ESPN reports Pistons to hire Cavs assistant John Kuester as head coach
The Detroit Pistons, who couldn't work out a contract with Avery Johnson to be their next head coach, appear to be turning to Cavs assistant coach John Kuester as their man. Kuester was as assistant coach for the Pistons in 2004 when they won the NBA championship and has been with the Cavs for the past two years. He served as "offensive coordinator" last year and was credited with the improvements in the Cavs' offense this past season. The Cavs don't want to lose Kuester, especially to a division rival, but won't stand in the way of his first head coaching opportunity.
8 months ago
Buckeye Brad
52 comments
0 recs |
Comments
So what
Coaches don’t make championship teams, player do. Worthless to spend our time worrying about this mirror loss. This is like losing 5 cents when you make a million a year.
Baseball is God's sport! All Truth Goes Through Three Stages 1.It is ridiculed 2.It is violently opposed 3.Finally, it is accepted as self-evident. kinesiologist
by E5 on Jul 7, 2009 6:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Funny how you see it
whereas Celtics fans feel the complete opposite about potentially losing Tom Thibedeau
by Boney on Jul 7, 2009 7:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thibedeau runs that team
Rivers is a puppet.
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 7, 2009 10:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's why he's only been able to secure interviews
and teams aren’t falling all over themselves to sign him up as their head coach
sure thing!
by Boney on Jul 8, 2009 1:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is really, ridiculously wrong.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 7, 2009 7:55 PM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
When our coach is Mike Brown
who hasn’t been a very good offensive minded coach, we need all the great minds we can get.
This loss hurts.
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 7, 2009 10:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brown may not be a very good offensive coach, but we have to wait and see on this. For the first time in the Lebron era this year, the Cavs had a starting guard with a +.500 TS%, and actually they had two. The offense is going to look a hell of a lot better when they guys you ask to make jump shots can actually do that, regardless of who is drawing up the plays.
And even without Kuester, the Cavs are going to run the same basic sets, and opponents are going to know what they want to do.
by 7foot3 on Jul 7, 2009 10:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
your point about the TS% is well-taken, but doesn’t adding shaq to the mix change our sets some and make it important that an effective offensive coach is at the controls?
i think “knowing what they want to do” has been a hallmark of all of the cavs’ offenses since 23 got to town. it’s not like kuester caught anyone off guard last year.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 7, 2009 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, the sets will change some, and an effective coach is always important. But everyone knows its going to be Lebron as a freight train going to the rim, or Shaq on the block, both with shooters spacing the floor. Teams have thrown everything they can to stop those two plays, but they just can’t.
by 7foot3 on Jul 8, 2009 6:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok take Phil Jackson away from the Lakers
Do they still win as many Championships? I doubt it, Kobe without Jackson has won 0 rings, Michael Jordan without Jackson has won 0 rings as well. Coaching is important too.
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jul 7, 2009 11:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Phil Jackson without a MVP-type player (who had plenty of help) has won how many rings? Larry Brown didn’t go from a genius in Detroit to an idiot in NY overnight.
by 7foot3 on Jul 8, 2009 5:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, obviously it takes great players to win in the NBA. Nobody is going to argue that. But that doesn’t mean coaching isn’t important. Great coaches can put a team over the edge when playing a team of equal talent.
In the NBA, it’s definitely more important to have great players than a great coach, but coaches still are an important part of a team’s success.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 8, 2009 7:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No doubt coaching is important, but who was the mastermind behind putting Lebron on the nail and letting him go to work? As much as we want to bash Mike Brown, we really don’t know how much of the offense is Brown and how much is Kuester. It sucks that he is leaving, but it’s really not that big of a deal. We still have the best player in the NBA and even a mediocre coach can figue out how to win with him.
by dvd1204 on Jul 8, 2009 12:30 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'd imagine that since Mike Brown opted to not speak during timeouts this year
and delegate responsibility to all his ‘coordinators’, it wasn’t Mike Brown. Brown made no adjustments in the postseason than to say at halftime ‘Lebron, go create’.
by Hardcore Legend on Jul 8, 2009 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is Kuester really that irreplaceable? I really would like Mike Brown to have an “offensive coordinator”, but is Kuester the be-all end-all guy for that?
by rufio on Jul 8, 2009 12:32 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
i don’t think anyone is saying he’s irreplaceable. it’s just a shame that after a year in which the offense really improved, and kuester was in charge, he bails. especially to an in-division rival.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 8, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah that does kind of suck. Who should be on our radar to replace him?
by rufio on Jul 8, 2009 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Charlie Weis. I always hear how great an offensive coordinator he was in New England.
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 8, 2009 9:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
‘…ESPECIALLY TO AN IN-DIVISION RIVAL.’ Key words.
by johnnyphoenix on Jul 8, 2009 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Detroit isn't going anywhere soon
Especially not with that roster. Who is starting at center? Maxiell? Kwame? They’ll probably improve on last year, but not that much.
