# SacBee: Pointing fingers? Focus on Adelman



## Peja Vu (Jun 9, 2002)

Pointing fingers? Focus on Adelman


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hedo - - He Do!!!</b>!
> Pointing fingers? Focus on Adelman


Adelman has had some pretty talented teams throughout his career and hasn't lead them to titles when other coaches may have(?). Or maybe the Kings are just the Cavaliers of the 90's. Great team with alot of injuries and bad luck of going against insanely great superstars.


----------



## SuttersFolly (Mar 19, 2003)

Yeah, that must be it. The Kings are the Cavaliers. Give me a freaking break.  When was the last time the Cavaliers even made it into the playoffs?

I'm not thrilled about the lack of effort of key players on the Kings, but this team is far from being the showcase of failure that some media folks and others are portraying it to be.


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

Dude, that Cavs team had trouble getting out of the first round. If any team resembles the Cavs of that era it would have been the Wovles.

At any rate, back to the article. This is one of the few times I don't agree with Voisin. Adelman is not a freakin psychic. It's easy to look back now and say he should have done this or that. But bottom line: he didn't tell Divac to miss FTs in Game 3. He didn't tell the team to stop passing. He didn't tell the team to leave Walt Williams wide open. His team is without its best player but is still neck to neck with one of the top dogs in the NBA. Not many coaches can pull this off.

Don't believe me? Just watch how Phil Jackson's team crumbled like a cheap chair in the face of adversity. And see how Adelman's team respond to the same kind of pressure.


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

i should have said early 90's when they had some great teams beset with injuries and the BULLS.


----------



## max6216 (Nov 27, 2002)

you do have to look at his history.his portland team was knocked out playoffs by a old lakers team they were favored to beat.the next year the bulls made a come back in the 4th qt with bobby hansen,stacey king b.j armstong and cliff levingston on the floor after the blazers were up by 15 in the 4th.against the pistons he had a 2-0 lead then lost the next 4.in sac his team choked at home during game 7 missing freethrows.and this year his team came out so flat they gave up 83 before halftime.his players love him but why not? he runs a loose ship. if they complained there's a chance they may end up with a hubie brown type coach.


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

Adelman's has never had an MVP or Defensive Player of the Yr to work with. While guys like Phil, Red, Rudy and Popovich had at least two future HOFers in the teams. I remember his Portland team; I was scratching my head wondering why they were so good because on paper none of the guys really standed out besided Drexler. 

To borrow a phrase from soccer, Adelman knows how to "make the team greater than the sum of its parts." People keep forgetting that Bobby Jackson, Pollard, and Christie were basically casted-off and unwanted by other NBA teams before they blossomed with the Kings. A few others have resurrected their careers under Adelman (Jon Barry, Maxwell, Delk, etc). While Chris Webber fulfilled his potential and Peja becomes a star. 

Four years ago, if you were to tell fans that a team with Webber, Peja, Bibby, Christie, Pollard, and B Jax is the most talented team in the world, you'll get laughed out of the room.

Some of that credit should goes to Adelman. He knows how to maximize a player's ability. It is a major reason why people think the Kings have the most talented team in the NBA. Yes, he does it by giving his players the freedom to explore their limit. And sometimes it comes back and bite you. But make no mistake, Adelman's coaching style is the REASON the Kings are so good in the first place. The coach can only do so much, the rest is up to the players.

Btw, there is nothing that Hubie Brown can teach that the Kings don't already know. They don't need more depth, or a different coach, or different philosophy. They are already good enough to win. The only thing they need next season are what they are missing now: health and a bit of luck.


----------



## SuttersFolly (Mar 19, 2003)

Finally, a voice of reason, beb0p. :clap: I don't always agree with some of Adelman's coaching decisions, but he is certainly not the loser some folks on this forum are painting him to be. There are few other coaches that could coach this collection of players with the success that Adelman has had. 

beb0p for moderator :clap: :yes:


----------



## Tom (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>max6216</b>!
> you do have to look at his history.his portland team was knocked out playoffs by a old lakers team they were favored to beat.the next year the bulls made a come back in the 4th qt with bobby hansen,stacey king b.j armstong and cliff levingston on the floor after the blazers were up by 15 in the 4th.against the pistons he had a 2-0 lead then lost the next 4.in sac his team choked at home during game 7 missing freethrows.and this year his team came out so flat they gave up 83 before halftime.his players love him but why not? he runs a loose ship. if they complained there's a chance they may end up with a hubie brown type coach.


great post...the voice of reason. I agree 100%. HE has had great talent an hasn't been able to close the deal.


