Mark Jackson fired

I don't think he is the greatest coach in the world, but it seems kinda weird to fire a guy after two straight playoff appearances...

I don't think he is the greatest coach in the world, but it seems kinda weird to fire a guy after two straight playoff appearances…

Poor Vinny Del Negro.

Mama, There go dat man.

Mama, There go dat man.

lol damnit.

I don't think he is the greatest coach in the world, but it seems kinda weird to fire a guy after two straight playoff appearances…

Poor Vinny Del Negro.

The Clippers continually underachieved under Del Negro. The Warriors were doing well until the end of this season. They probably beat the Clippers with Bogut, but I don't know. I have nothing against Mark Jackson and wouldn't be surprised if they did better with a real coach next year. Hopefully they don't settle for MDA

Someone wrote a lengthy article on Mark Jackson and the subject of race. It's worth a read:

Contrast that to Jackson. In his first three seasons, he totaled 9 playoff wins. Granted, Karl was a respected coach when he took the Denver job, having taken the Bucks to East Finals and the Sonics to NBA Finals. But name a black coach who’s had a nine tries at winning a title before getting fired?

OK. Marvin Lewis. You win.

The narrative (my guy Tim Kawakami hates that word) was never that Jackson’s offensive system wasn’t the most effective. It wasn’t that he had a system but it didn’t quite fit his players. It was that he didn’t have one, he couldn’t coach, he was a motivator. Even though the Warriors offense was mediocre when Malone was with the Warriors, he was considered the brains of the operation. Tom Thibodeau for years has had a great defense and a suspect offense. He’s renown as a great coach. Mark Jackson crafted a great defense, with not great defensive players, and all he hears is he’s just a motivator.

Now, in both cases, the two who got the job may have been more qualified. I have no idea. Maybe the work he submitted was awful. I was told different, but who knows. But I know for sure how hard this African-American young man worked just for a shot. For years. Didn’t get a sniff. He finally got put on, but for another NBA team after one of the relationships he cultivated years ago wound up in position to hire him.

That’s what we’re talking about here. A society within the society. Jackson, despite playing 17 years, is an outsider in this society. His name got him a shot, his mouth got him the job. But if you talk to just about any black coach privately, they’ll tell you Jackson was fired because he has a shorter leash. He doesn’t have those relationships in that circle, those familial and historic connections to that society. And when he had the chance to cultivate them, he didn’t. If you believe the reports coming out about him, he did the opposite of cultivating. Nor does he have a championship under his belt. So he didn’t get the leeway.

But I think the fact that Steve Kerr is on the short list for the Warriors shows how important these relationships are. Kerr is a family friend to the Lacob’s. Understandably, after dealing with Jackson, Lacob probably wants someone who he knows and can vibe with. Kerr was going to hire Kirk Lacob before Kerr resigned as the Phoenix GM. Kerr is in that circle. He has connections and history as an executive. His name is popping for all kinds of jobs because people know him, are comfortable with him.

And when he is hired and he struggles, I’m sure that will factor in. Jackson doesn’t get that benefit of the doubt. He doesn’t have that established relationship and he didn’t make it hard for them to fire him.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/thompson/2014/05/08/warriors-mark-jackson-and-the-question-of-race/

Mark Jackson is also a fucking asshole. Monty Williams can't coach basketball to save his life and he will be an NBA head coach for a really long time because people like him.

http://jazzbasketball.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/jazz-mythbusters-mark-jackson-vs-john-stocktons/

Jackson is just a crazy person. I'm sure discrimination is a factor in coaching (I have no idea why Jim Boylen and Steve Kerr are considered future NBA head coaches, literally nothing suggests they can do it well), but Jackson is so delusional and such a creep that I don't know how much other factors can be brought into play on this.

I don't think he is the greatest coach in the world, but it seems kinda weird to fire a guy after two straight playoff appearances…

Poor Vinny Del Negro.

The Clippers continually underachieved under Del Negro. The Warriors were doing well until the end of this season. They probably beat the Clippers with Bogut, but I don't know. I have nothing against Mark Jackson and wouldn't be surprised if they did better with a real coach next year. Hopefully they don't settle for MDA

Hang on. The Warriors under achieved with Jackson too. They went long stretches of struggling, even when healthy. Lets not re-write history. There were a lot of us all season who said Jackson should go.

