Return of Nuggets 1: Forum #2 Comments From Late March 2008, Part 3

Forum commentary I did from March 2008 through July 2008, when I didn't have time to do the detailed and extensive reports that I like to do, is being posted in early October, 2008. The primary themes are how the Nuggets are blowing a great (and expensive!) opportunity to play the game of basketball in such a way that respects the sport and that takes as much advantage as possible of who they have on the roster. The 2006-09 Nuggets have turned out to be an excellent case study of how not to run a basketball team; many things you should not do if you are a basketball manager or coach can be identified from what the Nuggets actually did during these years.

In these comments, do not look for the usual huge amount of detail and proof that you see in the ordinary releases here at Nuggets 1. Some of this is more like everyday conversation than like top quality sports writing. On the other hand, some of the comments do include some detailed reasoning and proof that I pride myself on in the primary reports I release.
______________________________________
LATE MARCH 2008 FORUM COMMENTARY ON THE NUGGETS, ESPECIALLY ABOUT THEIR MISTAKES

Along with the multitudes who want a new coaching staff for the Nuggets, I hope the Nets win this game. Denver can't win a playoff series even if they make the playoffs, so the #1 objective has to be to get the coaches to retire/be fired. Or at the very least, at least make the owner look bad if he won't spring for a new staff, and at least give the front office some leverage they can use to help manage the team next year.

Devin Harris vs Anthony Carter???
Iverson playing both guard postions???
Camby making a lot of assists and few layups and dunks???

Laugh out loud at the whole Nuggets mess.
________________________________________
Damn. Just when you have a game where if the Nuggets lose the odds that Karl will retire go up nicely, Linas Kleiza always seems to be there to go off for about half a dozen threes.

Should have doubled Kleiza Nets, I guess, even though that sounds funny.
________________________________________
So the complete count is:

4 1/2 coaches have designated A.I. as the point guard
3 1/2 coaches have designated A.I. as the shooting guard.

Brown and Karl end up in the minority, and only 1 1/2 coaches other than Brown and Karl have thought of A.I as a shooting guard. I am reporting this in detail in the next report.
_________________________________________
Well if he’s too short to play the SG position in the all-star game, then he is definitely too short to play the SG position in ordinary games. One or the other is wrong; either the NBA front office is wrong for listing him as a PG for all-star voting, or Larry Brown and George Karl are wrong for designating him as a SG.
________________________________________
I stand corrected on the voting but since AI actually started at PG for at least 7 straight all star games, I am still correct with respect to the overall point; if AI is a poor point guard but a good shooting guard, then why did he almost or actually never start at SG in the all-star game? You suggest that it was due to the fact that mostly SGs were selected to the all-star game, so it was by default. I bet I will be able to disprove that when i check it out within the next week.
_________________________________________
I'm checking these details out this week when I get a chance. I think my point will be strenghthened if I do that, because I will see who Iverson was chosen to be PG over. I know there are more than 2 guards on the all-star team, but if the guard starters are automatically determined by the voting regardless of exact position, my point still stands. Consider the possibilities. If the starting lineups are determined by votes and votes alone, either there were two point guards and Iverson was chosen as the best or real point guard between the two, or there was one of each position and the positions were reversed for the all-star game; Iverson was moved to PG and a PG from the regular season was moved to SG, or there were two SGs and Iverson was chosen as the one as more appropriate to be the PG. In any of these three possibilities, my point still stands. No matter what, the League front office and/or the coach of the all star team was saying over and over that Iverson is a PG.
_________________________________________
True, the all-star game is different, but how and why should how the game differs from an ordinary game affect who plays point guard? And how many other players have started at a different position at the all-star game compared with their usual positions, as A.I. has about 7 times? Is that due to the top vote getters being mandated to start? If so, then fine, but my point still stands, because A.I. was chosen to be the point guard 7 straight all star games among 2 point guards to choose from, among a point guard and a shooting guard to choose from, or among two shooting guards to choose from. I have no evidence yet that he was EVER chosen to start at SG in any all-star game.
________________________________________
The high school and the college coach should count at least equal to the NBA coaches, because they had Iverson first and could judge what he was intrinsically. And unlike NBA coaches, they have no political agendas other than doing what is best for their players. A college or a high school coach could theoretically be in danger of being fired if he repeatedly played players at the wrong positon, because they are responsible for preparing players for the next level without making any gross errors. But NBA coaches can change any player's position whenever they want, and justify it by saying they are trying to win more games, which is what their primary responsibility is. Precisely because they are not as on the hook for winning as NBA coaches are, college and high school coach decisions on what position a player is best for must be respected and counted.

If you are saying that the 30 NBA coaches are all vastly more intelligent basketball wise than the thousands of high school and college coaches are, I disagree. Just like in any profession, it is largely random chance that determines which coaches rise up into the limelight. Not to mention that there are thousands of coaches of all different capabilities who would not want to coach in the NBA even if they were offerred the opportunity.

What you need to do to make your point is explain why John Thompson and Mike Bailey were/are incompetent coaches, at least with respect to the PG position.
_______________________________________
Here is the coach you need to prove is incompetent if you want me to not count him. Good luck.

Mike Bailey
_________________________________________
It's so simple to defeat the Nuggets with their dumb offense. All you have to do is disrupt Iverson, mostly by doubling him as necessary. You don't have to worry about Carter much, and how many teams has Carmelo Anthony beaten on his own this year? Maybe 5.

There is no Plan B for the Nuggets; the coaches have put it all on Iverson and will blame everything on Iverson if the Nuggets fail. If Iverson is shut down then there is nothing left for the Denver offense but the sound of crickets chirping.