Frank Hamblen's advantages over Phil Jackson

I know lots of posters are hot to have Phil back. But I thought I would toss out a thought - would the Lakers be better off with Hamblen instead of Phil? I thought I would list the Hamblen's advantages:

No baggage
No poisoned relationship with Kobe. No prior attempts at getting Kobe traded. No books that bash Kobe. No prior criticisms of Kobe in the press.

Uses offenses other than the triangle
Hamblen knows the triangle probably almost as well as Phil does. However, he doesn't view it as the ONLY offense and runs a variety of plays. I get the impression that players get sick of the triangle and would welcome the variety.

Won't have major input into personnel decisions
From what I have read and guessed, Phil had major input into personnel decisions and most of it was bad. I think Mitch will be able to build a team more effectively if Phil is not around to veto good moves.

Will actually coach during games
I have never understood why Phil just sat there like he was watching the Rose Parade. In my tiny little amount of coaching experience, players are most open to coaching during a game.

To me, Phil's greatest value is that he knows how to implement what has been the most effective offensive philosophy in the NBA over the last 15 years. It's one thing to know a system and it's another to know how to get players to commit to it. I lived in Dallas when Jim Cleamons tried to implement the triangle and it was UG-LY. But I think a lot of that advantage is lost because a number of Lakers already know the triangle and Kobe supports the use of it.

I am not saying that the Lakers won't hire Phil. However, I don't think Phil is clearly superior to Hamblen as some people might think. The impression I got from the comments of Mitch that were posted on the board is that the job is Hamblen's for the rest of the season. If he does well, I can see advantages to the Lakers sticking with him.

Posted here on LG.net