Ignore the billboard. Hire the right coach for the right reasons.

[Roy H.]

So I don't get the problems that some have over this billboard. The people who bought the billboard want one of two highly qualified people to get the job. Are those two candidates women? Yes. But are they experienced, accomplished and highly qualified for the job? Yes.

So who cares who the buyers of the billboard are routing for to be the next head coach of the Celtics?

Nowhere in that billboard are they saying to hire a lesser candidate? The billboard doesn't advocate to hire one of the ladies over a more qualified male. It is simply cheering on the Celtics to hire one of two excellent candidates, two amongst many, who happen to be women.

I happen to love Becky Hammond as the next head coach. Her coaching philosophy and system most likely will be extremely similar to those of Pops, and that, to me, would be a good fit with the current players on the Celtics.

If I had the money to put a billboard in Stevens face as to who to hire, it would probably be to push Hammond, too. And I would probably mention it would be a historic pick. Nothing wrong with stating that fact

Is Kara Lawson highly qualified? If the Celtics picked her it would be because they had inside knowledge that people who advocate for her (everyone else) do not know. Therefore, those people would be pushing an under-qualified candidate...because of her gender.

I'd be onboard because, again, it means the Celtics knew she could handle the job. They know her really well now. But even if a team like Orlando hired her, it would be strange. Not that it would or wouldn't work out. But the resume isn't there for Lawson. Wasn't she even focused on player development more than anything? That's like a team hiring Evan Turner right now.

Hammon would make much more sense.

This is an invalid conclusion.  There are numerous comments out there regaurding the organization's opinions of Lawson.  You have no basis to conclude that people who support the idea (like myself) are basing it purely on gender alone.

Why do you support Lawson?

Are there any male coaches with no NBA playing experience, three or fewer games as a head coach at any level, and only one year as a shooting coach that you favor?

[CptZoogs]

  I mean, doesn't Lawson have about the same level of experience as Chauncey Billups, who so many are routing to become the next coach?

I’m not pushing Chauncey, but there’s something to be said for having actually reacted to NBA defenses as a floor general.  Lawson’s one year as a lower-level assistant doesn’t really compare.

Lawson simply isn’t qualified to be an NBA head coach.  Hammon, yes.  Staley, yes.  Lawson, not yet.

That ability sure helped Isiah Thomas, right?  I think people are really overblowing some of the factors that go into a head coach being successful.  To me, the most important thing for this team is finding someone that can connect to the players and get them to fight.  So many people here griped that this team has no fight and that Brad had lost the team.  X's and O's are good, but they can come from assistants.  Give me someone who can inspire and shows good instincts.  Unfortunately, you usually don't know if a person has those qualities until they are given the opportunity.

[Roy H.]

  I mean, doesn't Lawson have about the same level of experience as Chauncey Billups, who so many are routing to become the next coach?

I’m not pushing Chauncey, but there’s something to be said for having actually reacted to NBA defenses as a floor general.  Lawson’s one year as a lower-level assistant doesn’t really compare.

Lawson simply isn’t qualified to be an NBA head coach.  Hammon, yes.  Staley, yes.  Lawson, not yet.

That ability sure helped Isiah Thomas, right?  I think people are really overblowing some of the factors that go into a head coach being successful.  To me, the most important thing for this team is finding someone that can connect to the players and get them to fight.  So many people here griped that this team has no fight and that Brad had lost the team.  X's and O's are good, but they can come from assistants.  Give me someone who can inspire and shows good instincts.  Unfortunately, you usually don't know if a person has those qualities until they are given the opportunity.

Under that criteria, is there anybody who has been around the game of basketball that shouldn’t be offered at least an interview?  From the way you worded it, you make Tony Robbins sound like a legit coaching candidate.

[CptZoogs]

So I don't get the problems that some have over this billboard. The people who bought the billboard want one of two highly qualified people to get the job. Are those two candidates women? Yes. But are they experienced, accomplished and highly qualified for the job? Yes.

So who cares who the buyers of the billboard are routing for to be the next head coach of the Celtics?

