More Gottlieb nonsense

[Olympic Fan]

I just can't let this go ... nobody in sports aggravates me more than that idiot (and convicted felon), Doug Gottlieb.

We all remember his comment last year after Duke routed UConn that Duke's frontline was "alarmingly unathletic".

And before the Duke-Baylor game in the NCAA, he did a strengths and weaknesses matchup of the two teams and suggested that Duke's biggest weakness was Kyle Singler's defense (which is why K assigned Singler to LaceDarius Dunn .. then to Da'Sean Butler and Gordan Hayward in the Final Four).

Now this so-called expert was on ESPN radio, explaining how the Miami Heat will dominate in the NBA this year because talent trumps everything else. As proof of this theory, he cited Houston's Phi Slamma Jamma as an example of a badly-coached, but ultra-talented team that dominated as the Heet is going to dominate.

That would be great except that Phi Slamma Jamma didn't dominate -- they were beaten in the finals by a modestly-talented, but well coached NC State team.

This is what ESPN offers as a basketball "expert"?

[AZLA]

I just can't let this go ... nobody in sports aggravates me more than that idiot (and convicted felon), Doug Gottlieb.

We all remember his comment last year after Duke routed UConn that Duke's frontline was "alarmingly unathletic".

And before the Duke-Baylor game in the NCAA, he did a strengths and weaknesses matchup of the two teams and suggested that Duke's biggest weakness was Kyle Singler's defense (which is why K assigned Singler to LaceDarius Dunn .. then to Da'Sean Butler and Gordan Hayward in the Final Four).

Now this so-called expert was on ESPN radio, explaining how the Miami Heat will dominate in the NBA this year because talent trumps everything else. As proof of this theory, he cited Houston's Phi Slamma Jamma as an example of a badly-coached, but ultra-talented team that dominated as the Heet is going to dominate.

That would be great except that Phi Slamma Jamma didn't dominate -- they were beaten in the finals by a modestly-talented, but well coached NC State team.

This is what ESPN offers as a basketball "expert"?

Oh it gets better...

When Gottlieb's inane comments are challenged by the interviewee, he pouts like a scolded six year old, then personally attacks his guest.

Take for example his recent interview with former head coach Jim Mora, where he doesn't get the response he wanted about a Michael Vick question, so he tells Mora that essentially if he played Vick better in Atlanta Mora would still be coaching in the NFL.

http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-falcons-blog/2010/10/01/jim-mora-and-doug-gottlieb-didnt-hit-it-off-too-well/?cxntfid=blogs_atlanta_falcons_blog

You'd think with all those credit cards he borrowed, he might have bought himself some professional speaking classes.

[JBDuke]

I just can't let this go ... nobody in sports aggravates me more than that idiot (and convicted felon), Doug Gottlieb.

We all remember his comment last year after Duke routed UConn that Duke's frontline was "alarmingly unathletic".

And before the Duke-Baylor game in the NCAA, he did a strengths and weaknesses matchup of the two teams and suggested that Duke's biggest weakness was Kyle Singler's defense (which is why K assigned Singler to LaceDarius Dunn .. then to Da'Sean Butler and Gordan Hayward in the Final Four).

Now this so-called expert was on ESPN radio, explaining how the Miami Heat will dominate in the NBA this year because talent trumps everything else. As proof of this theory, he cited Houston's Phi Slamma Jamma as an example of a badly-coached, but ultra-talented team that dominated as the Heet is going to dominate.

That would be great except that Phi Slamma Jamma didn't dominate -- they were beaten in the finals by a modestly-talented, but well coached NC State team.

This is what ESPN offers as a basketball "expert"?

True, they lost their final game, but they did have a 31-3 record and a 26-game winning streak. They finished the regular season as the #1 team in the polls, and they beat the #2 Louisville team in the Final Four. That's pretty dominant, taking the season as a whole into account - it's just that sometimes the best (or most dominant) team isn't the champion. That year, NC State was the champion, but Houston might have been the best team.

[JohnGalt]

True, they lost their final game, but they did have a 31-3 record and a 26-game winning streak. They finished the regular season as the #1 team in the polls, and they beat the #2 Louisville team in the Final Four. That's pretty dominant, taking the season as a whole into account - it's just that sometimes the best (or most dominant) team isn't the champion. That year, NC State was the champion, but Houston might have been the best team.