Someone wrote a lengthy article on Mark Jackson and the subject of race. It's worth a read:


http://blogs.mercurynews.com/thompson/2014/05/08/warriors-mark-jackson-and-the-question-of-race/

Is it? There are a lot of coaches who come and go, who are white. If the reason Kerr gets the job is because he's better at cultivating relationships, then good for him.

I mean, MDA regularly under achieved with the suns, and was eventually replaced / run out of town. And he got to the conference finals, and had several 55+ win teams..

The next 3 coaches were black. And were all fired for varying reasons, none of which were slightly racial. They were all performance or differences based.

I can't think of the last truly baffling firing in the NBA, apart from Alvin Gentry.

And that was because Alvin wanted to play the young guys more and rebuild. The FO and Ownership wanted to contend. Few fiery discussions later shit fell apart and they seperated paths.

Being a head coach in the NBA is a highly volatile job. If you can't get on the same page as management / ownership, you're not going to last long.

And it's not like Mark Jackson had experience to fall back upon. My understanding of his work history is, he was a player, then he went into media. He never did an extended stint as a D-League head coach, or Assistant coach.




But on that article, they precede the George Karl Comparison with this

First off: pointing to a situation where non-minorities suffer the same fate does not disprove racism in a completely different situation. And when you do that, your desperation to disprove racism only underscores why race is still a factor.

Throw out this

Contrast that to Jackson. In his first three seasons, he totaled 9 playoff wins. Granted, Karl was a respected coach when he took the Denver job, having taken the Bucks to East Finals and the Sonics to NBA Finals. But name a black coach who’s had a nine tries at winning a title before getting fired?

Well, hang on. You can't dismiss circumstance, then try to disprove it anyway using stats, and not put into context that, 9 post season wins for that GSW is still under performing. And some of those wins were god damn awful. I think they'd have won more with bogut this year too. But... that team struggled even with bogut at times.

Indeed he was. And what were the popular reports coming out of Clipperland leading up to it? Chris Paul didn’t like him. The players weren’t behind him. Everybody knows your progress is limited as a coach if your players aren’t behind you.

And I would not be surprised if the Clippers already knew Doc Rivers was interested in coming there, which he did not even a month later. So they upgraded from Del Negro to a championship coach.

How... puerile.

Tom Thibodeau for years has had a great defense and a suspect offense. He’s renown as a great coach. Mark Jackson crafted a great defense — with tree players who were not considered great defensive players in Stephen Curry, David Lee and Klay Thompson — and all he hears is he’s just a motivator. (Yes, the Warriors were good defensively before Andrew Bogut was healthy and Andre Iguodala was acquired.)

Why is that? What’s the explanation that doesn’t include race that this has become his perception? It’s like how white players were once always heady and worked hard. And black players are just sooo athletic and talented.

Klays a good defensive player. Not great. But good.

And again, Thibs has some valid excuses, and also some past history of results, and experience. An ECF run, a Regular season No.1 Seed, and 2 playoff series wins with Noah as his best player. But this conveniently discards that many people openly criticise thibs for his poor player management and horrendous offense. So is changing the coach in Chicago going to alter things? probably not. Are they going to get an A-rank coach with their roster if they get rid of Thibs? Probably not. Not unless melo comes over. Because most know, they couldn't get more out of those pieces.

It doesn't help Thibs that the Bulls owner is one of the cheaper bastards going around. Cheaper than Sarver. So he's not going to fire Thibs and pay a second head coach as wells as paying Thibs.

That's your explanation.

Even if Lacob and Myers aren’t viewing it as “he isn’t smart because he is a black coach,” NOT seeing how such might affect their coach makes race a factor. When they gave him names of assistants to hire, if they were all white coaches, how is Jackson supposed to take that? (I don’t know the list they gave them.) How is he supposed to take that regarding his good friend Pete Myers, who gets zero credit for his part in strategy?

Suppose they did this, maybe not even racist thing, but lets treat it as racist anyway. Because it helps validate my argument. It is a lead in to the below, but it's a poor lead in.

