Posted by nixluva:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Tell me Crawford didn't get better, tell me Nate didn't get better significantly, tell me Frye, Lee, Butler and Woods didn't get better.
Crawford's the only who might have gotten better. The others were good from the beginning. They were simply benched b/c they were young. Frye was rookie of the month in the first month and worsened if anything due to low confidence. Lee was the same hustle and energy player. He improved his jumpshot but you can't say that was because of Brown. Woods was always talented. He just finally had his head on straight. I'll give Brown and Isiah credit on that one. Jamal played some great meaningless games in the final few weeks. Butler looked solid even from the beginning of the year on those rare occasions he got a chance to play. The verdict: Of all the players you listed, only one improved during the year and it was only for a few weeks.
Bonn1997 is right. And even the whole Jamal thing is a bit dubious. The guy could always play. He just needed to refine his game. I'm not sure it was necessary to have him TOTALLY lost for most of the year, just to get his game right for a few weeks. Was it the only way to reach him and get him to play better? I don't think so. There's never just ONE WAY to do anything in Basketball. Chuck Daly wasn't a tyrant and was none not to believe in tough long practices, yet his teams were tough and played hard every night. Don't tell me that LB has the corner on coaching and there's no other way to achieve good results. LB's job was to coach the team and win games. He's NOT THE GM and tho his input can be of some help. He wasn't the GM in Detroit either and they did quite fine. IF LB shuts up and coaches, he's still here now and we wouldn't have been so embarrassed.
Nixluva, here's how credit works. You get it if it happened under your watch. Crawford has been in the league for 5 years. Its not coincidence that only this year did he finally understand how to play basketball. Refining his game has been the ultimate obstacle for Crawford over 5 years. LB beat it into Crawford. 1 point to LB.
Nate got significant playing time - frankly, more than I think he earned. He
played 21.4 mpg. Lets not forget how he played at the beginning of the year, throwing up shot after shot and gambling for ill-advised steals. Despite his potential, he sucked and he hurt the team. Towards the end of the year, Nate was more of a reliable decision maker. Watch the last 15 games (I have some on tape) - he got in the lane more frequently and found open people. He took open shots against shifting defenses. He had 2 30 point games. He was better by the end of the season and, in my opinion, much better. 2 points to LB.
Q Woods wasn't playing in the NBA at the beginning of the season. There were multiple reasons for that. He ended up showing hustle and rebounding and
earning 20 mpg by the end of the season. Again, look at the starting point and end point. Don't point to his potential because that alone was doing him no favors when he was unemployed. He took better shots and shot 50%. LB made him better. 3 points to LB.
Frye got roughly 12 ppg and 6 rpg on
24.2 mpg. He took good shots and shot 48%. He got tired towards the end and that was obvious. He was soft in college for those who saw him. Post-training camp, he shed the label significantly. Again 4 years of soft, and 1 year of hustle play under LB. Not a coincidence. Coincidence generally isn't a good argument when it happens repeatedly. The trend of hard-nosed play continues with the younger players. 4 points to LB.
Lee played 17mpg on 67 games and Butler played 14mpg for 55 games.
I'm not sure how much one can reasonably expect to play rookies but LB played them enough to hurt the win total in my opinion. Also enough to develop them. Take it for what its worth.
[Edited by - codeunknown on 06-25-2006 01:14 AM]Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