Also true, JB, but their SOS was like 50th as opposed to State's SOS which was 10th.

I'm not sure using a season record and/or a winning streak really indicates how 'dominant' a team is. If that were the case, Memphis' teams from the Cal years would be some of the most dominant of all time. I do agree, however, that they were probably the best team that year. Just not on criteria you used above.

But I agree even more with OlyFan that ESPN using Gottlieb is...well...hurtful. He's not even overly charismatic or a likeable guy. Strange.

[camion]

If you love him or you hate him it's all good ESPNwise. They just want you to pay attention to him. If you ignore him, that's bad.

[jafarr1]

If you love him or you hate him it's all good ESPNwise. They just want you to pay attention to him. If you ignore him, that's bad.

The Greg Doyel theory.

[Scorp4me]

If you love him or you hate him it's all good ESPNwise. They just want you to pay attention to him. If you ignore him, that's bad.

I find him very easy to ignore.

[thenameisbond]

Gottlieb is alarmingly uninsightful.

[Billy Dat]

I think Gottlieb is great and we need more people to call it like they see it. If you follow Gottlieb closely, he gives Duke plenty of praise but is also critical when he thinks its warranted. I think the unathletic comments were mostly attributed to the fact that we were still, at that point in the season, trying to play our traditional extended pressure defense and it was leaving us vulnerable. Shortly thereafter, not because of Gottlieb, we did adjust, didn't extend as much, and found the defensive personality that helped us win a title.

Every talking head makes comments and predictions that don't come true, it's easy to nitpick every comment.

I agree that Gottlieb is a bit abrasive, but I find him well informed and interesting. He is always prepared, knows the players, coaches, systems, etc. much better than many of the other talking heads...I am always interested in what he has to say.

[greybeard]

Mora has got to be one of the worst interviews in sports, and he did not distinguish himself here. He threw his team, I forget which one, under the bus after a season ending loss in an interview that I believe is repeated until this day, as an example of the worst of the worse interview performances of all time.

Here, Gottlieb asks him if maybe he didn't do the best job he could have with Vick, that maybe in hindsight he could have gotten more out of Vick and that, had he, did he think that he would not have been fired by Atlanta. The easy answer was, "Perhaps, but I don't believe in replaying the past. But, yeah, if I had another shot, who knows." As for the second question, "how should McNabb be received in Philly," Mora was still seething from Doug's first question, and answered that one like the petulant jerk that he is.

Now, you guys forgot, but as I pointed out numerous times last year, that BEFORE the selections, Doug said that his pick of POY in the ACC was Jon Scheyer, not Greivas, and made a convincing case as to why. He said that at best Greivas gets a tie. Not only that, Doug picked Jon as the Cousey Award winner and again made a cogent and convincing case as to why.

As for the comments about Singler's defense going into that game, Singler went into that game hurting badly, or am I missing something. And, it was ONLY because of that injury that K decided to take him out of the offense, and have him devote full attention to guarding someone to whom he never would have been assigned if he played his normal offensive game. So, with a hurt wrist guarding a big and trying to play offense, Doug might have had a point. that he didn't need to have to use his hands to fend off post ups, etc, on the inside, who could have predicted.

I get the Gottlieb hate based upon things he said about Duke in previous seasons, much of which was dead on accurate and far less destructively negative than many of the Duke faithful post here--go look at the assessments of Zoubek if you want an example. But the guy I thought saw the genuis and gifts and organization that Jon brought to the court all season that allowed Duke to dictate tempo and style of play against just about everyone, and said so on national TV several times. None of the other talking heads I heard did.

Mora sees everything as being all about him, reacts to interviewers like a cornered rat, and could have given two individuals their props instead of acting like a jerk.

And, if you want to bash someone, have good reason. Here, you don't.

[mickeysgotagun]

Yeah, I can't comment about this case or the Mora case, but I do know that I enjoy Gottlieb and do find him insightful. As one person pointed out, Gottlieb set an assists record at his school, you have to be pretty knowledgeable about basketball to do that.

[Duke09]

One and done tournaments don't always find out who the best team is. Houston may have been the best team in 1983 (year?) In 2002 and 1999, Duke had the best team in the country and didn't win. Series playoffs do a much better job at finding the best team. I'd posit, in a 7 games series against Kansas, Kentucky, Georgetown, and the other best teams last year, we don't win every single time. That's the beauty of one and done tourneys.

