🤨 Van Breda Kolff is a crap NBA coach because he couldn't coach a guy who was notoriously difficult to coach?

How? Lakers were down huge when Wilt was on the court and made a comeback with Wilt on the bench. The offense was flowing better and his team was hot. So naturally he was riding with the guys on the court. Wilt was hurt and would have changed the style of play if he was put back in. Not to mention he's a liability down the stretch with his poor free throw shooting.

What a maroon!

Agreed. For starters Russell wouldn't have taken away from Baylor's game like Wilt did. He would just fit in seamlessly while providing things they do need like rebounding and shot blocking.

​@victorwiley3739 A. Worthy was a rookie and would have only boosted their offense slightly. He wouldn't have helped them in the areas the Sixers hurt them in like rebounding and interior defense. B. 83 ain't the first time Moses outplayed Kareem. By 78, Moses was in the conversation for best Center in the league.

Clearly you didn't listen to what he said. He said "if" meaning this was his expectation before Wilt got there. Thats not the actual issues he said was wrong with the team. The problem he said was that Wilt clogged the paint and slowed the team down. He completely changed the style of play of the team. A style of play that completely went away from how the coach wanted to play. He is not wrong since Wilts latest documentary backs that fact up.

​@@blueblur2273​@blueblur2273 oh, I heard the "if." It's just that, given wilt's passing ability coupled with the boost he gave the DEFENSE. Here's the thing: those lakers teams pre-wilt were very good. Good enough to lose to the Celtics. But with Wilt they actually had a real expectation to BEAT the Cs. There's more: My thing is that THawkins is indulging in that revisionist history...not bc of the "20 shots" statement to Keith Erickson, but for implying that Wilt's need to score a lot was a problem with the team, and that, suddenly (post van Breda Kolff), Bill Sharman came and convinced wilt he didn't need to shoot a lot. I just called bullshite, since Wilt had already cut his field goal attempts to less than half of what he attempted up till 1966-67. So that 20 shots crack was his actual belief, despite the fact that he had shot 16.8 and 14.2 times a game the previous 2 years before coming to LA. And he only shot 13.6 times WITH the lakers in 68-69. All that with FILTHY efficiency. So NO, his ball hoggery wasnt a problem (despite THawkins implying such). In fact, wilt's playmaker ability highly benefited them, after years of playing small ball and falling short. And I would argue that it woyld have been "mission accomplished" had van Breda kolff traded a title for his own pride (exemplified by his refusal to re-insert Wilt after he'd had a couple of minutes to recuperate. His defensive presence alone would likely have slowed the Celtics' scoring enough that JWest, Baylor, Counts, Egan & company could do enough to close out the game...but vBK did his best to force the team back to small-ball when they hadn't played it in over a year. For pride. And ignoring how wilt alone made their defense significantly better, fact is that wilt even moved out of staying strictly in the low post to be a playmaker from BOTH the low and high post, getting guys LAYUPS just by then cutting off his postup.

​@@blueblur2273anyway, i know you werent saying wilt was bad for yhe team per se...but TH was. But we can disagree...cheers.