New coach?

LAFan24 · Post #1 » by **LAFan24** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:44 am

I think Mike Brown played a huge role in many of our loses this year.

- Didn't limit Kobe's minutes
- Bad Rotations (ex. not playing Goudelock)
- Steve Blake (do i need to say more)
- Didn't keep Kobe under control (when he didn't play in the flow of the game)
- etc....

Is there even a chance that a new coach is brought in?.. :cry:

frozt · Post #2 » by **frozt** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:45 am

Nothing you listed there is different than what Phil Jackson did.

Gek · Post #3 » by **Gek** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:46 am

If the Lakers have a terrible first half of the season, I could possibly see him being gone by the All-Star break, but I think he has a full season to prove himself yet before they (Kupchak/Jimothy) think too much into it.

LAFan24 · Post #4 » by **LAFan24** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 2:47 am

frozt wrote:Nothing you listed there is different than what Phil Jackson did.

didn't the triangle offense somewhat limit Kobe and get everyone else involved though? and Kobe is going to be 34 next year, I don't see him being able to carry the game or "efficiently" average 40+ minutes every game.

Post #5 » by **Slava** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 3:02 am

Looking at how the Thunder are pretty much handing everybody's asses on a platter, I kind of think our game plan was the closest to limiting them. It was ugly but almost effective.

If we didn't crap our pants in two 4th quarters we would have stretched them the most.

I can't believe I'm saying this but I'd like to see what this team can do with some shooters and one of the two bigs traded for complimentary pieces.

Post #6 » by **snaquille oatmeal** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:29 am

SlavaMedvedenko wrote:Looking at how the Thunder are pretty much handing everybody's asses on a platter, I kind of think our game plan was the closest to limiting them. It was ugly but almost effective.

If we didn't crap our pants in two 4th quarters we would have stretched them the most.

I can't believe I'm saying this but I'd like to see what this team can do with some shooters and one of the two bigs traded for complimentary pieces.

the cavs

TruSkool · Post #7 » by **TruSkool** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:33 am

id give him another chance. its not like he failed miserably. the lakers pretty much ended where they were suppose to.

LAKESHOW · Post #8 » by **LAKESHOW** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:58 am

well i wanted adelman, but that aint gonna happen. so . . .

Mamba Venom · Post #9 » by **Mamba Venom** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 8:45 am

LAFan24 wrote:I think Mike Brown played a huge role in many of our loses this year.

- Didn't limit Kobe's minutes
- Bad Rotations (ex. not playing Goudelock)
- Steve Blake (do i need to say more)
- Didn't keep Kobe under control (when he didn't play in the flow of the game)
- etc....

Is there even a chance that a new coach is brought in?..

Brown is a plain bad coach. I thought so when he was Cleveland. Brown made Goudlock the whipping boy. He did play Hill which was smart, but basically played him enough so he will get PAID (deep voice) or leave. Brown didn't inspire any player to get better. And he had lots of issues w/ Bynum.

salmahayek · Post #10 » by **salmahayek** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 1:01 pm

Well, I think he should at least get another full season, plus the Lakers aren't going to eat all of that contract - if any of it. Maybe the last year of it if he is a total failure, but if he has any modicum of success, I think he'll be around for all of it.

Frankly, I think the Lakers are set up the best to challenge OKC and Miami in the next couple of years. With its lack of cap room and trade assets, this team is not going to be able to be reconstructed to be faster or more athletic than those teams, it just isn't going to happen.

So, better to exploit the size and inside game superiority we have while improving our speed, quickness, and athleticism.

If we can't get the trade we need for Gasol, keep him and then use him as an expiring deal the following season where perhaps he would have better trade value. In the meantime, go for it next year.

How do we know Brown's offense really failed? I don't think we do. How many times did the Lakers have offensive possessions where neither Bynum or Gasol even touched the ball? Way too many. Brown was trying to implement old San Antonio sets, which makes a lot of sense to me. How many times with those teams did the Spurs have possessions where neither Tim Duncan or David Robinson did not touch the ball? I'd bet you could count them on one hand per game.

The Lakers need to play to their strengths. No more of this:

Kobe's Shots > Bynums Shots + Gasols Shots

It's a losing formula!

I'd like to see Kobe down to 20 shots a game with Bynum and Gasol getting around 15 each.

I agree with reducing Kobe's regular season minutes, I'd like to see him down to about 34 a game. However, in defense of Brown, there was not a legitimate NBA two guard on the roster to play behind Bryant. If not trading any of the big three, I think bringing in a backup two who can defend and shoot may be the Lakers biggest need. If that player does well, play him more and let Kobe have some minutes at the three, too. He could post more there and jack up less jumpers.

