How would you rate Steve Kerr as an NBA basketball coach?

Steve Kerr has been an NBA coach for 5 seasons. In those 5 seasons, he has some numbers thus far that are right up there with the greatest coaches in NBA history:

- 322-88 record (78.5 win % - no previous NBA coach won as many games as Kerr their first 5 years)
- 5 NBA Finals appearances, won 3 NBA titles in first 4 seasons and may make it 4 out of 5 this season.

Golden State is now the first team to make the NBA Finals 5 consecutive seasons in the modern playoff era.

One blogger's recent opinion:

https://www.quora.com/Is-Steve-Kerr-a-good-coach-or-was-he-placed-in-a-favorable-situation

Quote:

---

Great players, occasionally may win championships while in the company of mediocre coaches. But those teams who win consistently, year in and year out, do so because they have a combination of both great players ,complementary role players, and a great coach who knows how to make the pieces fit into a whole. Few coaches handle egos and achieve that mesh into a whole better than Steve Kerr. He is a first rate coach.

---

Pretty sure I could have won 60 games a year and a few titles with these Warriors teams over the last 5 years. I can't imagine a first time coach ever being put in to a better situation that Kerr.

With that said, he has still had to not screw it up.

Quote:

---

Was Phil Jackson any good?

---

In an alternative universe, the Bulls never fired Doug Collins, and your question is answered.

Both. He has kept a bunch of egos properly in check.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

How would you rate Steve Kerr as an NBA basketball coach?

Steve Kerr has been an NBA coach for 5 seasons. In those 5 seasons, he has some numbers thus far that are right up there with the greatest coaches in NBA history:

- 322-88 record (78.5 win % - no previous NBA coach won as many games as Kerr their first 5 years)
- 5 NBA Finals appearances, won 3 NBA titles in first 4 seasons and may make it 4 out of 5 this season.

Golden State is now the first team to make the NBA Finals 5 consecutive seasons in the modern playoff era.

One blogger's recent opinion:

https://www.quora.com/Is-Steve-Kerr-a-good-coach-or-was-he-placed-in-a-favorable-situation

Quote:

---

Great players, occasionally may win championships while in the company of mediocre coaches. But those teams who win consistently, year in and year out, do so because they have a combination of both great players ,complementary role players, and a great coach who knows how to make the pieces fit into a whole. Few coaches handle egos and achieve that mesh into a whole better than Steve Kerr. He is a first rate coach.

---

---

Both.

Both. You need great players to win. Period.

AustinAg2012 said:

---

Luke Walton went 39-4 as interim coach in '15/'16 while Kerr had back issues. Even won Western Conference Coach of the Month that November. Luke Walton...

Any posters on this board would have the same success as "coach" of the Warriors since Kerr was hired. "Hey, guys, just go play basketball." Done.

---

1. Not at all convinced that Luke Walton was the main problem in LA.
2. Would have loved to see what these random posters would have done with the available roster after KD went down.

Disclaimer: still grumpy Rockets fan here.

First of all, Dantoni isn't really the bar for "great coach," in my opinion. So just because he might have beaten a hypothetical Dantoni lead GS team doesn't mean Kerr is great. Personally I don't think a coach on the planet would have put the Rockets over the top of GS. Is Dantoni a really good coach? I think so. His best teams gave some truly great teams all they could handle, but he's never gotten over the hump. The Nash Suns teams had the misfortune of dealing with the Lakers and Pop's Spurs. Tough curcumstances to say the least, and it's not like any other teams were beating the teams they lost to. But I digress...

Kerr... I feel like he's as much of a "manager" as he is a "coach." And he's great at it. As was alluded to earlier in the thread, he's a master psychologist to juggle all of the egos. All of that said, they are an all time great team too. Phil Jackson and his Bulls and Lakers are great comparisons. Kerr saw Jackson work his managerial/motivational magic live and in action. He seems to have absorbed and applied.

Tangent... Kerr and Jackson are great "managers" where Pop is a great coach. Honestly, the days of a pure "coach" in the NBA are about gone.

Four things that are usually due to coaching really impress me about the warriors. A lot of this is referring to the pre-Durant warriors, which is when i think Kerr was doing his best Coaching.
1. Throughout Kerr's time there they have had the ability to crank up the defense to an extremely high level. They swarm. Great rotations and help, fanatical effort, smart risk-taking. It's overwhelming and leads to those backbreaking runs. Teams that are super talented can't always be bothered to work that hard.

2. It's easy to say that he just has great players, but I think he should get some credit for how great those players became, especially Thompson and Green. Aside from Durant*, almost everyone they've gotten was expected to be somewhere between pretty good and a role player. Harrison Barnes is the only "he's gonna be a star for the warriors" type player who comes to mind and he's clearly not the reason they win titles. If you line them up next to the top teams in the league, they have less length and strength than anyone but Denver and Portland.

3. Their non-Durant offense is beautiful. It's smart, fast, unconventional, and ruthlessly efficient. Sure, it helps having two players who warp the defense into pretzels, but what other team runs its offense through a player (Green) who can't shoot, isn't a great slasher, doesn't have a post game, and doesn't shoot from midrange? And yet it's the best offense there is. Kerr did a brilliant job putting unconventional players in a position to succeed. It's not isoball and it's way more than the standard pick and roll.

