do it.

Harp OTOH has not distinguished himself as a color man. He parrots the party line, trots out old saws and conventional wisdom and if "knowing the game because he played it" is an advantage for an announcer, it hasn't resulted in any informative or interesting analysis. He may have some insights that would make him a coach but I haven't heard them. The fact that he announces like he's really, really trying to not rock the boat doesn't bode well, though.

Whatever the Jazz need for a coach, part of it has to be some "Xs and Os". I'm convinced Corbin relies so heavily on Big Als' one-on-one play because he doesn't really have confidence in whatever offense he's installed, if any. And that's on him.

Calgary Jazz wrote:

I somehow have hard time imagining Hapring as good coach. He was hard working but not very creative and was quite predictable. So I doubt he would be any different as a coach. Hornacek on the other hand was at totaly different level as player and basketball IQ wise, I think he would be way better then Corbin and Harpring.

Not surprisingly, I mostly disagree. There's alot more to it than just being able to score or get your own shot. Alot.
Harpring was not very creative and predictable because he ran his sets flawlessly, and ran the plays flawlessly. He was a FANTASTIC system guy, and a guy that was always in the right spots. And when he made cuts, he made hard cuts. When he played defense, he played in your face defense. And for a robotic non athletic player, he got his and it didn't matter if you knew what was coming or not. In other words, he was an extremely coachable guy.....which would more than likely lead to fairly good coaching skills. The guy couldn't rely on athleticism, he needed to run plays, he needed to use his smarts, positioning, timing and the execution of plays. I'd bet he knows a ton about what it takes to win, unlike Corbin.

Not to mention, Harpring is everything that Corbin didn't show when he played and is not showing whatsoever now as a coach: toughness, tenacity, cares about both offense and defense, and absolutely doesn't care about stars or roles.

I'd take Harpring right now over Corbin. In a millisecond.

Mutangclan wrote:

Calgary Jazz wrote:

I somehow have hard time imagining Hapring as good coach. He was hard working but not very creative and was quite predictable. So I doubt he would be any different as a coach. Hornacek on the other hand was at totaly different level as player and basketball IQ wise, I think he would be way better then Corbin and Harpring.

Not surprisingly, I mostly disagree. There's alot more to it than just being able to score or get your own shot. Alot.
Harpring was not very creative and predictable because he ran his sets flawlessly, and ran the plays flawlessly. He was a FANTASTIC system guy, and a guy that was always in the right spots. And when he made cuts, he made hard cuts. When he played defense, he played in your face defense. And for a robotic non athletic player, he got his and it didn't matter if you knew what was coming or not. In other words, he was an extremely coachable guy.....which would more than likely lead to fairly good coaching skills. The guy couldn't rely on athleticism, he needed to run plays, he needed to use his smarts, positioning, timing and the execution of plays. I'd bet he knows a ton about what it takes to win, unlike Corbin.

Not to mention, Harpring is everything that Corbin didn't show when he played and is not showing whatsoever now as a coach: toughness, tenacity, cares about both offense and defense, and absolutely doesn't care about stars or roles.

I'd take Harpring right now over Corbin. In a millisecond.

You make a lot of good points Tang. Harp I think has a lot good points about things the jazz do or better yet, not doing. Just the things i've heard i think Enes and Burks would be light years a head of where they are now with Harping leading these guys. One thing you play hard on both ends or sit down.

Mutangclan wrote:

Harpring was not very creative and predictable because he ran his sets flawlessly, and ran the plays flawlessly. He was a FANTASTIC system guy,

So basically a guy who benefited from Jazz system more then from his basketball abilities or talent. How is that translating into good coach? You want Sloan clone who will try to plug payers into robotic system instead of adjusting it to current player strengths/abilities? Isn't that what you guys complaining about Corbin the most?
I loved Harpring as a player but I would rather trust any experienced Euro coach ( like Messina, Blatt, Ivkovic or Kazlauskas) then him coaching an NBA team.

Mutangclan wrote:

Calgary Jazz wrote:

I somehow have hard time imagining Hapring as good coach. He was hard working but not very creative and was quite predictable. So I doubt he would be any different as a coach. Hornacek on the other hand was at totaly different level as player and basketball IQ wise, I think he would be way better then Corbin and Harpring.

Not surprisingly, I mostly disagree. There's alot more to it than just being able to score or get your own shot. Alot.
Harpring was not very creative and predictable because he ran his sets flawlessly, and ran the plays flawlessly. He was a FANTASTIC system guy, and a guy that was always in the right spots. And when he made cuts, he made hard cuts. When he played defense, he played in your face defense. And for a robotic non athletic player, he got his and it didn't matter if you knew what was coming or not. In other words, he was an extremely coachable guy.....which would more than likely lead to fairly good coaching skills. The guy couldn't rely on athleticism, he needed to run plays, he needed to use his smarts, positioning, timing and the execution of plays. I'd bet he knows a ton about what it takes to win, unlike Corbin.