[Starter]

At the time Gottlieb made the comment that made him persona non grata around here, to be honest, I actually sort of feared that same thing. The previous season ended with them getting blown out of the water by Villanova's sheer athleticism, and then Duke lost their two best athletes, didn't get Barnes and was winning (at the time) by really grinding it out. I wouldn't have put it the way Gottlieb did, but I know what he was getting at. We're just fiercely defensive of our team. And it's not like they won the national title through sheer athleticism, they overcame that stigma with intelligence and an unparalleled team concept, which in certain ways is far more satisfying.

As for the Heat, I thought they looked extremely impressive the other night in their preseason game, for what that's worth. If the Big 3 stays healthy -- a big if, considering the mileage on all three, Bosh's brittle nature in particular and Wade's style of play -- I fully expect them to win the East. If they lose before that, it'd have to be to Boston, a well-coached and cohesive unit. And if they make the Finals, I would not expect them to beat the Lakers, the most well-oiled machine in the sport. That would indeed put them on a par with Phi Slamma Jamma -- or perhaps our 1998-99 Duke team.

[Jderf]

We all remember his comment last year after Duke routed UConn that Duke's frontline was "alarmingly unathletic".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he make the "alarmingly unathletic" comment at halftime during the Arizona St game? As I recall, we were down for much of the first half and did look legitimately bad. It's just ironic considering that comment within the general arc of our season.

I agree that Gottlieb definitely says some dumb things sometimes, but no more or less than anybody else on ESPN (except maybe for Bilas and J-Will).

[thenameisbond]

Yeah, I can't comment about this case or the Mora case, but I do know that I enjoy Gottlieb and do find him insightful. As one person pointed out, Gottlieb set an assists record at his school, you have to be pretty knowledgeable about basketball to do that.

He was a pretty good player, as he'll gladly remind anyone who cares to listen.

He's a legend in his own mind, and he can't stand K or Duke.

[Bob Green]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he make the "alarmingly unathletic" comment at halftime during the Arizona St game?

Yes, this is the way I remember it.

[Billy Dat]

He was a pretty good player, as he'll gladly remind anyone who cares to listen.

He's a legend in his own mind, and he can't stand K or Duke.

Gottlieb was on "Basketball & Beyond" last year...I don't think there is any mutual dislike going on.

[dball]

Mora has got to be one of the worst interviews in sports, and he did not distinguish himself here. He threw his team, I forget which one, under the bus after a season ending loss in an interview that I believe is repeated until this day, as an example of the worst of the worse interview performances of all time.

Here, Gottlieb asks him if maybe he didn't do the best job he could have with Vick, that maybe in hindsight he could have gotten more out of Vick and that, had he, did he think that he would not have been fired by Atlanta. The easy answer was, "Perhaps, but I don't believe in replaying the past. But, yeah, if I had another shot, who knows." As for the second question, "how should McNabb be received in Philly," Mora was still seething from Doug's first question, and answered that one like the petulant jerk that he is.


Believe you may be confusing father and son. Jim Mora is about 75 now and you're probably referring to the famous "playoffs" speech. (That and Iverson's "practice" are two of the most played sports bits on the web) Of course, I could be wrong. Always thought Jim Mora was a great interview, precisely because he was likely to say something like "playoffs? You're talking about the playoffs?"

His son J.L. Mora (also Jim Mora) was coach of the Falcons. Whether or not he is a petulant jerk, I couldn't say.

Agree with your take on Gottlieb. Don't find him any more annoying than most commentators and don't find him particularly "anti-Duke".

[Olympic Fan]

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that he's especially more anti-Duke (not like his old compatriot, Steve Lavin).

My complaint is that for someone who is billed as a college basektball expect on a major sports network, he is ridiculously uninformed.

[greybeard]

Believe you may be confusing father and son. Jim Mora is about 75 now and you're probably referring to the famous "playoffs" speech. (That and Iverson's "practice" are two of the most played sports bits on the web) Of course, I could be wrong. Always thought Jim Mora was a great interview, precisely because he was likely to say something like "playoffs? You're talking about the playoffs?"

His son J.L. Mora (also Jim Mora) was coach of the Falcons. Whether or not he is a petulant jerk, I couldn't say.

Agree with your take on Gottlieb. Don't find him any more annoying than most commentators and don't find him particularly "anti-Duke".