To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.
by Ben R on Jul 8, 2009 11:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Offseason's not over
There’s still plenty of moves that can be made to shore up the center position, if it is indeed Kwame, it can’t be that bad. We don’t need anymore scoring, and Kwame brings a big body that can bang around and play solid defense. It’s all up to Villanueva’s ability to defend.
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jul 9, 2009 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
People forget
That Kwame started 30 games last year, so it’s not like Kwame’s never started a game in his life in Detroit.
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jul 9, 2009 7:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it’s more like kwame’s never started a game and been good in his detroit, or any other professional, life.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 9, 2009 7:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yea
and he has hands of stone. Kwame is a terrible excuse for a NBA player. If you holding out hope he will help your team then you are sadly mistaken and seriously misinformed.
Baseball is God's sport! All Truth Goes Through Three Stages 1.It is ridiculed 2.It is violently opposed 3.Finally, it is accepted as self-evident. kinesiologist
by E5 on Jul 9, 2009 7:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
As I said before
We have enough offense on the roster, we don’t need Kwame to catch anything with his “hands of stone”. As long as he rebounds and defends he’ll do just fine.
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jul 10, 2009 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plenty of moves?
Only thing I see is trading Rip and Prince to Dallas for Dampier and filler or signing Nesterovic, neither of which is that significant of an upgrade (and the fact I’m indicating that it’s an upgrade is telling).
Kwame is an okay backup center, but he’s downright awful if you’re going to play him over 30 minutes a night. I’m not saying Detroit isn’t going to improve from last year, as I can’t see how Kuester can’t win over 40 games with that roster. You’re not going anywhere with such a gaping hole at center though.
To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.
by Ben R on Jul 9, 2009 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Prince and Rip for Dampier
Detroit doesn’t get in the habit of trading 2 players for stiffs…
we leave that up to Danny Ferry
HEYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
by Boney on Jul 10, 2009 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually can’t think of one moment where Danny Ferry traded two players for stiffs……not one.
In fact you can say he traded one mediocre and one terrible player for the most valuable player acquired in the league this offseason.
by hans on Jul 10, 2009 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
most valuable player acquired in the league this offseason
To make sure this doesn’t get misconstrued, this player is the most valuable of all the players that have changed teams this offseason.
by hans on Jul 10, 2009 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know about you
But I would rather have Ben Gordon than Shaq, don’t sleep on Richard Jefferson either. He quietly put up 20 pts and 4.5 rebs a game, he also gets to the line at a high rate and knocks down most of them. More than I can say for Diesel though.
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jul 10, 2009 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Everyone knows Shaq hasn’t been able to win a championship because of his lack of ability to shoot free throws, duh.
by rufio on Jul 11, 2009 3:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow
Way to totally disregard everything else I said and focus in on a minor idea, what about the 20 pts and 4.5 rebounds a game part? I like how you didn’t even mention those.
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jul 11, 2009 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
b/c everything else you said was ridiculous enough to stand on its own
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 12, 2009 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ridiculous?
Seemed like a good argument to me, maybe you don’t recognize good arguments well?
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jul 14, 2009 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, your argument was not good, let’s start there.
ben gordon over shaq? that is just a joke. and 20 pts and 4.5 rebs is your stat line for why richard jefferson is a better pickup? laughable. it actually made me laugh out loud.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 14, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was the only thing you said that actually compared RJ to Shaq. Jefferson and Gordon are good, I don’t disagree with that.
As for points/rebounds, I don’t think they do a good job of evaluating a players worth. Even if they did Shaq put up 2.2 less points/game and almost double Jefferson’s rebounds/game so I’ll give the nod to Shaq.
by rufio on Jul 12, 2009 9:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You also have to consider youth
When Shaq is long retired, Gordon will still be draining threes in the clutch. I don’t dispute Shaq is an excellent player, but I’m sure 30 out of 30 GMs in the league would take Gordon as opposed to Shaq.
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jul 14, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sure 30 out of 30 GMs in the league would take Gordon as opposed to Shaq
what a patently absurd comment. i mean, just ridiculously and horribly ridiculous. i’m sure 30 out of 30 GMs in the league would agree that you are talking out of your ass.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 14, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
You would take a 37 year old over a 26 year old? That’s ridiculous. Shaq will be retired in 2-3 years, Gordon will be playing for another 7-9. That alone is reason to take Gordon over Shaq, add on to the fact that Gordon is an excellent scorer, and an absolute dagger in the clutch, and it’s a no-brainer. Gordon over Shaq anytime.
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jul 14, 2009 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
by your logic, the most valuable player in the nba is jrue holliday…b/c he’s the youngest. asinine.
i almost hesitate to respond to this gordon over shaq again b/c it is so absurd, but i’ll put some numbers out here to just show you why you’re criminally wrong.