Nowhere in that billboard are they saying to hire a lesser candidate? The billboard doesn't advocate to hire one of the ladies over a more qualified male. It is simply cheering on the Celtics to hire one of two excellent candidates, two amongst many, who happen to be women.

I happen to love Becky Hammond as the next head coach. Her coaching philosophy and system most likely will be extremely similar to those of Pops, and that, to me, would be a good fit with the current players on the Celtics.

If I had the money to put a billboard in Stevens face as to who to hire, it would probably be to push Hammond, too. And I would probably mention it would be a historic pick. Nothing wrong with stating that fact

Is Kara Lawson highly qualified? If the Celtics picked her it would be because they had inside knowledge that people who advocate for her (everyone else) do not know. Therefore, those people would be pushing an under-qualified candidate...because of her gender.

I'd be onboard because, again, it means the Celtics knew she could handle the job. They know her really well now. But even if a team like Orlando hired her, it would be strange. Not that it would or wouldn't work out. But the resume isn't there for Lawson. Wasn't she even focused on player development more than anything? That's like a team hiring Evan Turner right now.

Hammon would make much more sense.

This is an invalid conclusion.  There are numerous comments out there regaurding the organization's opinions of Lawson.  You have no basis to conclude that people who support the idea (like myself) are basing it purely on gender alone.

Why do you support Lawson?

Are there any male coaches with no NBA playing experience, three or fewer games as a head coach at any level, and only one year as a shooting coach that you favor?

I have stated it earlier in the thread, but my support comes from what I read about the relationship she has with the players and the organization.  And my support goes as far as the Celtic's interest.  If they feel she is the right choice, that is good for me.  I want a coach that engage our players.  We have plenty of examples of coaches who came in with limited experience and were successful.  Bird took the Pacers to the finals.  How much coaching experience did he have prior.  Weren't Spoelstra and Vogel video assistants?  Experience can be a good thing for sure, but I don't over-rate it. 

[gift]

  I mean, doesn't Lawson have about the same level of experience as Chauncey Billups, who so many are routing to become the next coach?

I’m not pushing Chauncey, but there’s something to be said for having actually reacted to NBA defenses as a floor general.  Lawson’s one year as a lower-level assistant doesn’t really compare.

Lawson simply isn’t qualified to be an NBA head coach.  Hammon, yes.  Staley, yes.  Lawson, not yet.

That ability sure helped Isiah Thomas, right?  I think people are really overblowing some of the factors that go into a head coach being successful.  To me, the most important thing for this team is finding someone that can connect to the players and get them to fight.  So many people here griped that this team has no fight and that Brad had lost the team.  X's and O's are good, but they can come from assistants.  Give me someone who can inspire and shows good instincts.  Unfortunately, you usually don't know if a person has those qualities until they are given the opportunity.

I agree with you. Which is why I’m open to most of the names being floated (Lawson included). But I’m not going to pretend her resume is something it isn’t and if I feel like people are boosting her beyond her resume and placing her next to Hammon as an option, I feel like I can be honest about those motivations.

[CptZoogs]

  I mean, doesn't Lawson have about the same level of experience as Chauncey Billups, who so many are routing to become the next coach?

I’m not pushing Chauncey, but there’s something to be said for having actually reacted to NBA defenses as a floor general.  Lawson’s one year as a lower-level assistant doesn’t really compare.

Lawson simply isn’t qualified to be an NBA head coach.  Hammon, yes.  Staley, yes.  Lawson, not yet.

That ability sure helped Isiah Thomas, right?  I think people are really overblowing some of the factors that go into a head coach being successful.  To me, the most important thing for this team is finding someone that can connect to the players and get them to fight.  So many people here griped that this team has no fight and that Brad had lost the team.  X's and O's are good, but they can come from assistants.  Give me someone who can inspire and shows good instincts.  Unfortunately, you usually don't know if a person has those qualities until they are given the opportunity.

Under that criteria, is there anybody who has been around the game of basketball that shouldn’t be offered at least an interview?  From the way you worded it, you make Tony Robbins sound like a legit coaching candidate.