One Love · Post #11 » by **One Love** » Thu Jun 14, 2012 10:52 pm

Brown was terrible with Goudluck, Ebanks and Bynum & has shortcomings but earned another year in my opinion given tje McToberts & Hill moves... Ebanks has game and needs minutes to perform... He will be solid...

PurpleMamba · Post #12 » by **PurpleMamba** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:23 am

Some of you guys are so clueless. I wanted to see more of goudelock just like the rest of you, but some of y'all are acting like he would've been the saviour of this team SMH

LAFan24 · Post #13 » by **LAFan24** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:03 am

PurpleMamba wrote:Some of you guys are so clueless. I wanted to see more of goudelock just like the rest of you, but some of y'all are acting like he would've been the saviour of this team SMH

No. What Im trying to say is "why would Mike completely take out Goudelock from the season? Was he really THAT BAD?" He is a very good 3pt shooter, something this team really needed. Mike took him out before he even got the chance to fit into his system.

AllzGudInDaHood · Post #14 » by **AllzGudInDaHood** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:11 am

LAFan24 wrote:
PurpleMamba wrote:Some of you guys are so clueless. I wanted to see more of goudelock just like the rest of you, but some of y'all are acting like he would've been the saviour of this team SMH

No. What Im trying to say is "why would Mike completely take out Goudelock from the season? Was he really THAT BAD?" He is a very good 3pt shooter, something this team really needed. Mike took him out before he even got the chance to fit into his system.

Not to mention the Lakers desperately needed someone who had some scoring ability off the bench. After they benched Goudelock, the start of second quarters consisted of a bunch of players too passive and unable to get a good look for themselves or someone else. Benching Goudelock dramatically exacerbated the Lakers' bench problems.

PurpleMamba · Post #15 » by **PurpleMamba** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:26 am

AllzGudInDaHood wrote:
LAFan24 wrote:
PurpleMamba wrote:Some of you guys are so clueless. I wanted to see more of goudelock just like the rest of you, but some of y'all are acting like he would've been the saviour of this team SMH

No. What Im trying to say is "why would Mike completely take out Goudelock from the season? Was he really THAT BAD?" He is a very good 3pt shooter, something this team really needed. Mike took him out before he even got the chance to fit into his system.

Not to mention the Lakers desperately needed someone who had some scoring ability off the bench. After they benched Goudelock, the start of second quarters consisted of a bunch of players too passive and unable to get a good look for themselves or someone else. Benching Goudelock dramatically exacerbated the Lakers' bench problems.

He's an undersized 6'3 SG with little to no PG ability.....i don't understand why you guys had such high expectations for him LAST YEAR. With that being said, I fully expect him to play his way into a meaningful role next year, summer league should be big for him

The Laker Kid · Post #16 » by **The Laker Kid** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 4:56 am

I think we're stuck with him for a while.... Jim seems to like him a lot.

Iamabeasttt · Post #17 » by **Iamabeasttt** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:31 am

I believe Sloan is available.

salmahayek · Post #18 » by **salmahayek** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:00 pm

Refresh my memory - did the Lakers look at Larry Brown for the last coaching hire? Was he available? He may have been perfect for the three - year mission of Kobe's & Pau's remaining contracts, a.k.a., ..."the championship window."

Stebo_SSK · Post #19 » by **Stebo_SSK** » Fri Jun 15, 2012 12:27 pm

I dont understand the obsession with Goudelock. He only really played when Steve Blake was hurt and he did have a few good games of the bench but overall as previously stated he is an undersized SG with no PG ability and would get torched on D. Who's minutes does he take? Kobe's? backup PG? Where does he fit into being on the court?

Post #20 » by **crazyeights** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 4:03 am

We like Goudelock, because unlike everyone but Kobe/Ron, he has the balls to be a gamer.

To say a guy is an undersized two is to ignore the glut of undersized two's in this league. Nobody here thinks he's going to be a star, but he can be a contributor if used correctly.

And re: Mike Brown. I believe offensively are in big trouble, defensively we fell off by the end of the year. But I have to say this team showed some spirit coming out after Game 1. To me I began to see a vision, it felt like the whole team was learning how to play, just a few crap close-out minutes away from an entirely different series. Obviously the Spurs were beatable, IMO the Thunder were the only team who really had our number. We had a puncher's chance, and the way we gave it up was not MB's doing, IMO.