Short post for me tonight, regrettably. But here is a link to a very good article, as usual, by Michael Lombardi that discusses the Packers and the Steelers most recent head coaching hires - more specifically, neither organization’s desire to “win the press conference.”
It seems to me that Mike Holmgren followed a lot of these same principles when hiring Pat Shurmur to be the Browns newest head coach.
Personally, I am always in favor of a decision that comes without a desire to win the press conference … but, in that case, I really wonder why Holmgren didn’t remove Mangini last season. Because if Holmgren believes in the principles Lombardi discusses in this article, then the notion of Mangini being the appropriate head coach for this organization seems deeply misguided.
I watched last Thursday’s “Inside the NBA” over the weekend. During the course of the broadcast, I was reminded of something that I’m sure we noted at the beginning of this season (though I’m not going to spend the time trying to dig back into our archives and prove it).
Essentially, TNT’s studio team was lauding Boston’s play and discussing what a tough out they’ll be in the playoffs this spring. One of the essential components of their argument: just think of what they’ll be able to do when they have a healthy Shaquille O’Neal back on the court.
Whomever made this point was greeted with a loud round of agreement. Shaq was indeed going to be a handful in the post-season.
Compare this to the reaction of NBA analysts last year when The Big Aristotle was in a Cavs uniform. All we heard about during that time was how old Shaq had gotten, how he’d lost several steps, how he didn’t have any lift, couldn’t be depended on to deliver in a major way during the playoffs, etc.
However, with his 38th birthday looming in 34 days, Shaq has somehow been thrown into some kind of analyst rejuvenation machine. Somehow, by putting on a different uniform, he has once again become a force to be reckoned with.
I’ll admit that I haven’t been paying as much attention to the league as a whole this season as I have in previous years. My sense from what I had seen up to today was that Shaq was largely doing the same things in the same quantities with Boston as what he did for the Cavs last year. But in the interest of fairness, I decided to check the numbers tonight to be sure.
Here’s what I found:
2009-10 Shaq Vs. 2010-11 Shaq
Games Played: 53 Vs 35
Minutes Per Game: 23.4 Vs 20.9
FGA per 36 min: 13.4 Vs 9.6
FG%: 56.6 Vs 66.7
FTA per 36 min: 6.6 Vs 6.4
FT%: 49.6 Vs 55.8
Offensive Rebound %: 9.4 Vs 8.8
Defensive Rebound %: 24.0 Vs 20.2
Total Rebound %: 17.0 Vs 14.8
Assist %: 11.3 Vs 5.8
Turnover %: 15.7 Vs 17.1
Offensive Rating (Points scored per 100 possessions): 104 Vs 113
Defensive Rating (Points allowed per 100 possessions): 102 Vs 98
Fouls: 4.9 Vs 5.8
In summary, Boston Shaq shoots a much higher percentage from the floor and a slightly less terrible percentage from the stripe; is no better at getting to the line; rebounds worse (particularly defensively); assists about half as much; turns the ball over more frequently; and fouls more often than Cleveland Shaq, with a negligible difference in minutes per game (-2.5 this season).
So while his offensive rating has improved noticeably, and his defensive rating somewhat, the category by category breakdown suggests that this is not a dramatically different player than he was a year ago. Even the current upticks in his offensive and defensive ratings are likely to settle before the end of the season. Case in point: in his last 4 games, Shaq has totaled 10 points…combined.
This isn’t a column meant to bag on Shaq, who I still root for on an individual level. The point is that, once again, the same phenomenon can look a whole lot different to the sports media depending on whether it’s happening in the TD Banknorth Garden instead of The Q. Some things never change.
Tim, myself, and @joshrosen had an illuminating, albeit brief, conversation on Twitter Sunday night regarding the Browns’ apparent switch to a 4-3 Defense.
Ever since the possibility of this transformation came up, I’ve been asking myself a simple but important question.
Why?
Why do the Browns want to become a 4-3 Defense?
Is the 4-3 Defense more effective than the 3-4 Defense they have been running?
Does Pat Shurmur only understand how to coach a 4-3 Defense?
Does Tom Heckert only know how to supply players for a 4-3 Defense?
What, really, is the point?
This is a crucial question because obviously the two kinds of defenses need different types of personals. In the simplest terms, the 4-3 needs one more starting end than the 3-4. The 3-4 needs one more starting linebacker than the 4-3.
This means that a personnel overhaul is coming. Free agents will be signed. Draft picks will be used. Trades could be made.
And for what?
If the 4-3 was really more effective than the 3-4, you would think that the two teams competing in the Super Bowl this Sunday would be deploying it.
They are not.
The Browns had a bunch of weaknesses already. Now they have one more - defensive players who are not suited for the 4-3.
If Pat Shurmur only knows how to coach a 4-3, I’m not sure what to say. As a former Offensive Coordinator, ostensibly, he should understand both types of defenses. And since there isn’t going to be an Offensive Coordinator on this coaching staff at all, I don’t see how Shurmur will have any time to spend on the defense as is.
So what was it? Heckert can figure out 3-4 personnel, can’t he? He did so last year. Was Dick Jauron such a can’t miss hire that the Browns had to have him - and Jauron, we know, has a history coaching the 4-3?
This seems unlikely since they did, after all, interview other candidates.
When Tim, Josh, and I were exchanging messages about this, Tim made what I thought was a great point: “Any time a coach preferentially imposes a system w/o considering strengths of his personnel it is mistake.”