Again, go back to my previous posts.  Any hire would be contingent on pre-requisites.  Do you really find Lawson's knowledge of the game to comparable to Robbin's??  Give me a break.

[CptZoogs]

  I mean, doesn't Lawson have about the same level of experience as Chauncey Billups, who so many are routing to become the next coach?

I’m not pushing Chauncey, but there’s something to be said for having actually reacted to NBA defenses as a floor general.  Lawson’s one year as a lower-level assistant doesn’t really compare.

Lawson simply isn’t qualified to be an NBA head coach.  Hammon, yes.  Staley, yes.  Lawson, not yet.

That ability sure helped Isiah Thomas, right?  I think people are really overblowing some of the factors that go into a head coach being successful.  To me, the most important thing for this team is finding someone that can connect to the players and get them to fight.  So many people here griped that this team has no fight and that Brad had lost the team.  X's and O's are good, but they can come from assistants.  Give me someone who can inspire and shows good instincts.  Unfortunately, you usually don't know if a person has those qualities until they are given the opportunity.

I agree with you. Which is why I’m open to most of the names being floated (Lawson included). But I’m not going to pretend her resume is something it isn’t and if I feel like people are boosting her beyond her resume and placing her next to Hammon as an option, I feel like I can be honest about those motivations.

I just don't think it is fair to make assumptions about people's motivations.  Maybe people really are just interested in something different.  Isn't that what helped Trump get elected?  Was there much pushback on the idea that people wanted an outsider in DC?  Sure people disliked him for other reasons, but I don't know if many people pushed back on the idea of an outsider being appealing.  Of course people can disagree about the results in that particular case, but the point is about the motivation and not the result here.

[gift]

  I mean, doesn't Lawson have about the same level of experience as Chauncey Billups, who so many are routing to become the next coach?

I’m not pushing Chauncey, but there’s something to be said for having actually reacted to NBA defenses as a floor general.  Lawson’s one year as a lower-level assistant doesn’t really compare.

Lawson simply isn’t qualified to be an NBA head coach.  Hammon, yes.  Staley, yes.  Lawson, not yet.

That ability sure helped Isiah Thomas, right?  I think people are really overblowing some of the factors that go into a head coach being successful.  To me, the most important thing for this team is finding someone that can connect to the players and get them to fight.  So many people here griped that this team has no fight and that Brad had lost the team.  X's and O's are good, but they can come from assistants.  Give me someone who can inspire and shows good instincts.  Unfortunately, you usually don't know if a person has those qualities until they are given the opportunity.

Under that criteria, is there anybody who has been around the game of basketball that shouldn’t be offered at least an interview?  From the way you worded it, you make Tony Robbins sound like a legit coaching candidate.

Again, go back to my previous posts.  Any hire would be contingent on pre-requisites.  Do you really find Lawson's knowledge of the game to comparable to Robbin's??  Give me a break.

Do you find it comparable to Evan Turner? Or like 100 other people? If it is comparable, what are her distinguishing qualities from those other candidates? I hear great things all the time about assistants around the league.

[CBS_Take a Report]

I own a company and my executive leadership team is comprised of 3 women and 2 men (50/50 male/female given I am also on this team). The women on this team are brilliant, decisive, visionaries and I’m proud they steer my company. (Technology)

That being said, professional sports including on court and off court culture development including toughness (which quite honestly this team has lacked) extends far beyond the court to the locker room and beyond.

I don’t believe a woman is best positioned to develop the culture we are looking for. Call that view point misogynistic if you want. It isn’t but if this makes you feel better go ahead.

[gift]

  I mean, doesn't Lawson have about the same level of experience as Chauncey Billups, who so many are routing to become the next coach?

I’m not pushing Chauncey, but there’s something to be said for having actually reacted to NBA defenses as a floor general.  Lawson’s one year as a lower-level assistant doesn’t really compare.

Lawson simply isn’t qualified to be an NBA head coach.  Hammon, yes.  Staley, yes.  Lawson, not yet.