I don't recall who he had just finished coaching after they had lost their last game, at least I think it was their last game, but he was bruttle regarding how they had played. Rude to his players, and really rude to the press. There was no where to go after his comment. It was the old man, not the sun.

As for Doug, I like him as a talking head, but at times can be contrived in his provocative takes just to self promote. One time last year, he let that side of him go way too far when he opened a show that he was on with JWill with directing a comment at him that might have been an attempt to create a friendly battle of point guards but came across like a cheap shot that was aimed at showing JWill up. JWill said nothing in reply, probably because he was seeing red and was smart enough not to say anything in that condition. I'm waitin for payback, and I'm sure it will come. But, on balance, I like his knowledge of the game, his ability to see strength and weakness and to act on it, speak to it, without equivocation, just like he did when he played for OSU, pretty darn well precisely because of those traits.

So, like his old man, Doug ain't no angel, but he does know and love the game, and did do right by our boy, Jon, last year. But, then again, maybe he had a bias, if you catch my drift; if you don't, I was just playin with youz anyway.

[Tom B.]

I don't recall who he had just finished coaching after they had lost their last game, at least I think it was their last game, but he was bruttle regarding how they had played. Rude to his players, and really rude to the press. There was no where to go after his comment. It was the old man, not the sun.



Mora the Elder had a number of good rants, so it's hard to pick just one -- but you may be remembering his "diddly poo" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tie0tz7jGDI&feature=related) speech after his last game with the Saints in 1996, which is only slightly less well known than the "Playoffs??!!" speech.

Note that it wasn't the Saints' last game of the season (they had just lost to the Carolina Panthers, running their record at the time to 2-6) -- but it was Mora's last game as coach of the Saints, as he resigned the next day.

Another memorable Mora press conference occurred after the Saints lost their last game in 1993 to the New York Giants (after starting 5-0, the Saints lost eight of their last 11 games to finish 8-8). Mora was mad that some fans had cheered when quarterback Wade Wilson was injured, and let it be known in no uncertain terms. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvMwECIOXYs)

[AZLA]

Mora has got to be one of the worst interviews in sports, and he did not distinguish himself here. He threw his team, I forget which one, under the bus after a season ending loss in an interview that I believe is repeated until this day, as an example of the worst of the worse interview performances of all time.

Here, Gottlieb asks him if maybe he didn't do the best job he could have with Vick, that maybe in hindsight he could have gotten more out of Vick and that, had he, did he think that he would not have been fired by Atlanta. The easy answer was, "Perhaps, but I don't believe in replaying the past. But, yeah, if I had another shot, who knows." As for the second question, "how should McNabb be received in Philly," Mora was still seething from Doug's first question, and answered that one like the petulant jerk that he is.

Mora sees everything as being all about him, reacts to interviewers like a cornered rat, and could have given two individuals their props instead of acting like a jerk.

And, if you want to bash someone, have good reason. Here, you don't.

I believe you confused Mora Sr. with Mora Jr.

“Does it kind of bum you out at all that he (MV) wasn’t that bought into what it took to be a great quarterback when you coached him in Atlanta?” – MB

Inane question.

Why?

MB’s surfer dude vernacular aside…

FACT: MV played in Atlanta to the tune of 3 Pro Bowl Appearances in ’02, ’04, ’05. Mora Jr. was his coach during two of those Pro Bowl years. Mora Jr., coaching Vick, went 11-5 his first year and lost in the NFC East Championship to Super Bowl bound Philly. That’s failure? Mora’s last year was bad, but to characterize all three years to be failures because Mora couldn’t get MV’s buy-in is absurd.

What an upside down world it would be if the coach had to get the player “buy in.” In the past, the player would simply be kicked off the team if he didn’t get with the program. If MB had asked that question to Coach Knight or Coach K, you would hear an even more candid response than what Mora provided. The reality is Mora liked MV, appreciated his talents and even wished him well in that very interview.

MB's inane question also implies Mora is the reason for Vick’s so-called failure in Atlanta, and not Vick himself. What is MB comparing it to—the first four games of the 2010 season? I didn’t realize Vick already won the 2010 Super Bowl and was a Pro Bowler. I think he could get into the Pro Bowl and push the Eagles far but – oh no – is MV out a few weeks with cracked ribs? Too bad MB’s crystal ball didn’t pick up on that unforeseeable event when rushing out of the pocket.

Even during Mora’s tenure, Vick had numerous run-ins with authorities not related to the dog fighting, gambling and tax evasion (and other issues) that were part of MV’s extracurricular activities during that time. And please don’t give some canned response that MV’s actions off the field don’t reflect upon his character on the field. They do.

Mora may be hyper defensive or a bad interviewee, but to place blame for Vick’s own self-proclaimed lazy behavior while in Atlanta is silly. MB's line of questioning wasn’t based on any empirical evidence and Mora pointed that out. All MB could reply was, “uh, yah I knew that.” Scout's honor, dude.

To follow that up with an equally defensive comment as, “How good he (MV) had been, you might still be the coach of the Falcons,” is petty and mean spirited. It should also give you insight as to why MB would be capable of vehemently arguing on a live halftime show that Duke is alarmingly unathletic in the very season they win the National Championship. Coach K’s response sums it up.

Even though this point at hand has nothing to do with DG picking Scheyer over Vasquez for ACC POY, the reality was, Vasquez became player of the year. So, technically speaking, he got that one wrong too. Vasquez led in most statistical categories and was unanimously voted ACC POY by the ACC Sports Media Association. I agree DG made an interesting argument (and saw the genius in Jon) and I would always take Scheyer over Vasquez because I’m biased. But, DG swimming against the current of his colleagues wasn’t a sign of transcendent brilliance or ahead of its time. He's not Socrates.

Lastly, no one was bashing – it’s commentary on behavior that I would describe as an ambush interview tactic. This typically comes about when someone doesn’t have sound knowledge of the subject at hand. In this case it was the NFL. DG was filling in for the regular host, Colin Cowherd, and he came across as unprepared. Either that or he was purposely trying to instigate a negative reaction. This is provocation tantamount to Jim Rome calling Chris Everette, “Chrissy” over and over, and it’s unprofessional. DG might be your expert on college basketball, but his interview with Mora got personal. There’s no way he says that to Mora if he is face-to-face in the booth with him.

And, here, I do have good reason. And I couldn’t disagree with your post more.

[greybeard]

I believe you confused Mora Sr. with Mora Jr.

“Does it kind of bum you out at all that he (MV) wasn’t that bought into what it took to be a great quarterback when you coached him in Atlanta?” – MB

Inane question.

Why?

MB’s surfer dude vernacular aside…

FACT: MV played in Atlanta to the tune of 3 Pro Bowl Appearances in ’02, ’04, ’05. Mora Jr. was his coach during two of those Pro Bowl years. Mora Jr., coaching Vick, went 11-5 his first year and lost in the NFC East Championship to Super Bowl bound Philly. That’s failure? Mora’s last year was bad, but to characterize all three years to be failures because Mora couldn’t get MV’s buy-in is absurd.

What an upside down world it would be if the coach had to get the player “buy in.” In the past, the player would simply be kicked off the team if he didn’t get with the program. If MB had asked that question to Coach Knight or Coach K, you would hear an even more candid response than what Mora provided. The reality is Mora liked MV, appreciated his talents and even wished him well in that very interview.

MB's inane question also implies Mora is the reason for Vick’s so-called failure in Atlanta, and not Vick himself. What is MB comparing it to—the first four games of the 2010 season? I didn’t realize Vick already won the 2010 Super Bowl and was a Pro Bowler. I think he could get into the Pro Bowl and push the Eagles far but – oh no – is MV out a few weeks with cracked ribs? Too bad MB’s crystal ball didn’t pick up on that unforeseeable event when rushing out of the pocket.

Even during Mora’s tenure, Vick had numerous run-ins with authorities not related to the dog fighting, gambling and tax evasion (and other issues) that were part of MV’s extracurricular activities during that time. And please don’t give some canned response that MV’s actions off the field don’t reflect upon his character on the field. They do.

Mora may be hyper defensive or a bad interviewee, but to place blame for Vick’s own self-proclaimed lazy behavior while in Atlanta is silly. MB's line of questioning wasn’t based on any empirical evidence and Mora pointed that out. All MB could reply was, “uh, yah I knew that.” Scout's honor, dude.

To follow that up with an equally defensive comment as, “How good he (MV) had been, you might still be the coach of the Falcons,” is petty and mean spirited. It should also give you insight as to why MB would be capable of vehemently arguing on a live halftime show that Duke is alarmingly unathletic in the very season they win the National Championship. Coach K’s response sums it up.

