The Next Coach (SCOTT BROOKS HIRED pg.13)

[closg00]

Why would any top coaching candidate come to this coaching grave yard, especially when you have Ernie Grunfeld putting your team together? It's going to take $$$ and good timing to get Brooks here.

[stevemcqueen1]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/WojVerticalNBA/status/722893109193875456[/tweet]

Uh oh...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/zparker1030/status/722893951162667009[/tweet]

Ouch.

2012 wasn't that long ago, have we already forgotten it? Apparently so. That was the first year that the Durant/Westbrook/Harden trio matured into a contender and ran the gauntlet in the West. And at that point, Durant wasn't Durant yet, and Westbrook and Harden were nowhere close to being as good as they are now. Then they ran into the Heatles in their prime, when LeBron was going through the best stretch of his career and was playing at a level comparable to peak Michael Jordan. There was no shame in losing that Finals. It would have been a GIGANTIC upset if they'd won.

Then they promptly traded James Harden. But then they still got the one seed. Then Westbrook got taken out in the first round of the playoffs on a cheap shot by Patrick Beverly. Spent the whole next season recovering from the injury and subsequent unsuccessful surgeries. But then Durant went HAM and was the best player in the league and OKC still got the 2 seed. But then Ibaka got hurt before the playoffs and Westbrook was rusty as Hell trying to rush back from his injury and they lost in the WCF to the eventual Champion Spurs. Again, no shame in losing that series, they were huge underdogs. And then Durant got hurt and missed the entire next season and Westbrook missed the first month and a half of it and so they missed the playoffs and Scott Brooks was fired.

Brooks NEVER underachieved with OKC. If Patrick Beverly isn't a bitch and doesn't cheap shot Russell Westbrook, or if OKC's ownership isn't a cheapskate and doesn't trade James Harden for virtually no return, then OKC probably has a couple of trophies right now, and Brooks is probably still their coach.

[nate33]

2012 wasn't that long ago, have we already forgotten it? Apparently so. That was the first year that the Durant/Westbrook/Harden trio matured into a contender and ran the gauntlet in the West. And at that point, Durant wasn't Durant yet, and Westbrook and Harden were nowhere close to being as good as they are now. Then they ran into the Heatles in their prime, when LeBron was going through the best stretch of his career and was playing at a level comparable to peak Michael Jordan. There was no shame in losing that Finals. It would have been a GIGANTIC upset if they'd won.

Then they promptly traded James Harden. But then they still got the one seed. Then Westbrook got taken out in the first round of the playoffs on a cheap shot by Patrick Beverly. Spent the whole next season recovering from the injury and subsequent unsuccessful surgeries. But then Durant went HAM and was the best player in the league and OKC still got the 2 seed. But then Ibaka got hurt before the playoffs and Westbrook was rusty as Hell trying to rush back from his injury and they lost in the WCF to the eventual Champion Spurs. Again, no shame in losing that series, they were huge underdogs. And then Durant got hurt and missed the entire next season and Westbrook missed the first month and a half of it and so they missed the playoffs and Scott Brooks was fired.

Brooks NEVER underachieved with OKC. If Patrick Beverly isn't a bitch and doesn't cheap shot Russell Westbrook, or if OKC's ownership isn't a cheapskate and doesn't trade James Harden for virtually no return, then OKC probably has a couple of trophies right now, and Brooks is probably still their coach.

That's a fair way of looking at it, Mcqueen. You make a valid point.

We can probably add another chapter to the story. This year, they make the playoffs with everyone healthy but it happens to take place in a year when 2 of the top 15 greatest regular season teams of all time are in OKC's conference. Talk about bad luck!

[stevemcqueen1]

The more I think about this hire, the more positive I feel about it. Durant was obviously a transcendent talent and a sure thing, but Westbrook and Harden certainly weren't. The amount of growth those two demonstrated under Brooks is astonishing. If Brooks can coax even half of that amount of growth from Beal and Porter, then it's a great hire. Now I'm genuinely excited to see what Beal and Porter do next season. I hope we finally see the leap we expected to happen this year come true and Beal makes the AS game and Porter becomes one of the best three and D wings in the league.

The other encouraging thing about this is we can give Brooks the kind of bench he didn't really get to enjoy in OKC before Durant's injury. Only have 20 million dollars committed to our starting front court: 20% of our cap. Normally 20% is what it takes just to get a good starting center, or a really good starting PF. So we've got a bonus of about a starter's worth of cap space to play with. March and Keef are iron men too, we can pencil them in for 60 MPG next year, and then use our cap space to figure out the other 36 MPG in the front court.