Jackson’s sensitivity to race, perhaps based on years of it being a factor for him, makes race a factor, too. How he reacted to these slights, perceived or real, has something to do with the fact that he is an African-American man. His image and reputation, his brand, is being shaped by a mostly-white media in an industry where most of the power is held by white people.

Should Jackson have overcome the defensiveness and paranoia such might produce? If I were advising him I would say definitely. I would say in his next job he’s got to care less about those very real issues (even if they are just issues to him) and more about developing those relationships that lead to a sustained career, maybe a front-office gig. I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if Jackson took an I’ll-show-them-my-way-works approach and feels like if he had more time he would earn the ability to operate how he chooses by winning a championship. Not sure I’ll-show-you is the best response, but it is a common one.

Best 2 paragraphs on the page.

With that said, normal office politics don’t apply. Coaches and players are not typical employees. They are the faces of the franchise. And they know it. And good owners know it, too. Which makes Lacob’s quote interesting. Could it be he needs to be better at managing down? He doesn’t have to. It’s his team. But if he wants it to be successful, he probably should realize part of working with the people he hires, especially those who impact the results, involves attempting to understand who they are.

Can i say, i like that paragraph. I think it's true of the best organisations in the NBA.

For example: when the Warriors hired Mark Jackson, they knew he was a pastor of a church. They knew he would be doing both. If you believe Jackson, they were fine with him keeping his home base in SoCal initially. Something switched and they wanted him to relocate. But that shows a gross misunderstanding of who they had hired, and a misunderstanding of this element of black culture.

Mark Jackson’s job isn't just as a preacher. He doesn’t just work for a church. It’s HIS church. He and his wife is the heart of the church. That’s a traditional part of the black Christian experience.

There are exceptions, of course. But generally, the preacher is the head (and often the founder) of the church.

If thats true, then Jackson my struggle to ever find another coaching job in the NBA, except one in Cali. And there aren't a lot of them going. Though more potential than any other state i guess. Yes other coaches have commuted, but if he feels he NEEDS to spend X amount of time at the church, he's not going to be able to get an east coast gig.

It was at that point, many I talked to outside the Warriors circle began speculating that Jackson was done, presuming things must be real bad if the owner wouldn’t at least publicly back Jackson. It was already becoming the latest example of how black coaches had to do more, especially when Philadelphia came out and supported Brett Brown during a 26-game losing streak.

Hang on here a second. It's a generally understood paradigm that if the Owners come out and vouch for a coach. They're done.

Access has always been at the forefront of race relations, even in the NBA, and it isn’t solved. The NBA is among the leaders in this area but hardly immune. Some of this stuff is built in, systematic, and doesn’t require malice for it to actually exist. And getting all defensive about it at the mere mention doesn’t help make the NBA even better in this area. (Yes, the NBA has several areas where some of these race and culture issues are obvious, including age limits).

Access most certainly is a race relation issue. But it's also a society wide issue, not just race. The discrimination there isn't just against the black guy, it's against everyone.

(NOTE: No doubt, a lot of this stuff is about the new wave of coaching. The whole analytics movement is impacting who is hired and fired. There is a new-age/old school divide. But even that isn’t void of stereotypes. There is a perception that if you don’t look or talk a certain way, your vernacular isn’t rampant with advance states, you don’t study film exclusively through SportsVU technology, you aren’t cutting edge or smart.)

Sure. Maybe thats why Hollins (almost definitely hollins) and Mac 10 haven't got another job offer. But there's nothing precluding them from doing the above.

This sounds like he's trying to force the issue of societal issues of people who grew up in more racist era's, whom are still trying to re-adjust to a less racist society (i said less, not, not), but aren't really able to, as the underlying reason. And it might be for Jackson. But if so, that's on Jackson, not really Lacob or GSW. Jackson had his flaws as a coach. And they were well documented. His firing is justifiable.

The issue of Access is legitimate. In many ways. For all and sundry.

I don't know much about Lacob, and the writer of the article, doesn't seem to people to say with any relevance, their overall impression either. But the best owners in the league are great at managing downwards.

It's an interesting take, but much of it appears to be... sycophantic isn't the word, but the best that comes to mind. The last 6 or so paragraphs are good introspective's / thoughts on society, and make you forget a lot of the prelude that was pretty damn average, or below.

