RealGM

TGW wrote:The same exact criticism of Brooks now is literally why he was fired in OKC. It's like the Wizards FO did no research when they hired him. They made their mind up based on OKC getting to a finals series with a prime Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, and James Harden off the bench.

Thing is, none of them were in their primes. They were all only between 22-23 years old.

Though Ibaka has always been rumored to be 5-7 years older than his listed age

FAH1223 wrote:

payitforward wrote:You know what would be fun? If we went back to take a look at the thread from 5 years ago when so many people here were excited by the possibility of hiring Brooks.

Tell me, all you who were excited that Scott Brooks would be our coach, all you who were convinced of the value he would add... what have you learned from the fact that you were wrong about Scott Brooks?

What have I learned? I didn't think he would be terrible. I didn't know what he would be. I certainly didn't think he would suddenly make the Wizards a better team.

I didn't vote in this poll. Only 5 people have voted in it. Maybe that's a good thing? Maybe it means we don't really think there's a coach candidate out there who is likely to make this team "good." Though it's hard to imagine one who would make it any worse!

I just put the poll together a couple hours ago, PIF.

And I hated that Brooks got hired without the organization even interviewing anyone else. Remember, Randy Wittman was let go and Brooks was hired within like 48 hours with that ridiculous 5 year $35M contract. All because Grunfeld knew Brooks from their time in the 1990s with the Knicks.

Even stupider than that. Brooks was hired because Kevin Durant kinda liked him as a person, whether or not he liked him as a coach. We had hired David Adkins (KD's developmental coach) then swiftly overpaid for Brooks, and figured that's it that's all we need to do, we are in the running for Durant. If I recall people were peeved that there was no coaching search. And that we were ignoring everything Durant had actually said, and not said, about coming here.

NatP4 wrote:I sincerely hope that Otto Porter story is not true. Wow

I'm no fan of Brooks, but that doesn't sound like something he'd do. He seems like the kind of coach who wants to be loved by his players.

FAH1223 wrote:

payitforward wrote:You know what would be fun? If we went back to take a look at the thread from 5 years ago when so many people here were excited by the possibility of hiring Brooks.

Tell me, all you who were excited that Scott Brooks would be our coach, all you who were convinced of the value he would add... what have you learned from the fact that you were wrong about Scott Brooks?

What have I learned? I didn't think he would be terrible. I didn't know what he would be. I certainly didn't think he would suddenly make the Wizards a better team.

I didn't vote in this poll. Only 5 people have voted in it. Maybe that's a good thing? Maybe it means we don't really think there's a coach candidate out there who is likely to make this team "good." Though it's hard to imagine one who would make it any worse!

I just put the poll together a couple hours ago, PIF.

And I hated that Brooks got hired without the organization even interviewing anyone else. Remember, Randy Wittman was let go and Brooks was hired within like 48 hours with that ridiculous 5 year $35M contract. All because Grunfeld knew Brooks from their time in the 1990s with the Knicks.

PREACH, Brotha!

I always felt that Ted Leonsis, a Greek-American immigrant offspring, and Ernie Grunfeld, a Romanian-American immigrant offspring; I felt they were too much kindred to be objective of one another's decisionmaking.

(joke) Anybody ever see the movie "Dumb and Dumber"? The not-so-wise, knee-jerk basketball decisions bothered me. Bothered some of you guys, too.

I recall wanting someone other than Brooks 5 years ago. Not sure who, but if Joerger was available, that's who I wanted THEN and NOW.

Your next Zards head coach.



Just kidding.

Kenny Atkinson is the only one that makes sense. Vanterpool just reeks of "let's sign a guy who has ties to DC" signing. This is make or break for Beal, you just can't promote Robert Pack and expect things to be different. Gotta get rid of that entire staff including that coach we brought on b/c we thought we had a shot at KD.

doclinkin wrote:

Eretz Yisrael wrote:I'd like the Wizards to bring back David Blatt in a head coaching capacity.

I've been pushing for this for years. LeBron may have killed his career in the NBA, but he won everywhere else he has been. He runs the sort of Princeton hybrid that actually works, with movement and passing that makes every player a danger. He would absolutely find use for ballhandling bigs like Deni.