08-09 numbers
shaq: 22.3 PER; 117 ORtg; 109 DRtg; .623 TS%; 8.2 Win Shares; 10.7 WARP
gordon: 17.0 PER; 112 ORtg; 112 DRtg; .573 TS%; 7.0 Win Shares; 4.6 WARP
end of story. go away.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 14, 2009 6:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now you're putting words into my mouth
I acknowledge Shaq is better than Gordon, if age wasn’t a factor I would take Shaq over Gordon most of the time, but when you take into account that Gordon still has room to grow, and Shaq is in the twilight of his career, it has to be Gordon.
Gordon: 20.4 points/game
Shaq: 17.9 Points/game
Gordon: 398 games played in last 5 seasons
Shaq: 308 games played in last 5 seasons
Gordon has averaged more minutes than Shaq (except in rookie season) every season despite coming off the bench most of the time.
End of the day Gordon is 26 Shaq is 37. If both were in their primes, I would take Shaq every single day, no questions asked, but you’d get more production out of Gordon longer.
And where do you get off telling me to go away? You don’t own this site, you’re not even an editor/writer. Way to make an impression buddy.
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jul 14, 2009 6:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except that Shaq is only signed for one more year so all that matters is how valuable those players are next year. Of course Gordon will be better 5 years from now, but who cares?
by Buckeye Brad on Jul 14, 2009 8:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok now somebody is making sense
But true, Shaq’s deal expires next year, which possibly makes him more desirable for teams wishing to cut cap, but Gordon offers what all team covet. A prolific scoring threat that is a cold blooded clutch shooter. While Shaq is essentially a 1 year rental.
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jul 14, 2009 9:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
shaq is more than just a cap cut, he’s a put-you-over-the-top guy for championship caliber teams. gordon is not that…he’d have to be considered more of a build-for-the-future guy. which i think is your point.
if gordon were truly what all teams covet, though, he would have gotten more than $11mm/year.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 15, 2009 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to disagree
Gordon just about pushed the Boston game to 7 games by himself. He was excellent in the postseason averaging almost 25 pts a game. He really stepped up his game in that Boston series. Keep Cleveland the same without Shaq, add Gordon and I think that puts Cleveland over the top in the same manner adding Shaq does.
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jul 15, 2009 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i’m going to post a new post…we’re getting squeezed to the side here
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 15, 2009 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
points and minutes are really bad supporting evidence for any argument. really bad.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 15, 2009 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about the fact that
He’s played over a full season’s worth of games more than Shaq?
We didn't lose the games, we just ran out of time -- Bobby Layne
by detpistons3 on Jul 15, 2009 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I forgot I commented in this thread and am now just seeing what transpired since then.
First off, to avoid the confusion of accounting for value beyond this upcoming season, I’m simply looking at Shaq’s impact next season vs. any of the other players traded or signed thus far (including Gordon). And Shaq’s numbers from last season indicate that he is the best player when considering position and production.
A little bit more on the production side of things; Shaq played six fewer minutes a game and seven fewer games than Gordon played. Shaq was able to produce a 10.7 Wins Above Replacement Player (WARP)to Ben Gordon’s 4.6 WARP in fewer minutes over the season!. Gordon plays a position where there are simply more talented players, where as Shaq plays a position where there aren’t as many talented players.
by hans on Jul 15, 2009 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gordon just about pushed the Boston game to 7 games by himself. He was excellent in the postseason averaging almost 25 pts a game. He really stepped up his game in that Boston series. Keep Cleveland the same without Shaq, add Gordon and I think that puts Cleveland over the top in the same manner adding Shaq does.
there is no doubt that gordon was excellent in the boston series, but 7 games is too small of a sample to make meaningful conclusions about a player. the guy is good, but he’s never sniffed an all-star game or an all-nba team. let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
if we’re going to get specific about cleveland, it just isn’t true that gordon adds to the cavs in the same manner that shaq does. adding gordon gives us more of the same — an undersized combo guard that needs the ball in his hands — except with worse defense. mo williams’ numbers are better across the board than gordon’s (PER, TS%, ORtg, DRtg, Win Shares and WARP), and delonte west’s are close enough (significantly better in DRtg, most importantly, and $7mm cheaper) that adding gordon would do little to change the cleveland dynamic. in fact, gordon’s defensive numbers are bad enough that he might even detract from the current cavs’ win expectancy.
shaq, on the other hand, addresses a major area of need — for the cavs and much of the league. a legitimate post threat, both offensively and defensively. shaq’s addition makes cleveland a different and better team…gordon wouldn’t have helped much.
by DontCallMeJoey on Jul 15, 2009 3:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs














