Mike Brown Next lakers Coach?

#26
#26
How many times do you think Dwight Howard goes to Van Gundy and asks advice? He's another loud mouth clown in a suit, collecting a check and making "coach talk" in post game press confrences after choking in the playoffs.
 
#28
#28
Coaches have a bigger impact than you think. I would take Stan Van Gundy in a heartbeat
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#29
#29
Stan Van's act worked for a while but I'd be surprised to see him last in Orlando.

And absolutely coaches matter -- you can give the Kurt Rambises and Mike Dunleavys of the world all the talent you can get together, but they still don't win anything. I would put coach Spo in this category, but he's been made to look better than he is from the east being absolutely putrid.

Pop would be the exception, I don't think he's a great manager of egos, but he's never had to be because none of his key players to that title run were from the continent. But dealing with most of the guys who have the necessary talent to win rings that happen to be from the states, a coach HAS to be able to run the show, especially when things aren't going well. It's a rare quality.
 
#30
#30
milohimself said:
Kurt Rambis says hi.
Click to expand...

Yeah, MOST coaches don't make a difference. There are a few outliers. Look at the variety of success legends like Larry Brown have had. He's a HOFer who had no success with bad players and good success with good players.

Everybody on here is killing Mike Brown (you included) and dude has won 66% of his games and went to the Finals as a head coach. You are in agreement with me, you just don't know it. You might respond, "he won a lot of games because of the players he had". That's exactly my point. Like I said. It's about the players.
 
#31
#31
VOLNBAMA said:
Worst coach in the NBA. Team has much more talent now than when Al Jefferson was there and they were winning 15 more games a year
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Outside of Kevin Love, they are probably the least talented team in NBA history.
 
#32
#32
Johnny Flynn was not properly developed. He has more talent than Telfair or Randy Foye. Here's the starting 5 from those 2 teams.

Luke Ridnour
Wesley Johnson
Michael Beasley
Kevin Love
Darko

Randy Foye
Mike Miller
Ryan Gomes
Craig Smith
Al Jefferson
Posted via VolNation llMobile
 
#33
#33
nbakerld said:
Yeah, MOST coaches don't make a difference. There are a few outliers. Look at the variety of success legends like Larry Brown have had. He's a HOFer who had no success with bad players and good success with good players.

Everybody on here is killing Mike Brown (you included) and dude has won 66% of his games and went to the Finals as a head coach. You are in agreement with me, you just don't know it. You might respond, "he won a lot of games because of the players he had". That's exactly my point. Like I said. It's about the players.
Click to expand...

It's about the players when you have LeBron James playing against the Eastern Conference and you're a terrible coach. Why did the Bulls get 20 games better this year? The players all magically happened to make vast improvements on defense at the same time?
 
#34
#34
nbakerld said:
Yeah, MOST coaches don't make a difference. There are a few outliers. Look at the variety of success legends like Larry Brown have had. He's a HOFer who had no success with bad players and good success with good players.

Everybody on here is killing Mike Brown (you included) and dude has won 66% of his games and went to the Finals as a head coach. You are in agreement with me, you just don't know it. You might respond, "he won a lot of games because of the players he had". That's exactly my point. Like I said. It's about the players.
Click to expand...

Who cares about the regular season? Of course you could roll the ball out on the floor with any monkey in the coaches chair, he'd win 50-60 every year if he had Lebron.

The season that matters -- the playoffs -- are a different story entirely. You absolutely must have the players, this is true. But an elite coach is just as necessary, this gets proven nearly every year. What happens when you make it to the 2nd round and nearly all the teams left all have great players?

Hell, look at Phil this year. I don't think anybody here denies that he should probably have made the WCF, but at least not been swept by the Mavs, but it was clear that he lost his team, and look at the result.
 
#36
#36
VKAman said:
It's about the players when you have LeBron James playing against the Eastern Conference and you're a terrible coach. Why did the Bulls get 20 games better this year? The players all magically happened to make vast improvements on defense at the same time?
Click to expand...

There's nothing "magic" about offseason acquisitions. They added Boozer, Asik, Brewer, and Korver. Adding 4 productive players could easily be the difference in 20 games. Not to mention you would expect Rose to naturally improve on his sophomore season (which he did).
 
#37
#37
milohimself said:
Who cares about the regular season? Of course you could roll the ball out on the floor with any monkey in the coaches chair, he'd win 50-60 every year if he had Lebron.

The season that matters -- the playoffs -- are a different story entirely. You absolutely must have the players, this is true. But an elite coach is just as necessary, this gets proven nearly every year. What happens when you make it to the 2nd round and nearly all the teams left all have great players?

Hell, look at Phil this year. I don't think anybody here denies that he should probably have made the WCF, but at least not been swept by the Mavs, but it was clear that he lost his team, and look at the result.
Click to expand...

Really? Cause I'm sure if you looked at the list of last 4 coaches standing in the playoffs over the last decade, you probably wouldn't be too impressed. Even if you look at the last 2 standing...

How is that clear? IMO, his superstars just weren't making shots they normally make and the Mavs were absolutely on fire in 2 games.

And if I am to accept your theory, why does coaching not matter in the regular season, but it does in the playoffs? Are you implying coaches don't try in the regular season? I can't make sense of this.
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
nbakerld said:
There's nothing "magic" about offseason acquisitions. They added Boozer, Asik, Brewer, and Korver. Adding 4 productive players could easily be the difference in 20 games. Not to mention you would expect Rose to naturally improve on his sophomore season (which he did).
Click to expand...

These are role players. You don't pick these names up in the offseason in hopes of building a championship team.
 
#39
#39
TennesseeFan07 said:
These are role players. You don't pick these names up in the offseason in hopes of building a championship team.
Click to expand...

Yeah cause championship teams don't need role players. Even if you are right, what the hell is your point? We are talking about the reasons for their improvement in the regular season, not their championship hopes.
 
#40
#40
nbakerld said:
There's nothing "magic" about offseason acquisitions. They added Boozer, Asik, Brewer, and Korver. Adding 4 productive players could easily be the difference in 20 games. Not to mention you would expect Rose to naturally improve on his sophomore season (which he did).
Click to expand...

Boozer is a terrible defender and Korver isn't much better. 2 bench players made their entire team defense improve immensely? No way it was that defensive guru they hired...
 
#41
#41
nbakerld said:
Really? Cause I'm sure if you looked at the list of last 4 coaches standing in the playoffs over the last decade, you probably wouldn't be too impressed. Even if you look at the last 2 standing...

How is that clear? IMO, his superstars just weren't making shots they normally make and the Mavs were absolutely on fire in 2 games.

And if I am to accept your theory, why does coaching not matter in the regular season, but it does in the playoffs? Are you implying coaches don't try in the regular season? I can't make sense of this.
Click to expand...

Because in the playoffs, you're playing teams with other great players for up to seven games in a row. With that talent and familiarity, gameplanning matters. The playoffs are where Brown struggled and that's where Laker fans expect greatness.

The last 15 NBA championships have been won by five coaches:
Phil Jackson 8
Gregg Popovich 4
Pat Riley
Larry Brown
Doc Rivers

Would you expect Mike Brown to be on that list? Me either.
 
#43
#43
Baker, if you're ready to call for mike brown to take the lakers to the finals, be my guest.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#44
#44
VKAman said:
Boozer is a terrible defender and Korver isn't much better. 2 bench players made their entire team defense improve immensely? No way it was that defensive guru they hired...
Click to expand...

Bulls allowed 91.3 ppg (2nd) and .430 FG% (1st) this year.

Last year they allowed 99.1 ppg (13th) and .442 FG% (3rd).

Looks like they moved from 13th to 2nd in points allowed mostly by slowing down the pace of the game.
 
#45
#45
VKAman said:
Because in the playoffs, you're playing teams with other great players for up to seven games in a row. With that talent and familiarity, gameplanning matters. The playoffs are where Brown struggled and that's where Laker fans expect greatness.

The last 15 NBA championships have been won by five coaches:
Phil Jackson 8
Gregg Popovich 4
Pat Riley
Larry Brown
Doc Rivers

Would you expect Mike Brown to be on that list? Me either.
Click to expand...