Mark Jackson is also a fucking asshole. Monty Williams can't coach basketball to save his life and he will be an NBA head coach for a really long time because people like him.

http://jazzbasketball.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/jazz-mythbusters-mark-jackson-vs-john-stocktons/

Jackson is just a crazy person. I'm sure discrimination is a factor in coaching (I have no idea why Jim Boylen and Steve Kerr are considered future NBA head coaches, literally nothing suggests they can do it well), but Jackson is so delusional and such a creep that I don't know how much other factors can be brought into play on this.

That article doe,

"During Mark Jackson’s tenure as an ABC/ESPN analyst, he became the initial voice to champion the notion that Tim Duncan was the best power forward to ever play (misguided by the fact that Duncan is a center, Malone statistically was a better player, and that even today an overwhelming majority still hold Malone in higher regard)."

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah, that part was pretty dumb.

Someone wrote a lengthy article on Mark Jackson and the subject of race. It's worth a read:


http://blogs.mercurynews.com/thompson/2014/05/08/warriors-mark-jackson-and-the-question-of-race/

Is it? There are a lot of coaches who come and go, who are white. If the reason Kerr gets the job is because he's better at cultivating relationships, then good for him.

I mean, MDA regularly under achieved with the suns, and was eventually replaced / run out of town. And he got to the conference finals, and had several 55+ win teams..

The next 3 coaches were black. And were all fired for varying reasons, none of which were slightly racial. They were all performance or differences based.

I can't think of the last truly baffling firing in the NBA, apart from Alvin Gentry.

And that was because Alvin wanted to play the young guys more and rebuild. The FO and Ownership wanted to contend. Few fiery discussions later shit fell apart and they seperated paths.

Being a head coach in the NBA is a highly volatile job. If you can't get on the same page as management / ownership, you're not going to last long.

And it's not like Mark Jackson had experience to fall back upon. My understanding of his work history is, he was a player, then he went into media. He never did an extended stint as a D-League head coach, or Assistant coach.

It's not that Mark Jackson was literally looked at as being black and the owner was like "nawwwww", but that, much like minorities all over the US, black people in management positions in the NBA are still on the outside looking in. It's an institutionalized issue that has been around forever, not a malicious one that is done on purpose -- unless you're the Clippers.

It's a very granular discussion on race, rather than a broad generalization of "he's black, he was fired", rather it's "he's black and he's an outsider looking in and he has to constantly prove himself because he doesn't run in predominantly white circles that all of his management peers do". Management has always been a predominant oligarchy no matter what the business is. People hire who they know and who they "trust". Sometimes it's nepotism, sometimes it's cronyism.

That's why Steve Kerr is on a short list for all of these coaching positions, he runs in the same circles that are looking to hire. That's an advantage that Mark Jackson doesn't have and it's why there were articles and tweets by high-profile NBA writers saying that there's nobody making the argument for Mark Jackson in the Warriors FO.

Someone wrote a lengthy article on Mark Jackson and the subject of race. It's worth a read:


http://blogs.mercurynews.com/thompson/2014/05/08/warriors-mark-jackson-and-the-question-of-race/

Is it? There are a lot of coaches who come and go, who are white. If the reason Kerr gets the job is because he's better at cultivating relationships, then good for him.

I mean, MDA regularly under achieved with the suns, and was eventually replaced / run out of town. And he got to the conference finals, and had several 55+ win teams..

The next 3 coaches were black. And were all fired for varying reasons, none of which were slightly racial. They were all performance or differences based.

I can't think of the last truly baffling firing in the NBA, apart from Alvin Gentry.

And that was because Alvin wanted to play the young guys more and rebuild. The FO and Ownership wanted to contend. Few fiery discussions later shit fell apart and they seperated paths.

Being a head coach in the NBA is a highly volatile job. If you can't get on the same page as management / ownership, you're not going to last long.

And it's not like Mark Jackson had experience to fall back upon. My understanding of his work history is, he was a player, then he went into media. He never did an extended stint as a D-League head coach, or Assistant coach.

