What has Steve Kerr done to be considered to top coaching candidate?

[ZoPunde]

I'm confused. The Lakers, Warriors, and Knicks all want this guy to coach for them. Why? What has he done?

[FLDFSU]

Same thing when he got the Phnx job.

Him and Jackson, Marc are in the same boat, HOWEVER, Jackson was never considered a "top" coaching candidate and took over a team that hadn't been to the playoffs but once in the last 20 years.

But now apparently Jackson is out to make room for Kerr, after winning 50 games and going to the playoffs in back to back years.

[9512]

Former NBA role players tend to be hired a lot.

My guess is his reputation of being a member of the bulls & spurs teams (the experience of being part of 5 titles), his reputation as an announcer (guess some people think he's knowledgeable), and his connection w/ Phil Jackson will increase his chances of getting hired.

[3peated]

point guard role players*

[jzek]

All hype.

Remember how everyone thought Brian Shaw was the next big thing? Yeah. GMs are dumb. They all go by hype and what the media tells them is "good".

[FLDFSU]

Former NBA role players tend to be hired a lot.

My guess is his reputation of being a member of the bulls & spurs teams (the experience of being part of 5 titles), his reputation as an announcer (guess some people think he's knowledgeable), and his connection w/ Phil Jackson will increase his chances of getting hired.

But what about that makes him a *top* coaching candidate? Marc Jackson had much the same background and was never (not even today) considered a *top* coaching candidate?

[Kblaze8855]

Gms don't go by hype and all. They go by nepotism like the rest of the world. Look at the GM list. Like 5-6 either played with Kerr, coached him, or were GMs on teams that brought him in. He has ties to Pop, Phil Jackson, the Nelsons in Dallas, he ran the Suns for a few years after being a consultant since 2004 and hired coaches(head and assistants) who are in the league now and hes generally been in and around the league since 1987. How many GMs know him and his way of thinking just from his time as president of the Suns?


GMs don't need media hype to decide they like Kerr. They have known him for 10-25 years.

[Thorpesaurous]

I've wondered the same thing. And I've wondered it mostly because it wasn't as if he did gang busters work as a gm in pheonix. Now GM'ing isn't the same as coaching, but still.

First, he's always come off as a bit stiff to me. That's fine. It seems like a great trait in a gm. I'm not sure I want it out of my coach.

Second, he seems to be getting a lot of recognition as a desciple of Phil Jackson, but it's not like the PJ coaching tree has been dropping super successfull acorns. He did however also coach with Pop, who has so far seen a pretty good pedigree for assistant's turning into plus coaches. Playing for those two guys is a pretty nice place to start, but I still feel like having zero assistant coaching experience is something that's not getting as much value placed on it as it should.

I like the guy. I hope he does well. But the talk about him like he's a no brainer can't miss coach just feels wierd to me.

[chocolatethunder]

Perhaps Phil just wants to groom him and basically be able to control all his moves from top, kinda like Pat Riley is doing in Miami with Spolestra.

No because Kerr has already stated that he wouldn't implement the triangle because it takes a long time to learn. Someone posted a link to and article about Kerr and what his coaching style would be like and it was a bunch of clips from different interviews I believe. He said that he liked ball movement and spacing and was against ISOball. He liked teams like Portland and San Anotnio and Dallas. Teams who moved the ball a lot. I've been trying to find the link but haven't been able to yet. There are so many topics on this now that I can't sort through them all.

[D-FENS]

Second, he seems to be getting a lot of recognition as a desciple of Phil Jackson, but it's not like the PJ coaching tree has been dropping super successfull acorns. He did however also coach with Pop, who has so far seen a pretty good pedigree for assistant's turning into plus coaches. Playing for those two guys is a pretty nice place to start, but I still feel like having zero assistant coaching experience is something that's not getting as much value placed on it as it should.

I feel like Phil just floated him as a potential candidate to help the guy get noticed around the league, and if Phil endorses you, it's gold in the NBA, albeit fool's gold

[Thorpesaurous]

No because Kerr has already stated that he wouldn't implement the triangle because it takes a long time to learn. Someone posted a link to and article about Kerr and what his coaching style would be like and it was a bunch of clips from different interviews I believe. He said that he liked ball movement and spacing and was against ISOball. He liked teams like Portland and San Anotnio and Dallas. Teams who moved the ball a lot. I've been trying to find the link but haven't been able to yet. There are so many topics on this now that I can't sort through them all.