Not to mention, Harpring is everything that Corbin didn't show when he played and is not showing whatsoever now as a coach: toughness, tenacity, cares about both offense and defense, and absolutely doesn't care about stars or roles.

I'd take Harpring right now over Corbin. In a millisecond.

I seldom disagree with ya Mu, but here, I dunno...I can't let my dislike of Corbin as coach color what I remember of him as a player.

Corbin WAS tenacious and hung in the league despite not being especially athletic or skilled. Harpring was bigger, stronger and a better shooter than Ty was. They were both pesky defenders with Harpring, once again, having the physical advantage. Corbin was eminently coachable. Guys don't stay in the league for 16 years with marginal talent unless they're coachable. The stereotypes just don't apply in this comparison.

Second, I don't think you can really tell who will be a good coach just by how guys play(ed). I'm much in favor of telling how good a coach will be by checking, you know, how they've actually COACHED. I mean, how good a player was Popovich? Or Karl? Or the Van Gundys? (All of whom I like as coaches.) Carlisle and Vaughn were kind of marginal players, but see to be good coaches.

I just don't know if "How they played" or "How they announce the games" are actually good predictors of coaching success. (We do still agree that Corbin cannot be called a coaching success.)

Calgary Jazz wrote:

Mutangclan wrote:

Harpring was not very creative and predictable because he ran his sets flawlessly, and ran the plays flawlessly. He was a FANTASTIC system guy,

So basically a guy who benefited from Jazz system more then from his basketball abilities or talent. How is that translating into good coach? You want Sloan clone who will try to plug payers into robotic system instead of adjusting it to current player strengths/abilities? Isn't that what you guys complaining about Corbin the most?
I loved Harpring as a player but I would rather trust any experienced Euro coach ( like Messina, Blatt, Ivkovic or Kazlauskas) then him coaching an NBA team.

The comparison was Harpring and Hornacek, and you talking about their offense. And you saying how terrible Harpring would be.
It doens't make sense bringing in Euro coaches and Sloan clone, just because you dont like Jerry. I said there were a ton of reasons I think Harpring could be a decent coach, and it wasn't just about his playing career and his scoring ability.

Hah, I didn't say anything about what kind of system Imaginary Coach Harpring would put in. I just said those are some of the intangibles he has that maybe could translate into coaching.
Dont try to turn this into something it's not, thats dumb.

Trollificus wrote:

Mutangclan wrote:

Calgary Jazz wrote:

I somehow have hard time imagining Hapring as good coach. He was hard working but not very creative and was quite predictable. So I doubt he would be any different as a coach. Hornacek on the other hand was at totaly different level as player and basketball IQ wise, I think he would be way better then Corbin and Harpring.

Not surprisingly, I mostly disagree. There's alot more to it than just being able to score or get your own shot. Alot.
Harpring was not very creative and predictable because he ran his sets flawlessly, and ran the plays flawlessly. He was a FANTASTIC system guy, and a guy that was always in the right spots. And when he made cuts, he made hard cuts. When he played defense, he played in your face defense. And for a robotic non athletic player, he got his and it didn't matter if you knew what was coming or not. In other words, he was an extremely coachable guy.....which would more than likely lead to fairly good coaching skills. The guy couldn't rely on athleticism, he needed to run plays, he needed to use his smarts, positioning, timing and the execution of plays. I'd bet he knows a ton about what it takes to win, unlike Corbin.

Not to mention, Harpring is everything that Corbin didn't show when he played and is not showing whatsoever now as a coach: toughness, tenacity, cares about both offense and defense, and absolutely doesn't care about stars or roles.

I'd take Harpring right now over Corbin. In a millisecond.

I seldom disagree with ya Mu, but here, I dunno...I can't let my dislike of Corbin as coach color what I remember of him as a player.

Corbin WAS tenacious and hung in the league despite not being especially athletic or skilled. Harpring was bigger, stronger and a better shooter than Ty was. They were both pesky defenders with Harpring, once again, having the physical advantage. Corbin was eminently coachable. Guys don't stay in the league for 16 years with marginal talent unless they're coachable. The stereotypes just don't apply in this comparison.

Second, I don't think you can really tell who will be a good coach just by how guys play(ed). I'm much in favor of telling how good a coach will be by checking, you know, how they've actually COACHED. I mean, how good a player was Popovich? Or Karl? Or the Van Gundys? (All of whom I like as coaches.) Carlisle and Vaughn were kind of marginal players, but see to be good coaches.

I just don't know if "How they played" or "How they announce the games" are actually good predictors of coaching success. (We do still agree that Corbin cannot be called a coaching success.)

