Those that coach 10 years that take a year off are three times better coaches... in year 11.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
It's difficult to compare coaches. You really can't compare them.
I truthfully think, a consistent coach over 30 years, probably, I'd rather be that than having one championship and mediocrity for years.
So I don't really believe that how many years you've had in the league determines how well your players play... Coaching is coaching.
I think one of the things about being a good coach is to recognise when you have given all that you can. In fact there should be some sort of unspoken law that says that a coach cannot have anyone for three or four years - if you have not passed on most of the stuff you know in that time, then you are not doing a good job.
I don't think a coach becomes the right coach until he wins a championship.
The better the coaching has become, the worse the game has become.
I'm not sure there are enough coaches in the system that can take young talent and consistently get them into the top five in the world.
How can a coach have any influence over a player that's making over five times more than he is?
You can be a top, top player for 10, 20 years, then you become a coach, lose two or three games and you're out.
There's a handful of teams that have a revolving door, that are changing coaches every couple of years, and you can look at the success that they're having. They're not.