I would think twice about drafting players to fit a coach's system. Unless you have Pop. Good players last 7-9 years with a team. Most coaches last......much less.
I understand the reason why we would think that way, but what happens when a coach gets fired, the teams often hires someone with a completely different style. Then we are really screwed. I say grab the best player available if it is obvious. If it is too close to call....... choose by position of need.
I’m playing devils advocate today.
OK, so Olshey drafts the BPA. However, this player does not fit into Stott’s system, so the player does not play meaningful game minutes. This talented player rots on the end of our bench for several seasons, while his trade value declines, all for the hope that the next coach might have a system that fits this player?
How does this approach win more games????
Take a look at how many players change teams and are not as productive, or, are much more productive with a new coach, due to the how well the player fits into the coach's system.
Example, we signed a free agent that had his worst season ever as a Blazer. Reason, this talented player did not fit in with what the coach wanted from him. However, he was the NBA’s 6th man of the year twice, once before and once after being a Blazer. (Jamal Crawford)
It takes more than individual talent to make a team play well together. The coach’s job is to combine player’s skills so they complement each other. Skills that complement each other dramatically increases the effectiveness of the entire team.
In the military, this combining of skills is known as force multiplication. One of the best ways to visualize this is by taking two similar size armies. However, one army uses some of their team to fly fighter-bombers (3 pt. shooter in BB). Which army has the best chance of winning a battle, the one that attacks with fighter bombers, or the one with a few extra soldiers that are good defenders in the trenches?
