After Hurley turned down the offer, who should they have hired instead of JJ? It's not as if they had a wide field of options, and they need a coaching overhaul not just for the immediate, but for the long-term.

While the comparison to Riley is imperfect, it's also the case that critics excoriated the Lakers for making that hire as Riles was unproven, "too young", and had no remarkable substantive coaching experience.

But the comparison I think is more apt is to Steve Kerr, who also was an analyst before becoming a coach, and was clowned when the hire was made. "Wasn't a great player"; "no experience"; "too many better coaches available" etc...

Both JJ & Kerr aren't just meticulous analysts who really relish deep diving into the game, but they also are adept at relationship building and understanding personalities having both been around great players and coaches at the highest level. Both also aren't afraid to speak their minds and don't shy away from confrontation with great players.

There will be rough moments as JJ is being thrown to a high controversy franchise with win-now expectations (even if those expectations are overblown/unfair for a team that's had to play-in to the playoffs of recent vintage) - but he knows the modern game, has fostered great relationships wherever he's been, clearly has a drive to analyze and deeply study the game/strategy/matchups/sets etc. - and I think he'll be able to handle the intense learning curve/media frenzy given his competitive nature.

Also - for those who watched the Lakers consistently in the Ham era, they grew weary of seeing other teams constantly run successful sets and adjust, while the Lakers just stood still with questionable (at best) rotations and no viable sets; no quality sets out of timeouts; stubbornly starting/holding on to rotations that weren't bearing fruit etc. It became glaringly clear that the Lakers had a coaching disadvantage against nearly every team they faced.

Will JJ solve that? Unclear, but the players lost faith in Ham, and a change had to occur. Lakers are betting on the young, dynamic new guy - and that's also sort of on-brand for the franchise.

Just because the resume is light doesn't mean he won't succeed. I'm more bullish on the Redick era. Sure, it's a gamble, but when you look at the field of options available, the hire makes more sense. I think there will be more buy-in from the players, and that could give Redick the timeline needed to excel.