I agree. This was all about how Calgary said Harpring would be a terrible coach because in his career he was predictable and not creative. I was replying to that, and only that. I'm not advocating Harpring would be a great coach. In my opinion though, almost anything is better than Corbin.

Mutangclan wrote:

I agree. This was all about how Calgary said Harpring would be a terrible coach because in his career he was predictable and not creative. I was replying to that, and only that. I'm not advocating Harpring would be a great coach. In my opinion though, almost anything is better than Corbin.

Be carefull what you wish for. Needless to say I dissagree here, Harps color comontary tells me a lot about How harpring approches the game, and about his ability to think the game, and I'm not impressed. I think it can get much worse than Corbin, much worse.

I saw that Memo was interested in getting into the coaching buisness, and might be brought on as a player assistant. That is a move I could get behind.

If the Jazz are going to jettison Corbin then I think they have to go with somone who has paid their dues, worked their way up, and had experience as a primary assistant and/or head coach. I like Hornacek, but he's not there yet, and I'm not sure if his personality really fits the model for a head coach. I think he's got the brain for it, but he just doesn't seem to have the gravitas that I think is a requirement for a realy good coach. I think that was always Phil Johnsons thing too, some guys are really just better as wing men.

For a guy with NBA Head coaching experience I have really warmed up to Nate McMillan after looking at his style and his previous team, so I think he's at the top of my list. Zero posted a really nice list, and I think some of the assistant coaches he listed would be worth a shot as well.

MTJazz wrote:

Romoholic wrote:

MTJazz wrote:

Richardale wrote:

I like the way Matt Harping talks about things need to run. Harp for head coach? What cha think?

He has less coaching capability than former Jazzmen Corbin and Horny given he has never even been an assistant coach. If I'm Harp, I'm looking into non-basketball related income because even as a color announcer he is pretty weak. He occasionally says some insightful things but has me turning on mute and listening to Locke's play-by-play on a regular basis.

I don't know about that, Harp is pretty bad, but Locke is a caricature of a real play by play guy. His forced stupid catch phrases make me want to poke my ear drums out with a Q tip!

I agree though Matt would make a horrible head coach. We need a proven guy in here NOW!

Lesser of two evils in my book. Matt's "color" and Boler's slap-happy buddy buddy schtick makes me want to kill puppies with spoons.

Alot of the stuff matt says drives me crazy but that does'nt mean he would make a bad coach because of it.

TheMagnus wrote:

For a guy with NBA Head coaching experience I have really warmed up to Nate McMillan after looking at his style and his previous team, so I think he's at the top of my list. Zero posted a really nice list, and I think some of the assistant coaches he listed would be worth a shot as well.

Mike Budenholzer is a name I've tried to get a little more familiar with since I posted that list. He is the Spurs top assistant, and since the Spurs seem to be the model for small market right now, he seems like a worthy option. I just wonder if he is simply waiting to take the reigns in San Antonio, and not wanting to go elsewhere, since I've never heard his name in any head coaching converstations that I can recall. His NBA coaching career has been 100% in San Antonio, whos' only Head Coaching experience is in Denmark:

Subsequently, he spent the 1993–94 season in Denmark, playing professionally for Vejle Basketball Klub, where he averaged a team-high 27.5 points per game. At the same time, he also served as head coach for two teams of the club's system.

At the start of the 1994–95 season, Budenholzer was hired by the San Antonio Spurs of the National Basketball Association as a video coordinator. He held that position for two years, before being named an assistant coach at the beginning of the 1996–97 campaign. Since the 2007–08 season, Budenholzer has been the team's number one assistant. - Wikapedia


I suppose that Dennis Linsdey would know & have some inside info if the guy was even an option.

If there is a Jazz player that might have a future shot at head coaching, everyone seems to think Watson is going to end up looking for assistant coach work after this season as his playing days are clearly done.

This is all pointless speculation on our part, though, isn't it? Corbin will be the coach next year which will keep the Jazz forums popping again. I'm willing to try and buck up and see what he can do with a better built roster not populated by rentals, past-primes, never was despite draft positions and box score studs who don't help you win. My guess is the FO is going to meld the OKC/SA/Nuggies approach to relevance. That means stockpiling young guys, developing the shit out of them, finding good players of any age overlooked by everyone else and playing a 10-deep roster. How DC doesn't work in this model I will never know. All I do know is the Jazz are going to look completely different next year and expectations for a playoff seed should be considered a worthy target -- too many new guys to assimilate to have out-of-the-box success --- but damn fun to root for and watch! I think Ty will be completely over his head, but we will see, he might be a better coach with a brand new script where heading into training camp every damn slot, from starter to meaningful rotation minutes, is wide open, regardless of salary or years in the league.

Also, maybe nobody else is old enough to remember Harpring at Georgia Tech but he was a BEAST.