I agree with his thinking here. I have some doubts about the ability of the triangle to run at an elite level in the current league. Loosening zone rules means it's easier to flood a floor defensively, meaning harder to do it offensively.

On top of that there are fewer players in the league than ever who are at an advantage with their back to the basket, which the triangle relies on. And the decreasing of hand checking has blown up the success rate of players working out of classic top pick and rolls that lead to kick outs or drop offs, which isn't something the triangle goes into naturally at all.

The fact that Kerr played for Pop, albeit not the same Pop that is working currently, is to me a bigger plus than his Phil Jackson experience.

[-Lebron23-]

All hype.

Remember how everyone thought Brian Shaw was the next big thing? Yeah. GMs are dumb. They all go by hype and what the media tells them is "good".

GMs do not make decisions like that going 'by hype' though, it's delusional to think otherwise. They usually speak to a large amount of people before even considering someone a candidate.

Kerr probably showed great basketball knowledge in his years as a player and of course as GM. he has spent lots of time with colleagues and coaches so if many of them endorse him, he is definitely worth looking into.

I agree with you on Shaw though. He doesn't seem ready for a HC position. I don't even like the idea of basketball he proposes but people change as the game does so let's see if he's given more opportunities.

[chocolatethunder]

I agree with his thinking here. I have some doubts about the ability of the triangle to run at an elite level in the current league. Loosening zone rules means it's easier to flood a floor defensively, meaning harder to do it offensively.

On top of that there are fewer players in the league than ever who are at an advantage with their back to the basket, which the triangle relies on. And the decreasing of hand checking has blown up the success rate of players working out of classic top pick and rolls that lead to kick outs or drop offs, which isn't something the triangle goes into naturally at all.

The fact that Kerr played for Pop, albeit not the same Pop that is working currently, is to me a bigger plus than his Phil Jackson experience.

I wanna be honest, his ties to Phil Jackson (playing for him) are being blown up to make him seem as if he'd be a puppet or just run the triangle and I don't think that's true at all. He's smart enough to say that he wouldn't run the triangle so that's a good sign to me. More than anything I think it's the complexity of the offense and finding players who are disciplined enough to play within the offense that would prevent him from implementing it. I have no idea if he'll be a good coach but I suspect that people think that he will be good because they know something. Just as Larry Brown thought Kevin Ollie would be a good coach. What do any of us know of Steve Kerr? Not much. He's an analyst and was a role player. I saw his whole career. I remember when he played for Cleveland. He seems to be a thinker like Doug Collins but not as harsh and more adaptable. No clue if that means anything. As a GM he made some good moves and some bad ones. He was only a GM for a few years so it's not even fair to call him good or bad because he wasn't doing it long enough. I think he's young enough to relate to players and he'd have the respect of winning a championship. He has a calm demeanor but he was competitive and definitely made big shots in his career. What does this mean? That remains to be seen. Guys like Bird and Jackson had no experience but were very good coaches. Neither we the X and O guys though, they were the motivators. Bird had Carlisle and Jackson had Malone (til this year and you could see the offense suffered at times). Even Phil Jackson had Tex Winter (although Phil is thought of as somewhat of an x and os guy). I think Kerr is viewed as a guy who has the potential to be a really good x and o guy and a smart manipulator/motivator like Pop. I don't know that he will be but but that's how it seems he'll be viewed. The league is shifting and people are going to be taking more chances on unproven guys with no coaching experience. Jackson, Kidd, Kerr etc and I'm all for it.

[DCL]

he seems so laid back to be an nba coach.

i can imagine in the locker room after a huge loss and he'd be going "good game, fellas. great effort by everybody. unfortunately, they got us tonight, but we'll get them next time. let's go team!"

not sure if that's the kind of intensity you want from an nba coach... not even sure if that's the kind of intensity you want from a competitive high school jv coach.

kerr is just so mellow.

[Draz]

There's not that many good coaches out there. The market for them is desperate.