Riley steps down as Heat coach

Interesting analogy.

So Gibbs is a jerk for bailing on us the first time around? Cause no doubt about it, and no arguement about it, we had extremely aging talent. To me, Gibbs did exactly what Riley did...he didn't want to stick around for a rebuilding phase, and made an excuse as to why to leave. I don't begrudge Gibbs, so I don't begrudge Riley.

I swear arguing with you is like trying to convince a kid that Pokemon isn't sweet.

Over the course of this thread you've gone from Riley being a jerk but an amazing coach to Riley never having done anything questionable in his whole career and Van Gundy being a notch above Bin Laden.

And Gibbs had diabetes. And he wanted to see his family more. And he didn't come back with another loaded team two years later. So I am not sure exactly the same is the way I would describe their respective career trajectories.

im with dj on this one. i had yo say that, because it seems like it doesn't happen much.

I believe Eddie Jones and Damon Jones (.432 3 pt%) to be better players than Jason Williams, and Antoine Walker for instance. Walker was probably THE most overrated player I ever saw in my entire life, and possibly the most overrated player in history.
Van Gundy had better role players. I am still surprised a team with Payton on it won it all. Then again, Gary took a major back seat role with Riley, so that's a good reason.

Ok, well that's just your opinion versus mine


Riley took them from 32 to 42 to 61...what's your point?
Point is, Van Gundy SHOULD have won it all, and he didn't. It took Riley's coaching ability to get it done no matter how you want to slice it.

I wasn't knocking Riley's coaching abilities, just saying don't ignore what Van Gundy had accomplished and wasn't given the opportunity to complete

Shaq only averaged 20.0 and 9.2 boards that season. He also had a pathetic 46.9% FT percentage. Also had 2.8 turnovers a game on average (high for a center), and a very high 3.9 fouls per game. It's not like Chicago losing Jordan, or the Celts losing Bird, or LA losing Magic...or even Kobe. I understand the point, but Van Gundy still had an unstoppable Wade.

Not so much now, but back then just Shaq's mere presence on the court made his teammates better

Again, Van Gundy's heat was EXPECTED to win it all, and underacheived, while Riley actually won it all. Can't really complain about that. If we kicked Gibbs out after say a 5-5 season, and hired anyone and that coach took us to a SB victory, I would care less that we fired Gibbs regardless of circumstance. EVERY decision a team makes should have one goal in it's sights...winning it all. Riley did it, Van Gundy didn't. It's that simple. And it's not like Van Gundy didn't have his shot. He did, and blew it.

Fine. But if Zorn took us to an OT loss in the NFC championship game this year and then next year we get off to a 5-5 start with Portis missing 8 of the games and then fire Zorn, I think it'd be ridiculous to say Zorn was a failure or underachiever

Fine. But if Zorn took us to an OT loss in the NFC championship game this year and then next year we get off to a 5-5 start with Portis missing 8 of the games and then fire Zorn, I think it'd be ridiculous to say Zorn was a failure or underachiever

I only quoted the above part because I agree with your other comments.

The above quoted comments stopped too early though. (assuming your scenario) If, let's say Cowher, took over for Zorn after he was fired, and Cowher took us to a SB win, would it matter what happened to Zorn? Especially assuming we had the widely regarded best team in the NFC the year before.

I swear arguing with you is like trying to convince a kid that Pokemon isn't sweet.

See, this is where people need to pay attention and not just wildly assume things. This is a classic case of people sniffing their own farts (yes that's a south park reference)

Over the course of this thread you've gone from Riley being a jerk but an amazing coach to Riley never having done anything questionable in his whole career

When did I EVER say he did nothing questionable in "his whole career"? I obviously think he's jerk, so you are CLEARLY wrong with this ASSUMPTION. All I'm saying is, you can't fault a guy for not wanting to rebuild.

and Van Gundy being a notch above Bin Laden.

Never once did I say Van Gundy sucked, or he was a terrorist, or that he was worthless human being, or whatever the hell you are trying to assume. All I said was Van Gundy didn't get it done, and Riley did.

And Gibbs had diabetes. And he wanted to see his family more. And he didn't come back with another loaded team two years later. So I am not sure exactly the same is the way I would describe their respective career trajectories.

Well, the diabetes should mean nothing considering he then worked 18 hours a day in NASCAR practically the day after he retired from the skins. I understand that he wanted to see his family more cause one of Gibbs comments was that he went to kiss his son goodbye and his son had a beard. He also said he was burnt out and needed the rest (which he clearly didn't get) and that is very similar to Riley. I'm not saying their careers had identical trajectories, and for you to assume that is pretty poor debating skills. What you are saying is, Riley left because his talent level dropped, and shame on him for doing so, but when Gibbs did it (for whatever reason) it's completely 100% acceptable. I say in both cases, there is nothing wrong with it. When you feel your time is up for any reason, then so be it. Haven't you quit a job that you were tired of?

In summation, you complain about my arguing tactics when it fact when you point your finger there is 3 pointing back at you, then you assume, assume, and assume some more with nothing even remotely solid to go on, even going so far as to ignore what has already been posted. Great post dj.
You've been here long enough to argue better than this. But hey, everyone has some poor posts. Go regroup and I'll see you later for a better, more productive discussion. ;)

It isn't like he is quitting because he is "tired" he is quitting because it's hard. I know people quit work all the time, but not because it gets difficult, if they do they are no better than Riley. You quit because of personal reasons, family, career moves, etc. I see no reason why Riley has quit for any of those reasons.

It isn't like he is quitting because he is "tired" he is quitting because it's hard. I know people quit work all the time, but not because it gets difficult, if they do they are no better than Riley. You quit because of personal reasons, family, career moves, etc. I see no reason why Riley has quit for any of those reasons.

I guess I try to see it from their perspective, not as a spectator. I seem to be the only person here that doesn't care about this issue, while others seem to think it's a big deal. To each his own. We're going to have to agree to disagree...after all, it's all about opinions.
I'll leave you with this, if you were stinkin rich, and you coached a dynasty, would you want to go through a rebuilding phase (or as you put it, a difficult change)?
If this discussion is about who was the best coach to bring a team from the ashes to riches, then Riley would not be in my top ten, or even top 50. But we can't ignore the amazing numbers he put up. He's top 5 all time. Not to point out the obvious, but he's tied for third in all time championships. That's huge!

I only quoted the above part because I agree with your other comments.

The above quoted comments stopped too early though. (assuming your scenario) If, let's say Cowher, took over for Zorn after he was fired, and Cowher took us to a SB win, would it matter what happened to Zorn? Especially assuming we had the widely regarded best team in the NFC the year before.

Let's look at it this way. I think you said once your wife is an HR director at some college or something like that. Ok, let's suppose instead that she's the head coach for the women's basketball team at the University of New Mexico. In her first year with the team they go from a 3-27 record the year before she became head coach to a 16-14 record. Then in year two, she gets them to a 24-6 record and they lose in the NCAA Women's Tournament Semifinals. Then in year three, her star player goes down in game two of the season and they get off to a 5-4 start and she gets fired.

You wouldn't be upset about that? You wouldn't think that was a bit unfair?