We're not going to be able to give Brooks the kind of top end talent to work with that he had in OKC. But we can give him a more balanced roster if we use FA well.

[stevemcqueen1]

That's a fair way of looking at it, Mcqueen. You make a valid point.

We can probably add another chapter to the story. This year, they make the playoffs with everyone healthy but it happens to take place in a year when 2 of the top 15 greatest regular season teams of all time are in OKC's conference. Talk about bad luck!

Yep, they've had horrible luck. Though they did make a lot of their own bad luck by being stingy and losing Harden. Better ownership never would have let that debacle happen. When all is said and done, they traded Harden for Steven Adams in order to avoid paying what would be a HUGE bargain contract by now. It should be remembered as one of the worst trades since the merger.

[dobrojim]

Why would any top coaching candidate come to this coaching grave yard, especially when you have Ernie Grunfeld putting your team together? It's going to take $$$ and good timing to get Brooks here.

For where I'm sitting, I need convincing that there are good reasons why we would want
to bring Brooks here. He had great talent. He came close to a chip once and missed.
What characteristics does he have that would lead us to conclude he could be successful
here?

Basically I'm saying if Ernie wants him, that, in and of itself, is enough to make me
question whether it is a good idea.

[nate33]

Why would any top coaching candidate come to this coaching grave yard, especially when you have Ernie Grunfeld putting your team together? It's going to take $$$ and good timing to get Brooks here.

For where I'm sitting, I need convincing that there are good reasons why we would want
to bring Brooks here. He had great talent. He came close to a chip once and missed.
What characteristics does he have that would lead us to conclude he could be successful
here?

Basically I'm saying if Ernie wants him, that, in and of itself, is enough to make me
question whether it is a good idea.

McQueen makes a good point that Brooks didn't just have that talent, he developed it. I don't personally think Brooks is particularly strong on the X's and O's, but he does have an argument for being a good developer of talent. (Of course, that assumption is based on the notion that coaches really have much influence on player development, which is debatable. Westbrook, Harden and Durant may simply have been extremely talented from the get go.)

[gambitx777]

I think if you bring in brooks you need to bring in strong X and O guys to help him develop a strong offence, his defense is solid already, we need to put the right staff in place to help cover his weaknesses, building a staff is the same as building a team.

[McFilthy]

Gotta love the Wizards making Brooks a "priority" after interviewing precisely zero candidates. This management group is full of unwarranted certainty.

Unwarranted certainty is one of the Wizards organization's managerial weaknesses. I am all for building consensus for big decisions, but the Wizards really need a contrarian in the room to interrupt the echo chamber and to say "Sure Jan Vesley can run and jump, but Kawhi Leonard seems like a real basketball player for these reasons..."

I don't see why the Bullets are so pants-on-fire about hiring Scott Brooks NOW! Would it really hurt to conduct a job search where multiple candidates are interviewed to talk about their vision as a Wizards coach? Brooks is not Popovich. OMG We can't let The Rockets interview him!!!

[Wizardspride]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jorgeccastillo/status/723178358461325312[/tweet]\



[tweet]https://twitter.com/jorgeccastillo/status/723160253936881664[/tweet]

[Ruzious]

I will say it now: I am not on board with Scott Brooks.. This is a guy notorious for several things:
- Excellent defensive coach
- Poor at end-game planning
- Poor at plays out of timeouts
- Extremely rigid about rotations (doesn't play match ups well - shades of Etan over Haywood with Perk.)

While has shown some measure of ability to coach up his players, the flip to that are guys like Reggie Jackson (developed in Detroit), and the litany of 4th guys (like Jeremy Lamb and Perry Jones) that went nowhere.

I think it's a bad hire, even if I will root for him to succeed.

I don't agree with that last criticism. Lamb and Jones were VERY low BBIQ players that would have driven any sane coach crazy, imo. And Jackson was a ball-dominant chucker reserve on a team that didn't need another ball-dominant player. I thought they did as well with him as could be expected.

[Wizardspride]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/jorgeccastillo/status/723194704515321857[/tweet]

[TheSecretWeapon]

I don't understand their process.

Why not identify several candidates with some diversity of thought and experience? If it was me, I'd want to interview a guy like Brooks. But I'd also want to talk with a smart broadcaster type (like Kenny Smith). I'd want a guy I thought did a good job at a previous stop, and perhaps got prematurely axed -- like Monty Williams. I'd want to talk with someone like David Blatt. I'd want to talk with a few of the hungry young'uns who have been successful in the D-League -- like Jordi Fernandez, Casey Hill, Nate Bjorkgren, or Nevada Smith.