Even though this point at hand has nothing to do with DG picking Scheyer over Vasquez for ACC POY, the reality was, Vasquez became player of the year. So, technically speaking, he got that one wrong too. Vasquez led in most statistical categories and was unanimously voted ACC POY by the ACC Sports Media Association. I agree DG made an interesting argument (and saw the genius in Jon) and I would always take Scheyer over Vasquez because I’m biased. But, DG swimming against the current of his colleagues wasn’t a sign of transcendent brilliance or ahead of its time. He's not Socrates.

Lastly, no one was bashing – it’s commentary on behavior that I would describe as an ambush interview tactic. This typically comes about when someone doesn’t have sound knowledge of the subject at hand. In this case it was the NFL. DG was filling in for the regular host, Colin Cowherd, and he came across as unprepared. Either that or he was purposely trying to instigate a negative reaction. This is provocation tantamount to Jim Rome calling Chris Everette, “Chrissy” over and over, and it’s unprofessional. DG might be your expert on college basketball, but his interview with Mora got personal. There’s no way he says that to Mora if he is face-to-face in the booth with him.

And, here, I do have good reason. And I couldn’t disagree with your post more.

Gottlieb's initial question seemed directed not at any deficiency by Mora, but seemed to be asking Mora to take a shot at Vick, well, maybe not so much a shot, but simply to acknowledge what you have pointed out--that Vick was a young kid who walked a bit on the wild side in Atlanta, the dog fighting thing aside--which lots of young kids his age do, and that that detracted from Vick's performance.

In retrospect, that came close enough to the line to warrant faulting Gottlieb, as I have, for trying to cause controversy to self-promote; sometimes, as he did with JWill, he goes way past propriety in puts someone in an untenable situation. I think Mora could have said, "Sure, if Vick were 28 instead of 24, and had greater maturity, it might have worked better, but he did a great job for a guy coming in to a moribund franchise. He brought the whole town and league alive."

But, yes, I agree with you that Gottlieb here might well have been fishing for something that Mora to his credit was not going to give him. Gottlieb does this at times, trying to be Howard Cosell who he ain't. Heck, Cosell wasn't Cosell and was way out of line many times if you ask me.

What remains is the bashing that Gottlieb takes here, unfairly I think.

So, let's proceed. Jon vs Vasquez. All those who voted for Vasquez over Jon, how many if they were recruiting for an ACC team and each had a year to play would have chosen Vasquez? I don't think any of them would. I think that Jon was the more valuable player. precisely because of Vasquez's ability to play you out of a game as win one. He was going to do one or the other in any game that was close. Nine out of ten times maybe more if you were Vasquez's teammate you would know that the game, the beautiful game that basketball can be, would be "taken over" by a teammate, as in completely.

I think that Gottlieb made precisely the correct call for precisely the right reasons. It also happened to place him where he likes, on the other side of conventional wisdom, which in the case of the world of talking heads is an oxymoron.

Now, if you think that Gottlieb was alone in undervaluing Duke last year you weren't listening and every single pundit who had them going out early said exactly the same thing that Gottlieb did, only in terms that I found far more offensive and indefensible, and that would include your boy Jay.

The others rambled on and dressed up what they had to say in lots of basketballeese, but, in the end, they said that Duke was unathletic, that they could not play with thoroughbreds, and that too many of their players either lacked the skills and the athletic talent one needs to compete among the elite.

Gottlieb said it more plainly. So, K took him down; it made good theater and it was an easy target.

Gottlieb, in my view, is a much more interesting head then most. I get tired of the all the belittling of him that takes place on this board.

By the way, I also thought that as a point guard at OSU Gottlieb was outstanding. He played in a throw-back fashion that I thoroughly enjoy, that I think captures the best that the team game that basketball can be has to offer. I also thought that he played with a sharpness for spoting weakness and exploiting it, seeing strength and fostering it, all without hesitation.

Perhaps a little hesitation to act on such instincts in his new profession would not such a bad thing. To the extent that that is central to your criticism of him it is certainly accurate. And, your parsing of this interview to show its weaknesses was an act of advocacy outstanding. I still remain confused about why a thread about an interview of a football coach about Michael Vick gets on the main board. but that is another question. Well done.