4. There are some big egoes to manage, and he seems to have done it flawlessly. Players force trades all the time now, but a team with two MVPs and five recent allstars seems to coexist peacefully.


*I am cringing at my own hot take, but I'm not sure the warriors are better with Durant. Their defensive and offensive efficiencies have been declining since he got there. I've got a theory on why that might be, but this isn't the thread for it.

In a tandem discussion -

I'd be curious to find out what people thought about Draymond Green. You could make many of the same arguments about Draymond that are made about Kerr. I also find the opinions on his abilities range from a scrub who is just dirty, to an average NBA player, all the way to hall of famer.

My hot take: I think Draymond is one of the 10 best players in the NBA (ducks....)

Seven Costanza said:

---

Mark Jackson coached the 2014 Warriors to a first round exit with Curry, Thompson, Green, Bogut, Barnes, Iguodala, Speights, and David Lee. Granted Green was a rookie, but Kerr won it all with the same team the following year.

---

This post pretty much says it all. I think he has lots of talent to work with, but it's not like Curry, Green, and Thompson were all picked first overall in the draft. These guys have been developed to get this most out of their talent.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/other-sports/news/draymond-green-2012-nba-draft-second-round-warriors/188ovbppyygz1zmmuhfk5s5yc

Solid article on Draymond Green. Most fans often see Green as a dirty player that runs his mouth to other players and officials. The fact that he is on the Warriors magnifies it. If he was on your team, you would defend him at all costs.

When it comes to Klay and Steph.....you are talking about two guys that had fathers that played in the NBA for years and knew what type of work ethic was required to be successful.

I believe Steve Kerr is a good coach that has a 3 amazing weapons in Durant, Curry, and Thompson........and a few guys like Green, Iguodala, Looney, and Livingston that know their role and likely have a higher probability to succeed due to focusing on the stars. Add in a healthy DeMarcus Cousins and it is almost unfair.

Defense travels, but on offense he would be useless with a team that doesn't have floor-stretching weapons like Curry and Thompson. He's excellent at making decisions, but he can only exploit the gaps created by others; individually he's an easy cover.

That said, I kind of think he would figure out a way to contribute on offense. He's a complete ****head, but a great competitor.

Ulrich said:

---

Four things that are usually due to coaching really impress me about the warriors. A lot of this is referring to the pre-Durant warriors, which is when i think Kerr was doing his best Coaching.
1. Throughout Kerr's time there they have had the ability to crank up the defense to an extremely high level. They swarm. Great rotations and help, fanatical effort, smart risk-taking. It's overwhelming and leads to those backbreaking runs. Teams that are super talented can't always be bothered to work that hard.

2. It's easy to say that he just has great players, but I think he should get some credit for how great those players became, especially Thompson and Green. Aside from Durant*, almost everyone they've gotten was expected to be somewhere between pretty good and a role player. Harrison Barnes is the only "he's gonna be a star for the warriors" type player who comes to mind and he's clearly not the reason they win titles. If you line them up next to the top teams in the league, they have less length and strength than anyone but Denver and Portland.

3. Their non-Durant offense is beautiful. It's smart, fast, unconventional, and ruthlessly efficient. Sure, it helps having two players who warp the defense into pretzels, but what other team runs its offense through a player (Green) who can't shoot, isn't a great slasher, doesn't have a post game, and doesn't shoot from midrange? And yet it's the best offense there is. Kerr did a brilliant job putting unconventional players in a position to succeed. It's not isoball and it's way more than the standard pick and roll.

4. There are some big egoes to manage, and he seems to have done it flawlessly. Players force trades all the time now, but a team with two MVPs and five recent allstars seems to coexist peacefully.


*I am cringing at my own hot take, but I'm not sure the warriors are better with Durant. Their defensive and offensive efficiencies have been declining since he got there. I've got a theory on why that might be, but this isn't the thread for it.

---

Great take

Ulrich said:

---

Defense travels, but on offense he would be useless with a team that doesn't have floor-stretching weapons like Curry and Thompson. He's excellent at making decisions, but he can only exploit the gaps created by others; individually he's an easy cover.

That said, I kind of think he would figure out a way to contribute on offense. He's a complete ****head, but a great competitor.

---

Possibly, but if you paired Green with a player like Harden, Lillard or Westbrook I bet he could win a championship. Conversely if you removed him from the GSW they would have been out by now...with or without Durant.

biobioprof said:

---

---

Haha, Steph would never pump fake and then take a long 2.

aggie-master said:

---

Seven Costanza said:

---

Mark Jackson coached the 2014 Warriors to a first round exit with Curry, Thompson, Green, Bogut, Barnes, Iguodala, Speights, and David Lee. Granted Green was a rookie, but Kerr won it all with the same team the following year.

---

This post pretty much says it all. I think he has lots of talent to work with, but it's not like Curry, Green, and Thompson were all picked first overall in the draft. These guys have been developed to get this most out of their talent.

---

Agreed. There were serious doubts among scouts that Curry would even be a useful player, much less a star. Green was a second rounder. Thompson was the 11th pick. This was not LeBron, Wade, and Bosh deciding to join forces. Before Kerr, there were no expectations that this group could be a 73 win team. Kerr was there when it all came together, though, so he has to get some credit for doing whatever it was that brought it all together. If they had stayed with Mark Jackson, they may have just wound up being something similar to this year's Blazers.