Handled the ball a lot too.

MTJazz wrote:

If there is a Jazz player that might have a future shot at head coaching, everyone seems to think Watson is going to end up looking for assistant coach work after this season as his playing days are clearly done.

This is all pointless speculation on our part, though, isn't it? Corbin will be the coach next year which will keep the Jazz forums popping again. I'm willing to try and buck up and see what he can do with a better built roster not populated by rentals, past-primes, never was despite draft positions and box score studs who don't help you win. My guess is the FO is going to meld the OKC/SA/Nuggies approach to relevance. That means stockpiling young guys, developing the shit out of them, finding good players of any age overlooked by everyone else and playing a 10-deep roster. How DC doesn't work in this model I will never know. All I do know is the Jazz are going to look completely different next year and expectations for a playoff seed should be considered a worthy target -- too many new guys to assimilate to have out-of-the-box success --- but damn fun to root for and watch! I think Ty will be completely over his head, but we will see, he might be a better coach with a brand new script where heading into training camp every damn slot, from starter to meaningful rotation minutes, is wide open, regardless of salary or years in the league.

I think you're right about Corbin being here next year. Maybe he needs better X&Os assostant. Maybe he needs an assistant who could pressure him, the kind of waiting-for-a-chance assistant who could take over if Corbin does anything stupid like play proven-poor players over unproven players or stick with lineups that consistently give up leads. Hell, he might learn from this year's misadventures*, and there's surely some truth to the observation that this roster presented challenges that would have caused problems for any coach.

(as I write this, Corbin's lauding the versatility of the roster-how it allows him to replace poorly-performing players and exploit size mismatches...which are things he has stubbornly resisted to do all year. smh)

*-[insert unfinished joke about Frequent Failer Miles here]

zero24gravity wrote:

From what my (quick) research tells me, here are a few coaches that are either FA's or in the last year of their contracts; Alvin Gentry (335-370), Monty Williams (92-129), Vinny Del Negro (199-178), Larry Drew (126-97), Jerry Sloan (1221-803), Nate McMillan (478-452), Stan Van Gundy (371-208), Mike Budenholzer (Spurs current top Ast Coach), Brian Shaw (Pacers Assistant), Flip Saunders (638-526).

I don't claim to know every one of these guys' coaching style & if it would fit with the Core 4, but one thing I would bet is that at least 80% of these guys would coach Ty under the table.

P.S. I still like Earl as an assistant under whoever the Jazz have coaching next year.

I think my top choices would be 1. Phil Johnson --- he knows the team well; he is a Jazz guy and former COY, 2. Nate McMillan --- good age, good amount of experience and ready to take his coaching to the next level and 3. Jeff Van Gundy --- lots of experience, coached the Knicks to the Finals before and has been staying on top of NBA teams and players while doing commentary.

Today Hollinger has the odds for Jazz making the playoffs at 33%, Lakers 66%.

I like Stan Van Gundy. Internally I would give Hornacek a chance as well.

MTJazz wrote:

If there is a Jazz player that might have a future shot at head coaching, everyone seems to think Watson is going to end up looking for assistant coach work after this season as his playing days are clearly done.

This is all pointless speculation on our part, though, isn't it? Corbin will be the coach next year which will keep the Jazz forums popping again. I'm willing to try and buck up and see what he can do with a better built roster not populated by rentals, past-primes, never was despite draft positions and box score studs who don't help you win. My guess is the FO is going to meld the OKC/SA/Nuggies approach to relevance. That means stockpiling young guys, developing the shit out of them, finding good players of any age overlooked by everyone else and playing a 10-deep roster. How DC doesn't work in this model I will never know. All I do know is the Jazz are going to look completely different next year and expectations for a playoff seed should be considered a worthy target -- too many new guys to assimilate to have out-of-the-box success --- but damn fun to root for and watch! I think Ty will be completely over his head, but we will see, he might be a better coach with a brand new script where heading into training camp every damn slot, from starter to meaningful rotation minutes, is wide open, regardless of salary or years in the league.

Actually I was thinking alot about what Houston has done. I mean they basically whored themself out to the league making it extremely obvious and known that they were going all in for a superstar. But what they also did was get rid of all the good players for future draft picks, 2nd round picks, young players etc. I mean, I was pretty amazed they gave away Scola. Amazed with some other moves too. But what they did was get rid of all the guys and vets who were good but that were never taking them further than an 8th seed. Sound familiar anyone??? They retooled with younger players and then had all these assets and money to go out and signed a solid defensive and rebounding center in Asik (Favors), perfect role playing wing in Parson (Hayward) stole a young, solid and improving PG in Lin, and then turned assets and money into James Harden. And look at Houston, in 7th and nobody wants to play them.

Utah has the same chance to do the same thing this summer. It seems like a great model to follow after given the assets and players signed currently.