That ability sure helped Isiah Thomas, right?  I think people are really overblowing some of the factors that go into a head coach being successful.  To me, the most important thing for this team is finding someone that can connect to the players and get them to fight.  So many people here griped that this team has no fight and that Brad had lost the team.  X's and O's are good, but they can come from assistants.  Give me someone who can inspire and shows good instincts.  Unfortunately, you usually don't know if a person has those qualities until they are given the opportunity.

I agree with you. Which is why I’m open to most of the names being floated (Lawson included). But I’m not going to pretend her resume is something it isn’t and if I feel like people are boosting her beyond her resume and placing her next to Hammon as an option, I feel like I can be honest about those motivations.

I just don't think it is fair to make assumptions about people's motivations.  Maybe people really are just interested in something different.  Isn't that what helped Trump get elected?  Was there much pushback on the idea that people wanted an outsider in DC?  Sure people disliked him for other reasons, but I don't know if many people pushed back on the idea of an outsider being appealing.  Of course people can disagree about the results in that particular case, but the point is about the motivation and not the result here.

I think it's fair to assess the motivations when she is placed on a billboard with Becky Hammon. Just her and Becky. It's pretty clear.

That's not to say that anyone who favors Lawson is motivated that way. I wouldn't guess any posters here are motivated that way or that the Celtics front office is. But there are many casual and non-fans who are. And one way or another, they have influence. Because now if you hire Hammon or Lawson, did you do so in reaction to the pressure? Or if you don't, were too scared to hire a woman? Those narratives (distractions) will exist no matter what you do.

[Roy H.]

  I mean, doesn't Lawson have about the same level of experience as Chauncey Billups, who so many are routing to become the next coach?

I’m not pushing Chauncey, but there’s something to be said for having actually reacted to NBA defenses as a floor general.  Lawson’s one year as a lower-level assistant doesn’t really compare.

Lawson simply isn’t qualified to be an NBA head coach.  Hammon, yes.  Staley, yes.  Lawson, not yet.

That ability sure helped Isiah Thomas, right?  I think people are really overblowing some of the factors that go into a head coach being successful.  To me, the most important thing for this team is finding someone that can connect to the players and get them to fight.  So many people here griped that this team has no fight and that Brad had lost the team.  X's and O's are good, but they can come from assistants.  Give me someone who can inspire and shows good instincts.  Unfortunately, you usually don't know if a person has those qualities until they are given the opportunity.

Under that criteria, is there anybody who has been around the game of basketball that shouldn’t be offered at least an interview?  From the way you worded it, you make Tony Robbins sound like a legit coaching candidate.

Again, go back to my previous posts.  Any hire would be contingent on pre-requisites.  Do you really find Lawson's knowledge of the game to comparable to Robbin's??  Give me a break.

The knowledge can come from the assistants.  Jordan, Riley and Kerr all report being inspired by Robbins.  He’d be a good fit.

You see what happens when you dilute the idea of “qualified” to the lowest possible level?

[CptZoogs]

  I mean, doesn't Lawson have about the same level of experience as Chauncey Billups, who so many are routing to become the next coach?

I’m not pushing Chauncey, but there’s something to be said for having actually reacted to NBA defenses as a floor general.  Lawson’s one year as a lower-level assistant doesn’t really compare.

Lawson simply isn’t qualified to be an NBA head coach.  Hammon, yes.  Staley, yes.  Lawson, not yet.

That ability sure helped Isiah Thomas, right?  I think people are really overblowing some of the factors that go into a head coach being successful.  To me, the most important thing for this team is finding someone that can connect to the players and get them to fight.  So many people here griped that this team has no fight and that Brad had lost the team.  X's and O's are good, but they can come from assistants.  Give me someone who can inspire and shows good instincts.  Unfortunately, you usually don't know if a person has those qualities until they are given the opportunity.

Under that criteria, is there anybody who has been around the game of basketball that shouldn’t be offered at least an interview?  From the way you worded it, you make Tony Robbins sound like a legit coaching candidate.

Again, go back to my previous posts.  Any hire would be contingent on pre-requisites.  Do you really find Lawson's knowledge of the game to comparable to Robbin's??  Give me a break.