This front office seems to reach a conclusion before they've given much thought to the question.

[mictic]

I wouldn't be shocked at all if Morey doesn't even want Brooks but is just playing EG so the Wizards hire Brooks as fast as they can and don't even look at the guy he wants, maybe Blatt, maybe Hornacek, I don't know. But of all the GMs Morey is the one I'd think would go there. And EG is the one who would fall for something like that.





And btw., how can it be that you can't see stars from the moon?

[keynote]

I don't understand their process.

Why not identify several candidates with some diversity of thought and experience? If it was me, I'd want to interview a guy like Brooks. But I'd also want to talk with a smart broadcaster type (like Kenny Smith). I'd want a guy I thought did a good job at a previous stop, and perhaps got prematurely axed -- like Monty Williams. I'd want to talk with someone like David Blatt. I'd want to talk with a few of the hungry young'uns who have been successful in the D-League -- like Jordi Fernandez, Casey Hill, Nate Bjorkgren, or Nevada Smith.

This front office seems to reach a conclusion before they've given much thought to the question.

It's not certainty -- it's insecurity. Ted and EG are not confident in their ability to close. They feel inferior to other franchises, and they think the DMV is a small market. They don't think they could compete with Houston or LA in a "fair fight" -- and, on some level, losing Ariza and Pierce in consecutive summers has probably reinforced that fear.

My guess is that they have a pool of HC candidates that are all in the same tier -- much in the way that they identified a pool of "fungible" backup PGs back when they signed Maynor. But Brooks is the only one in the tier that (might) buttress their pursuit of Durant. And, of course, they believe/fear that the only chance they'll get to sign Durant is to stack the deck as much as possible. And, the only way that Brooks will sign with DC (and help w/ their pitch to Durant) is if we (a) move quickly while Houston and LA deliberate, and (b) give Brooks a Godfather offer on the condition that he forgoes taking any other meetings.

[Ruzious]

I don't understand their process.

Why not identify several candidates with some diversity of thought and experience? If it was me, I'd want to interview a guy like Brooks. But I'd also want to talk with a smart broadcaster type (like Kenny Smith). I'd want a guy I thought did a good job at a previous stop, and perhaps got prematurely axed -- like Monty Williams. I'd want to talk with someone like David Blatt. I'd want to talk with a few of the hungry young'uns who have been successful in the D-League -- like Jordi Fernandez, Casey Hill, Nate Bjorkgren, or Nevada Smith.

This front office seems to reach a conclusion before they've given much thought to the question.

Is it because they have so little confidence in their ability to attract people they want - because some potential suitors are still in the playoffs?

Remember they hurried up the process to screw themselves when they signed Maynor.

Or is it that they're too lazy to do even what others regard as just the bare minimum due diligence work?

[Dark Faze]

I think the Wiz miss out on Brooks

Ted isn't the type to pay big dollars for a coach in combination with Ernie being the type to fix in on one target and not letting him leave the room during negotiations. So the 7 million a year offer sounds like desperation on the Wiz side to get a deal done. The fact that it (apparently) hasn't been enough to get done yet is a sign that Brooks might have his eyes set on the Houston job or elsewhere.

[keynote]

Or is it that they're too lazy to do even what others regard as just the bare minimum due diligence work?

Like read the post directly above this one?

I kid, I kid.

[Ruzious]

Or is it that they're too lazy to do even what others regard as just the bare minimum due diligence work?

Like read the post directly above this one?

I kid, I kid.

Ouch, my apologies.

[Kanyewest]

2012 wasn't that long ago, have we already forgotten it? Apparently so. That was the first year that the Durant/Westbrook/Harden trio matured into a contender and ran the gauntlet in the West. And at that point, Durant wasn't Durant yet, and Westbrook and Harden were nowhere close to being as good as they are now. Then they ran into the Heatles in their prime, when LeBron was going through the best stretch of his career and was playing at a level comparable to peak Michael Jordan. There was no shame in losing that Finals. It would have been a GIGANTIC upset if they'd won.

I think it would have been a gigantic upset in the eyes of the public but OKC certainly had the talent.
Most of the ESPN writers had OKC beating Miami before the series started.(http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2012/matchup/_/teams/thunder-heat). This was mostly because the Heat had been pushed 7 games by a relatively weak Celtics team. And the Thunder had beaten a pretty strong Spurs team. In my opinion, I think the Thunder underachieved (it should have been a 6-7 game series especially since 3 of the the first five games were at home) but it may have to do more with the fact that Harden played like garbage in the finals rather than any specific coaching adjustment.