While I would hesitate to use the “always” that is buried implicitly inside of Tim’s tweet, I largely agree. If a coach is going to demand his team play a certain style or within a specific system that runs counter to the personnel he was given he better make a compelling argument for why.
Here, in Cleveland, we’re watching this movie already. Byron Scott came in and kicked out Mike Brown’s offensive and defensive systems, simply for the sake of his own familiarity. Sure, Scott has had success running the vaunted Princeton Offense before, but he did so with superstar point guards Chris Paul and Jason Kidd at the helm. A carbon copy of either one of those two point guards is not on this team.
So, I ask, what was the point of installing a new system? Because Scott liked the Princeton Offense more?
This is a classic mistake by upper management. We all have our preferences, but our preferences must serve a purpose or they won’t be effective at anything beyond making ourselves feel more comfortable.
Which, when your job is winning games, shouldn’t really be at the top of the priority list.
Ultimately, changing systems means re-education and changing personnel - and it probably means some amount of regression. In the case of the Cavs, this has actually worked out well, since it is better for the organization in the long run that the team is tanking this badly this quickly.
When it comes to the Browns, however, another year of regression is unacceptable. Otherwise, why bother firing Eric Mangini if you’re just planning on getting worse anyway?
You don’t. You fire Mangini to get better. And there is reason to wonder if switching to the 4-3 will make getting better in 2011 at least slightly more difficult for the Cleveland Browns.
Adam Schefter is reporting that the Philadelphia Eagles have decided to franchise Mike Vick and trade Kevin Kolb.
More importantly to us, sources are listing the Browns as one of the teams potentially interested in trading for him.
You’re not going to find a bigger proponent than me of the notion that until your NFL team has a quarterback, they’re just not important. You’re also not going to find anyone more unsure than me about whether or not Colt McCoy is the real deal at the position.
Then why am I adamantly opposed to the possibility of Holmgren & Company dealing for Kolb? Two simple reasons.
First, by almost every statistical category I’ve checked, McCoy was better than Kolb last season. From our friends at Advanced NFL Stats:
2010 COLT McCOY vs. KEVIN KOLB
Games played: 8 vs. 7
Win Probability Added: -0.18 vs -1.02
Expected Points Added: 16.5 vs 4.4
Completion %: 60.8 vs 60.8
Pass Yards per Game: 197 vs 171
INT per Game: 1.125 vs 1.0
% of Pass Attempts Over 15 yards: 20.3 vs 19.6
Adjusted Yards Per Attempt: 4.2 vs 3.8
In summary: McCoy played one more game than Kolb last season, but apart from throwing .125 more interceptions per game, was as good or better in every way.
I would highlight Completion Percentage, Percentage of Pass Attempts over 15 yards, and Adjusted Yards per Attempt in this comparison, because they illustrate that McCoy and Kolb are both West Coast style quarterbacks. In other words, both are equally well-suited toward the type of O that Pat Shurmur is going to run.
Add to the above that we were bombarded with report after report about McCoy’s leadership ability and presence in the huddle as a rookie, and I just don’t see a logical argument for the idea that Kolb is a superior quarterback.
This leads us to the second reason that I’m against the idea of a trade: compensation. If memory serves, the Eagles are supposedly asking for multiple picks, including at least one first rounder, for Kolb. The Browns need talent all over the field, with the possible exception of RB and the center to left side of the O line. Given that reality, shipping off multiple picks in order to acquire a quarterback who is not markedly better than your incumbent seems like about as good an idea as wearing capri pants to a UAW bar.
So while I’m not yet sold on McCoy, I hope the Browns brain / mustache trust recognizes that they need a talented, deep draft class more than they need another unproven quarterback.
The last time the Oklahoma City Thunder were on national television, I remarked on Twitter that I would not be able to take them seriously as a contender until they could make for than 5 threes a game (good for 28th in the league).
I wrote this because I’m a big believer in the impact the 3P shot has on offensive efficiency. When your team can shoot well from behind the arc, not only does it lead to more points on fewer shots, it also spreads the floor. Statistically, as Kevin Pelton at Basketball Prospectus has illustrated, 3P shooters have a positive effect on a team’s offense.
Hence my logic regarding OKC.
But then I discovered that the Thunder are currently ranked 6th in the NBA in Offensive Efficiency.
So what gives?
Namely, free throws.
Oklahoma City is 1st in the NBA in FT% at 83.1%. Portland is 2nd - 3.4% behind.
The Thunder are also 2nd in Free Throw Rate, or the number of free throws attempted per the number of field goals attempted.
What this means effectively is that the Thunder could be a dominant offense with one or two good to great three point shooters.
In other words, Daniel Gibson, OKC GM Sam Presti has probably said your name at some point over the past few weeks to Chris Grant.
Boobie is taking 6.0 3P attempts per 40 minutes and making 2.7 of them, which is good for 44.9%. On the Thunder, Boobie would be the best 3P shooter by far. Of the players who play regular minutes, James Harden is #1 from 3P at 37.8%.
So then, if you’re Chris Grant, and Presti calls you about Daniel Gibson, what do you think you can get for him? Would you move Boobie and Anthony Parker to OKC for Eric Maynor and James Harden? Probably. Would Presti give away two young players for one guy in his prime and one guy at the end of his career? Probably not. Could you get either Maynor or Harden though?
Who knows. I don’t. But I am pretty confident that Gibson could help the Thunder on both ends of the floor - although he would hurt their FT shooting a bit (only 82.2% this year).
