2013 NBA Finals - Page 33

On June 11 2013 15:04 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
From everything I'm reading, the problem with Hollins is that he didn't see eye-to-eye with the new management. I saw nothing that indicated the FO had any issues with Hollins' coaching. If true, I agree with the Grizzlies move because it is absolutely essential that a team's head coach see eye-to-eye with its FO since management puts the team together and the coach is the one who has to make the team work on the floor. You can't have a coach who disagrees with personnel moves by the FO if you want to be successful.

As for the Gay trade, it remains to be seen how it will pan out. We saw what Prince could do, but saw next to nothing of Ed Davis and Austin Daye. I'm sure that the Grizzlies FO traded Gay for those players because they saw potential in them, but it doesn't appear that Hollins agreed or trusted their evaluation because he barely used Davis or Daye. That could have been another indication of the friction between Hollins and the people making the personnel decisions.

On June 11 2013 19:55 Jibba wrote:

I don't know, I think there's some value to that clash of ideas.

And the Grizz did improve their record every season under Hollins. I didn't see any signs that they stagnated at all.

On June 12 2013 02:44 cLutZ wrote:


Its just this dumb part where owners think they should be able to win championships...

Sorry, you best player actually needs to be Elite to win a title.

On June 12 2013 03:32 Jibba wrote:

First of all, that's not true. Second, we're talking about Rudy Gay. Gay is nowhere near elite, nor will he be the best player on a championship team.

On June 12 2013 07:12 Holcan wrote:
http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/statistics/_/position/pf/year/2004


Is that the year we are talking about? Because Zach Randolph is higher on that list than Sheed.


Look, I'm not saying I think P.E.R. is the end all to arguments, and I also don't think that Sheed was a lesser player than Randolph in 2004. I am saying that he really wasn't top 3 when Shaq, Tim Duncan and Garnett are all playing.

On June 12 2013 04:00 Holcan wrote:
04 pistons won without an elite player, sometimes just a well balanced team works well. Also pondexter isnt that bad at getting buckets, althogh i sort of wish they retained mayo if they planned on trading gay, he could be a legit get your own shots scoring spark.

On June 12 2013 09:36 Jibba wrote:
The problem is that I think 'elite' players are largely defined by having had success, so it's sort of a circular statement. The big, big elite players are already known ahead of time, like Lebron, Kobe or Shaq in their primes, but what about Tony Parker?

I'd say Tony Parker is elite, but I also think we label him as elite because he's been awesome in the finals. So you can say "you can't win a championship without an elite player" but at the same time I think Parker reaches elite status because he's played well in championships. Maybe 'elite' is just really bad terminology and way too vague.

All of this stemmed from Gay and whether you need a go-to player on offense to win a championship. I don't think you need a single go to player, nor do I think they have to be a star before hand. Give Conley some experience and maybe he does finish games against the Spurs like he did the Thunder.