I bet McHale would also make an awesome NBA GM if he was just given the chance.

Well if you want to run the triangle offense, you kind of have to pick Phil Jackson, or if you are a super fast paced team it would probably be helpful to have Nellie, otherwise players are more likely to take bad shots and not really know what they're doing. The thing with coaches is, we're already assuming that player personalities and off-court tendencies are equally likely, like Vin Baker being destined for alcoholism. So we should be able to have some control over this by drafting coaches, I mean it's all hypothetical anyway so why not include coaches to add another dimension?

I'm for removing coaching and doing a 10th player instead. I have a feeling that the arguments we will get in about the effects of various coaches will be neither fun nor productive.

the thing is, the coaching pool is huge, our understanding of their abilities not so much. Guys like Nellie and Jackson.. they have definite characteristics. There are an assload of outside variables and guys we really just aren't sure about.

Also, what if someone drafts Jackson and I take Tex and argue Jackson never perfects the triangle without him? Half of us don't know dick about the triangle beyond the very basics anyway.

If we keep the coach I'm just taking someone I'll have fun with. I got it narrowed down to 3 or 4 guys, 1 of which everyone knows is Larry.

I think Kevin McHale would have been the greatest mixed martial arts fighter of all time, if MMA had been popular enough in the 80s to warrant his attention.

Yeah other people summed it up better than I

Just got back from pickup ball - see 150-ish new posts, but no new picks. I didn't even have to check the thread, but I did anyway - MCHALE ARAGGGAGHG

By the way, anyone in their late 20s notice that no one shoots midrange J's anymore? I feel like I'm playing a totally different game. These kids be like, I have an open 10 footer, nah f'that, I'm going to drive into this guy even tho he's like 8 inches taller than me because I only take layups and 3s.

I feel old. But my midrange game be tight, yo.

D

I play pickup at college and NOBODY takes midrange shots. I'm a huge "offender" (if you can call it that), but I'm really good at driving, and I feel just as comfortable pulling up from 3 as I do from 10-15 feet.

Then I come home and play in a game where there's one kid my age (20), a couple guys fresh out of college, then everyone else is in their 40's and 50's. That game is played all 1's, but I'm like the only one taking 3's (TINY court, it's really hard getting to the rack). It's crazy.

I'm really against drafting coaches because imo there is little strategy to it, and the whole thing is very subjective. Basically the first coach drafted will be a strategic move, then you'll see a whole slew of coaches go immediately after. Depending on where you pick in relation to the first one drafted, that'll determine how good your coach is.

I think the coaching pool is much too small for the amount of teams, plus it's more fun to have the GM's be coaches and explain their offense,defense, tempo, etc... I can see it being a better discussion if a GM says "I'd run the same scheme as coach z, and here's why." That's more insightful than someone saying "coach z is my pick, he won xxxx games, he preaches defense... yadda yadda."

I'm all in favor of picking coaches, just because once it gets down to team 40, it'll be hilarious seeing which retread he ends up going with.

+1, completely echoes my sentiment regarding the issue

QFT

I hadn't really put too much thought into the whole coach selection thing. I guess it might be more fun to just design the scheme ourselves as opposed to drafting a coach. If people want to stick with it though, that's fine with me. I don't have a strong leaning on this issue. But I could def support 10 players and I set up the coaching. We have to defend our teams anyway in the head to head matchups.

Playing 2s and 1s, it obv makes a lot of sense to jack up a lot of 3s, which is why I hate it b/c its just not part of my game.

Growing up, I played mostly in a game similar to the second one you described - all 1s, with against guys 10-20 years older than me, outdoors in Florida with double iron rims/nets. You just didn't shoot from 3 - between the wind and the rims it was super hard to hit from outside. Thus, midrange shots FTW.

D

wtf? Seriously how do these things not mean the same thing?

For comparison, I currently weigh about 210 lbs and I'm 5ft 9.5in and while I'm a bit stocky, I don't think anyone is mistaking me for NBA level strong.

.

Midrange jump shots seen to be insanely inefficient if you're counting 3 pointers as 2 points and everything else as 1. Optimal strategy has to be either to work for an open 3 or layup, no?

Seem that most people want to eliminate coaching.

IF YOU ARE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO ELIMINATE COACHED(THAT IS YOU WANT TO KEEP IT) THEN LET ME KNOW ASAP.

If nobody is strongly opposed then I'll make the change as soon as tomorrow.

I am strongly opposed

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

yeah but I don't think you count

I thought you weren't replying to Assani anyway, wtf

I'm all for it for fun like I said.. I'm just going to ignore people making claims about how awesome their coach is and how he's going to gel their guys and run the perfect offense. I will, however, argue that a team with 2 Larry Birds simply can't be beat.

Except by a team of two Terry Porters!