He does seem to wear out his welcome somehow. Not sure why. Same thing with Dave Joerger who I also like. They both seem to improve their teams, then I suppose irritate the ownership and move on.

One Euro coach I'd be interested in is a guy who I think played for David Blatt at Maccabi. Sarunas Jasikevicius has won at every level other than the NBA, where he was something of a scrub role-player. He played for Maryland, then went on to a superstar career in the Euroleague. He now coaches Barcelona. Where David Blatt is a demainding guy who tends to get under your skin, Saras seems both tough minded and affable, loved by his players. That would seem to be a better fit for the NBA, but maybe he could bring in Blatt as an assistant.

Blatt coaching against LeBron in a playoff setting would be interesting.

doclinkin wrote:

FAH1223 wrote:

payitforward wrote:You know what would be fun? If we went back to take a look at the thread from 5 years ago when so many people here were excited by the possibility of hiring Brooks.

Tell me, all you who were excited that Scott Brooks would be our coach, all you who were convinced of the value he would add... what have you learned from the fact that you were wrong about Scott Brooks?

What have I learned? I didn't think he would be terrible. I didn't know what he would be. I certainly didn't think he would suddenly make the Wizards a better team.

I didn't vote in this poll. Only 5 people have voted in it. Maybe that's a good thing? Maybe it means we don't really think there's a coach candidate out there who is likely to make this team "good." Though it's hard to imagine one who would make it any worse!

I just put the poll together a couple hours ago, PIF.

And I hated that Brooks got hired without the organization even interviewing anyone else. Remember, Randy Wittman was let go and Brooks was hired within like 48 hours with that ridiculous 5 year $35M contract. All because Grunfeld knew Brooks from their time in the 1990s with the Knicks.

Even stupider than that. Brooks was hired because Kevin Durant kinda liked him as a person, whether or not he liked him as a coach. We had hired David Adkins (KD's developmental coach) then swiftly overpaid for Brooks, and figured that's it that's all we need to do, we are in the running for Durant. If I recall people were peeved that there was no coaching search. And that we were ignoring everything Durant had actually said, and not said, about coming here.

True! I'd completely forgotten that.

Illuminaire wrote:I'm kind of curious what I said back then. I'm pretty sure I thought he was a mediocre coach, though I recall him impressing me in a podcast a few months before he was hired, where it sounded like he'd learned a lot from his failures at OKC.

Hahahaha. Nope.

The spin at the time was he would help Wall/Beal/Otto develop into elite players. It has worked for Wall up to a point and injuries got in the way. For Beal it did. Porter never truly got there although he hasn't played as well since leaving to Chicago.

Also the odds of increasing their chances at KD although obviously the 2016 season went so poorly that the Wizards lost out even on the Al Horford sweepstakes and settled to sign some pretty bad contracts.

His playoff resume is alright. People note the 2012 Thunder were loaded but of course so were the 2012 Spurs- losing to the Heat due to some controversial calls IMO and lack of experience is the best on his resume and even those had faults (not going enough to small ball lineups with Ibaka at center for instance).

In 2013 Westbrook was injured by Pat Beverly and lost to the tough minded Memphis Grizzlies.

In 2014, Ibaka was injured and this time the Thunder couldn't beat the Spurs who were dialed in especially with revenge on the Heat.

In 2015, Durant missed most of the season and the Thunder failed to make the playoffs.

There were signs of him not developing a bench, which was always a weak point for him in OKC, playing guys like Eric Maynor over Nate Robinson- or staying with Perkins lineups at center.

Rafael122 wrote:Kenny Atkinson is the only one that makes sense. Vanterpool just reeks of "let's sign a guy who has ties to DC" signing. This is make or break for Beal, you just can't promote Robert Pack and expect things to be different. Gotta get rid of that entire staff including that coach we brought on b/c we thought we had a shot at KD.

Atkinson is a strong candidate for the job...not sure why you would say that he's "the only one that makes sense" though.

If Vanterpool turns out to be the best person for the job why would you hold his DC ties against him?