It's not that Mark Jackson was literally looked at as being black and the owner was like "nawwwww", but that, much like minorities all over the US, black people in management positions in the NBA are still on the outside looking in. It's an institutionalized issue that has been around forever, not a malicious one that is done on purpose – unless you're the Clippers.

It's a very granular discussion on race, rather than a broad generalization of "he's black, he was fired", rather it's "he's black and he's an outsider looking in and he has to constantly prove himself because he doesn't run in predominantly white circles that all of his management peers do". Management has always been a predominant oligarchy no matter what the business is. People hire who they know and who they "trust". Sometimes it's nepotism, sometimes it's cronyism.

That's why Steve Kerr is on a short list for all of these coaching positions, he runs in the same circles that are looking to hire. That's an advantage that Mark Jackson doesn't have and it's why there were articles and tweets by high-profile NBA writers saying that there's nobody making the argument for Mark Jackson in the Warriors FO.

I addressed that. And they summed it up in one word. Access. But Access is a universal problem. For everyone. Except those who have it.

I addressed that. And they summed it up in one word. Access. But Access is a universal problem. For everyone. Except those who have it.

Right, we're not in disagreement. Access is a universal problem for everyone -- but much much much much much less so for the white male. It's a nuanced argument, but a much needed one to be had.

I addressed that. And they summed it up in one word. Access. But Access is a universal problem. For everyone. Except those who have it.

Right, we're not in disagreement. Access is a universal problem for everyone – but much much much much much less so for the white male. It's a nuanced argument, but a much needed one to be had.

Except that Access isn't a RACE issue.

Except that Access isn't a RACE issue.

Access is most definitely a race issue, especially in the US. If you think black people have the same opportunities and access in the US as a white male, then, lol.

Except that Access isn't a RACE issue.

Access is most definitely a race issue, especially in the US. If you think black people have the same opportunities and access in the US as a white male, then, lol.

So you think you'll have the same oportunities in life as Kerr?

Except that Access isn't a RACE issue.

Access is most definitely a race issue, especially in the US. If you think black people have the same opportunities and access in the US as a white male, then, lol.

So you think you'll have the same oportunities in life as Kerr?

Is all of this really going over your head? Do you honestly believe that Mark Jackson and Steve Kerr had the exact same and equal opportunities and access growing up? And if neither played basketball, what do you reckon the chances are of Mark Jackson being successful are as opposed to Kerr's chances?

Except that Access isn't a RACE issue.

Access is most definitely a race issue, especially in the US. If you think black people have the same opportunities and access in the US as a white male, then, lol.

So you think you'll have the same oportunities in life as Kerr?

Is all of this really going over your head? Do you honestly believe that Mark Jackson and Steve Kerr had the exact same and equal opportunities and access growing up? And if neither played basketball, what do you reckon the chances are of Mark Jackson being successful are as opposed to Kerr's chances?

Wrong head it's going over.

Is Kerr getting the job because he's white.

No.

He's potentially getting it because of family / social ties. That's not race. It's cronyism, but not race.

If you want to go back and argue that Lacob and Kerr only have those ties through family because of race, that's entirely flippant and frivolous. You have no idea why they're family friends.

And, you're missing the discrimination that will happen to EVERYONE else if Kerr doesn't get the job based on Merit. It's not a case of him discriminating against Jackson cause he's black. He's not doing it cause other applicant is a Buddhist gay Asian either.

And that's the point, even the example from the article that saw the black entry level guy passed over for sons of other owners. He wasn't excluded because of his race, certainly not based on the evidence provided in that article.

That's what Access is. That's what Access discrimination is. Sure the guys black, doesn't mean it's a racial issue. It's an Access issue. Stop crying race just because a black guy is involved.

You're so wrong on so many levels. And noone is crying race, there's just nuanced institutionalized racism that is VERY real in the US that can be discussed. Nobody is calling Lacob a racist nor saying that Mark Jackson was fired because of his race, but the reality is that he has a higher degree of difficult with everything as it pertains to his job because of the inequalities established over hundreds of years of class warfare and racism.

Access is a race issue, and that's an indisputable fact of life in America.

Welp, it seems that all of yall wanted Mark Jackson to keep his job not because of race, but because you hate his commentary.