Brown's won 66% of regular season games and 61% of playoff games. Not a huge difference.

3 of those coaches have coached some pretty bad teams.
 
Last edited:
#46
#46
milohimself said:
Baker, if you're ready to call for mike brown to take the lakers to the finals, be my guest.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is taking the Lakers to the Finals. Phil is one of the few coaches that makes a difference and they got swept in the 2nd round.
 
#47
#47
nbakerld said:
Outside of Kevin Love, they are probably the least talented team in NBA history.
Click to expand...

Not even close. I'd take Love and Beasley over anyone on the Cavs. Prior to drafting Wall I would have taken them over anyone on the Wizards.

Just curious but why do you like Kevin Love so much? It's like you'll say anything you can think of in attempt to make him look better. He's not that great.

Like I said, if he were that great... he would lead his team to a better record than last place in the NBA. Basketball is the easiest sport to be carried by one guy.

I feel like we'll just go around in circles on this but it's like you've made up your mind about him based on his stats. The one stat that matters most is winning and he doesn't do that. If he were on a winning team his numbers would go down. Bosh averaged his worst numbers in just about every category this season since his first 2 seasons in the NBA.

I don't think the T'wolves roster is good but they aren't as bad as you're making them out to be. And Kevin Love isn't as good as you're making him out to be. He's just padding stats on a bad team. You put him on the Mavs, Bulls, Heat, Celtics, Lakers, Thunder etc. and he'd be like their 4th best player.


P.s. The Pacers roster outside of Granger is just as bad the T'wolves. Granger had Hibbert and Love had Beasley. Why were the Pacers able to win 20 more games than them? Aside from being in the East, the only thing I can think of is that Granger is a lot better than Love and most people don't think Granger is that great. -- I didn't include Tyler Hansbrough despite his coming out party in the playoffs. He came off the bench behind Josh McRoberts during the season.
 
#48
#48
The_Orange_Pearl said:
Not even close. I'd take Love and Beasley over anyone on the Cavs. Prior to drafting Wall I would have taken them over anyone on the Wizards.

Just curious but why do you like Kevin Love so much? It's like you'll say anything you can think of in attempt to make him look better.
Click to expand...

Beasley is a bad player. He's not even average. He's detrimental to winning. He shoots a TS% of .510 (league average is .540) so on average, when he takes a shot he makes it less likely his team wins. And the kicker is he shoots a lot. He's an average rebounder at best, too.

IMO, rebounds are terribly underrated by basically everyone. In most cases I'll take a guy who gets 15 rpg over a guy that scores 30 ppg. Kevin Love got 15 rpg, and 20 ppg (shooting a high %). He was the first 20/15 guy since Moses Malone. Moses Malone!!! Why wouldn't anyone consider Love a great player?
 
#49
#49
The_Orange_Pearl said:
P.s. The Pacers roster outside of Granger is just as bad the T'wolves. Granger had Hibbert and Love had Beasley. Why were the Pacers able to win 20 more games than them? Aside from being in the East, the only thing I can think of is that Granger is a lot better than Love and most people don't think Granger is that great. -- I didn't include Tyler Hansbrough despite his coming out party in the playoffs. He came off the bench behind Josh McRoberts during the season.
Click to expand...

The Pacers are a great rebounding team. 5th in the league. Granger's teammates help him out that way. Dunleavy is productive. McRoberts is productive. Collison is productive. Foster is productive. Rush is productive. The team doesn't have any starpower, but a collection of good role players.

And Granger is overrated. He barely shoots league average, he's a below average rebounder for his position, and he has an assist:turnover ratio of 1:1, so he's not a great ballhandler either.
 
Last edited:
#50
#50
nbakerld said:
Bulls allowed 91.3 ppg (2nd) and .430 FG% (1st) this year.

Last year they allowed 99.1 ppg (13th) and .442 FG% (3rd).

Looks like they moved from 13th to 2nd in points allowed mostly by slowing down the pace of the game.
Click to expand...

Except that they scored more points per game this year than last year...try again
 
Last edited:
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top