I shouldn't amend my rule of never taking Jay Mariotti seriously, let alone his dark apprentice, but Greg Couch's sentiment about some of the coaching candidates has been repeated several places:
When you fire Scott Skiles, search for his replacement for several months and then come up with Rick Carlisle as a lead candidate, what's the point? Carlisle's screaming had better sound different than Skiles' because the Bulls' ears are well-schooled in tuning that noise out.
Is it really whole 'styles' of coaches that should be avoided? Strangely enough, Couch advocates Jeff Van Gundy or Larry Brown as replacements, so even he is ok with someone with a disciplinarian rep.
Yes, the Bulls quit on Skiles, and similar outcomes happen often in the NBA. But that style also works, and the memory seems to be already forgotten that it once worked with the Bulls as well. So I don't think it's a case where the Bulls can't handle a coach like Scott Skiles. It just didn't work with Scott Skiles.
Plenty of other coaches have similar personas, yet as the details trickle out post-firing, Skiles has come off as not just a disciplinarian, but one whose actions at times were both inconsistent and petty (not to mention his staff of clowns. Sorry, I mean 'organizational guys!').
I'm not throwing my support behind Carlisle (I honestly have no idea who I prefer), but I won't rule him out just because he has a similar reputation as Skiles, and furthermore hiring Carlisle won't be an indication that parting ways (who quit when, anyway?) with Skiles was a mistake. As more details trickle out, it's looking like Skiles was truly a unique breed.