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tom</b>!
> 
> 
> great post...the voice of reason. I agree 100%. HE has had great talent an hasn't been able to close the deal.



I can't believe so many people actually believe the coach is the deciding factor in whether a team wins a championship. Many great players never won rings. Many great coaches never won championships. 

As great as Phil Jackson (supposedly) is, he couldn't overcome a team full of CBA players. As great as Pat Riley is, he couldn't overcome Morning's injury and a weak bench. 

As great as Rick Adelman is. He never has an MVP on his team. As far as I can tell, the only thing he has done wrong is being too good and looking too much like a disgruntled school teacher.

If he was coaching the Lakers. We'd see breakout performances from Pargo, Rush, George, Madsen and Walker.


----------



## Peja Vu (Jun 9, 2002)

Mark Kriedler take:

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/basketball/kings/story/6709518p-7660889c.html



> Adelman's culpability, if that's what you want to call it, is the stuff of great fan debates. One view is that the coach didn't get enough out of his talented roster, that he didn't juggle adroitly in compensating for the loss of Webber. Another is both more vague and more damning: Adelman is just too soft to ever lead a team to an NBA title, and only a coaching change could bring about that result.
> 
> The striking thing about these arguments is how insulated they are from the larger truth. They discuss ways in which the Kings' playoff exit might have been avoided without acknowledging, or even pondering, the question of where the Kings would have finished at all this season without Adelman. After all, you can't replace him for just the two weeks.
> 
> ...


 :yes:


----------



## CrossinUOvr03 (May 23, 2003)

Adelman is a good coach and got all that talent to play together. He'd brought out the best in most of his guys, but I question some of his game decisions in the playoffs the last couple years. For example, vs. the Mavs in Game 4. He plays Bibby the entire 3rd quarter, and then Bobby Jackson the entire 4th. The two have played together before and do quite well out there at the same time. So why does he sit his top player (since Webber was hurt) for the ENTIRE 4th qtr. They were winning handily, but almost blew their big lead without their floor leader in the game. Just things like that get on my nerves a little bit.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

deepest team in the league, and you think adelman doesn't have enough talent :angel:


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>CrossinUOvr03</b>!
> Adelman is a good coach and got all that talent to play together. He'd brought out the best in most of his guys, but I question some of his game decisions in the playoffs the last couple years. For example, vs. the Mavs in Game 4. He plays Bibby the entire 3rd quarter, and then Bobby Jackson the entire 4th. The two have played together before and do quite well out there at the same time. So why does he sit his top player (since Webber was hurt) for the ENTIRE 4th qtr. They were winning handily, but almost blew their big lead without their floor leader in the game. Just things like that get on my nerves a little bit.


That was a decision I agree with. Van Exel was having the game of his life. If Adelman had played both Bibby and BJax together, it'd meant Jackson had to guard Van Exel. Not a good matchup.

The Kings at that point needed someone taller to bother Van Exel's shots. They needed to protect the lead, and defense was the emphasis. That's why Christie, Jim Jackson, and even Hedo were on the floor. 

None of them did contain Van Ex, but at least the pointed he scored were mostly on tough looks. If a player swissed fade-away 20 footers over guys 5 to 9 inches taller, you just have to tip your hat to him.


----------



## beb0p (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
> deepest team in the league, and you think adelman doesn't have enough talent :angel:


Which part of "Webber injured, Could Not Play" don't you understand?


----------



## Peja Vu (Jun 9, 2002)

Mark Kreidler: In defense of Adelman 




> "It doesn't make sense to me," Joe Maloof said of the criticism of Adelman. "Doesn't make sense. I mean, look at what happened.
> 
> "Last year, we don't have Peja (Stojakovic) for most of the playoffs, and we go to Game 7 overtime (in the conference finals) against the Lakers. It's not his fault we missed those free throws. Then you go into this season. Mike Bibby gets hurt, Scot Pollard, Bobby Jackson, Peja's foot, geez, then Chris (Webber) in the playoffs.
> 
> "I thought Rick did a masterful job juggling all the things he had to juggle."





> But there is a school of thought, I said, that Adelman is the right coach for the growth phase of the operation but not necessarily for the grab-the-title phase -- that a personality switch could be just enough to push the Kings over the top.
> 
> "That's fine, but let's apply the same standard to all the coaching 'geniuses,' " Petrie replied. "Has Don Nelson won a championship? Has he been in an NBA Finals? (Adelman coached Portland to the Finals twice.) Has Larry Brown won any NBA championships? Jeff Van Gundy?"


----------