Rafael122 wrote:Kenny Atkinson is the only one that makes sense. Vanterpool just reeks of "let's sign a guy who has ties to DC" signing. This is make or break for Beal, you just can't promote Robert Pack and expect things to be different. Gotta get rid of that entire staff including that coach we brought on b/c we thought we had a shot at KD.

How is Kenny Atkinson the only one that makes sense?

I'm pushing Vanterpool out the way b/c it's Beal's walk year, and if management needs to show him they're serious about winning, then picking a 1st year head coach is just a bad move from an optics standpoint. Atkinson got the raw end of the deal in Brooklyn, and I think he'd be a very good hire.

Rafael122 wrote:I'm pushing Vanterpool out the way b/c it's Beal's walk year, and if management needs to show him they're serious about winning, then picking a 1st year head coach is just a bad move from an optics standpoint. Atkinson got the raw end of the deal in Brooklyn, and I think he'd be a very good hire.

My favorite is also Atkinson. I really like what he did at Brooklyn.

My worry is whether Beal/Westbrook will let themselves to be coached...as they are used to be in systems with no accountability on the stars.

Just as I hope the Zards don't hire another so-called "players' coach" like Scott Brooks they also should avoid hiring a coach that players dislike. The Zards new head coach needs to capable of striking a happy medium...if that's possible.

This is what was written about Atkinson's firing by the Nets. Link to full story is at the bottom.

While the “tough love” style of coaching has its benefits, it’s outdated in today’s NBA. Players don’t want to be continuously challenged by their coaches; they want to feel comfortable and in control. Kyrie Irving doesn’t want to have to worry about the possibility of being benched in the fourth quarter for having a bad turnover. Kevin Durant doesn’t want to think about being benched for shooting a contested three.

While Atkinson does not coach with the intent of aggravating his players, he was unwilling to adapt and change his coaching style. That also goes for Irving and Durant, who were reluctant to adapt to Atkinson’s methods. Unfortunately for him, it’s a player-driven league, and the players will get their way 99 out of 100 times.

https://battleofnysports.com/why-kenny-atkinson-was-fired/

Nothing wrong with a “players coach” IMO. Brooks was just a flat out moron. He didn’t understand how to have proper NBA spacing or ball movement on offense. He couldn’t identify actual talent. His player usage/substitution patterns were mind boggling. He didn’t hold certain players accountable, was anti-analytics, was totally lost when it came to late game execution, had no idea how to diagnose problems after a loss, wasn’t very good at motivating, couldn’t draw up a quality defensive gameplan to save his life and was TERRIBLE at developing young talent.

Brooks didn’t have one single strength as a coach.

A players coach has to be able to still build a culture of accountability. You have to treat the star player the same as #15 guy on a 10 day contract. Everyone has to be required to value every possession and commit to making the right play on offense and giving maximum effort on defense. That has to be the standard of a championship team. If players can’t buy into that, they have to be moved.

That’s my argument for Jay Wright. He has built an outstanding culture at Villanova from the ground up. All of his players have gotten over themselves and are committed to making the right play and giving maximum effort. Team success is far more important than individual success. He has recruited players that go on to become massively positive impact players in the NBA despite lacking any kind of flashiness. Brunson, Divencenzo, Hart, and Bridges are all coaches dreams. Wright has an advanced understanding of basketball both offensively and defensively and is a far more intelligent person than Scott Brooks.

Jay Wright certainly has been a great coach at the college level, and has put in the time at that level. He has shown that he can create success given average "parts". That said, with Beal, Westbrook, and other veterans on the team, we can't wait for a college coach to transition to being an NBA coach. If we hire him as an assistant, I would sing praises to that move.

FAH1223 wrote:

Read on Twitter

Man. This is so bad it's comical

Frichuela wrote:

FAH1223 wrote:

Read on Twitter

Man. This is so bad it's comical

My only quibble is that I don't think Neto had a very clear passing angle to get the ball to Bertans. Neto doesn't have the size to make that pass over the top, and Gary Trent Jr. was in position to intercept a straight line pass. I don't mind Neto taking that shot.

He is right about all the other stuff though. Toronto didn't bother to guard Avdija. Mathews should have been in the game. And Neto should have used the foul to give.