Do you find it comparable to Evan Turner? Or like 100 other people? If it is comparable, what are her distinguishing qualities from those other candidates? I hear great things all the time about assistants around the league.

Well, for one, Turner has explicitely stated that he is not a candidate so that comparison is a non-starter.  I think Jay is still in the running though.  Lawson hasn't been as direct and it is still unclear at this time if there is mutual interest.  So for right now, the previous connection to the organization/players is appealing to me.

Additionally, I am not willing to rule out gender as a potential factor.  I just don't think we have any evidence at this time one way or another.  I do know that back when I taught in NYC, I personally observed a clear difference in attitudes towards female teacher vs. male teachers.  Obviously, that is anecdotal and not an apples to apples comparison, but there at least potential for it to be a factor.  Just as the race of the next coach has potential to be a factor.

At the end of the day, we could say that the requirements are that each candidate has to have a, b, and c.  If we leave it at that, we will find the list gets exceedingly large.  You can't interview everyone.  So if there are tie breakers like previous relationships, race, gender, etc. I am not going to be so naive as to think those factors won't play a role.  Again, I support the idea of a Lawson hire provided the organization signs off on it.  If they think Jay is the guy, then I would support that too.  It's not like she is my one and only preference.  I would like to see Stackhouse get a chance in the NBA if he is interested.  If I recall correctly, didn't he have significant success in the G-league. 

[CBS_Take a Report]

Further I keep hearing I want nothing to do with Jason Kidd but nothing beyond his personal challenges to point to. He was a genius on the court As a player. He was a 9x All Defense Team awardee, 2x Olympic gold medalist and an NBA Champion. Were his first two coaching roles challenged? Sure. What coaching tenures aren’t?

The Nets stint was tumultuous given his beef with Frank (where he took charge and told another assistant coach who was overstepping him that it was his team, which shows strong coaching characteristics not the opposite of this) and a few years of mediocrity in Milwaukee which let’s be honest has been a franchise that has lived in mediocrity for its entire existence, as facts that dispute his validity as a coaching candidate.

He is relevant and gets along with all star talent (something CBS sorely lacked), defensive minded, and has NBA coaching experience.

I would strongly endorse Kidd.

[CptZoogs]

  I mean, doesn't Lawson have about the same level of experience as Chauncey Billups, who so many are routing to become the next coach?

I’m not pushing Chauncey, but there’s something to be said for having actually reacted to NBA defenses as a floor general.  Lawson’s one year as a lower-level assistant doesn’t really compare.

Lawson simply isn’t qualified to be an NBA head coach.  Hammon, yes.  Staley, yes.  Lawson, not yet.

That ability sure helped Isiah Thomas, right?  I think people are really overblowing some of the factors that go into a head coach being successful.  To me, the most important thing for this team is finding someone that can connect to the players and get them to fight.  So many people here griped that this team has no fight and that Brad had lost the team.  X's and O's are good, but they can come from assistants.  Give me someone who can inspire and shows good instincts.  Unfortunately, you usually don't know if a person has those qualities until they are given the opportunity.

Under that criteria, is there anybody who has been around the game of basketball that shouldn’t be offered at least an interview?  From the way you worded it, you make Tony Robbins sound like a legit coaching candidate.

Again, go back to my previous posts.  Any hire would be contingent on pre-requisites.  Do you really find Lawson's knowledge of the game to comparable to Robbin's??  Give me a break.

The knowledge can come from the assistants.  Jordan, Riley and Kerr all report being inspired by Robbins.  He’d be a good fit.

You see what happens when you dilute the idea of “qualified” to the lowest possible level?

Only I didn't do that.  You are misrepresnting my argument and I suspect you know that.  I stated what my primary qualities were.  Was Doc a defensive mastermind during 2008?  No, that defense was a product of Thibs and a culture that the players bought into.

[Kiorrik]

Jeez Louise.

Some of y'all need to consider that hiring a woman might actually HELP.

Fighting adversity unites people. It can be one of the more uplifting things ever. Give us some purpose.

Does that sound like something we need? A sense of purpose?

Does to me.

I think that's a better reason to hire someone than saying "don't hire because of gender" is a reason NOT to hire.