Posted by oohah:

The most mentally tough guy last year... Jamal.. the guy that improved the most.. defended the best.. will be demoted? That doesn't make any sense. The only reason I can see Francis starting is trade-bait.. if the playoffs are your destination.. then, this doesn't make alot of sense.

Jamal was not the most mentally tough last year, he just composed himself nicely off the court. Most of last season was a disaster for JC until the end portion, the exception being a short stretch in the first half where he had a few good games.

IOW, he started and ended well but lapsed in the middle when he was asked to start but with Marbury and AD (two erstwhile starters) absent from the lineup. At the same time he was in constant trade rumors and a sexual harassment suit rocked the franchise.

He slumped when EVERYONE slumped.

Posted by oohah:

IOW, he started and ended well but lapsed in the middle when he was asked to start but with Marbury and AD (two erstwhile starters) absent from the lineup. At the same time he was in constant trade rumors and a sexual harassment suit rocked the franchise.

He slumped when EVERYONE slumped.

What does IOW mean?

Looking at the game log, your recollection is more accurate, but the greater point is that Jamal is historically inconsistent, and that was not cured last year. Inconsistency is not a good thing to have in any of your starters. When JC is bad he is putrid, and that is not just last year.

I believe JC coming off the bench, knowing that his role is mainly to score can make him much more effective a la Ben Gordon, and if he is in one of his funks, yank his ass!

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 07-07-2006 2:18 PM]

Posted by oohah:

[
JC was the one player I agreed with LB use of. I think JC needed the tough love approach (But not the whole team at once!) to get him to THINK.

Posted by oohah:

Now the results sucked, so you can claim to have been right, but I don't think coddling this team would have served it better long term. I agree with Brown, I'd have loved to have seen the guys who couldn't deal with it traded or cut and to work with those who could. Then I'd have trusted we had a team build of metal, instaed of this fluff we need to cajole into playing hard.

It's not about coddling, you just can't throw everyone in the hole simultaneously, even if everyone needs it. It is bound to become a nightmare. There is an area between coddling and the Bobby Knight routine.

oohah

but wouldn't this be the quickest way to find out who's tough and who isn't? isn't this the way each individual player would respond to this situation in their own way? if jamal crawford could persevere, then why couldn't marbury or eddy or anybody like that. why can one player do it but another can't? this is about building a tough team mentally to challenge for a title. lb wasn't brought in to coach this team...he was brought in to fix this team...and somewhere along the lines, they forgot that.

but wouldn't this be the quickest way to find out who's tough and who isn't? isn't this the way each individual player would respond to this situation in their own way? if jamal crawford could persevere, then why couldn't marbury or eddy or anybody like that. why can one player do it but another can't? this is about building a tough team mentally to challenge for a title. lb wasn't brought in to coach this team...he was brought in to fix this team...and somewhere along the lines, they forgot that.

Posted by oohah:

Maybe, but I'm not sure playing favorites and treating people differently works either.

And again, some of the people who I think needed the tough love the most took it the worst, and that's a conundrum. That's where you need more tough nosed veteran leadership that we lack. Our veteran leadership is of the selfish and negative variety and it's killed more than one coach so far.

It is not about favorites or treating people differently. You cannot make a 'project' out of every player on a team. You just can't. You do it with one or two players that you are trying to meld, but not 12-15 players. You pick the guys that you believe will be able to benefit from such a treatment, the rest you treat like grown men, and if you don't like them, hopefully you can get some of them traded or work on them after you get what you wanted from the first couple.

Whether these guys killed Wilkens, Chaney, and Williams is up for debate, but Brown killed his own self.

Posted by oohah:

Who on this team is not a project?

Is Marbury a finished product PG? How about JC or Nate?
Are JC or Q finished product SGs?
Who was our finished product SF? Woods? Lee?
Who was our finished product PF? Frye? Lee? Mo?
Who was our finished product Center? Eddy, JJ, Butler?

You are interpreting what I am saying differently from how I meant it. Usually a project as you are describing is a raw player like Ariza. My understanding of what you are saying is that every player is in need of development.

LB was trying to remake players, not just develop them. I am saying choose a couple of players to remake at a time.

You cannot make a project out of every player on the team because that is simply too much to chew on, and the way LB did it alienated every player, from the rookies to the vets, even those that were thought to be on his side. Frequently this happens with a player that is being "worked on". But you can't alienate a whole team and expect to build. One should choose projects carefully.

I think he should have chosen JC and Curry, because they have the most to offer that has yet to be tapped. They both need tough love, Curry because of his motivational problems, JC because of stupidity. They need encouragement as well.

Marbury was not in desperate need of rehab, and maybe he is next years project, or do Marbury this year and JC next year. Baby steps, not the whole kit and kaboodle at once.

I think we're getting lost in semantics. There is no evidence he tried to 'remake' every player at once, or treated them as 'projects.'

He's NOT a player's coach, we can agree on that, and he's abrasive and demanding. But what is this distinction of project vs development?

He asked of his PGs what everyone knew he'd ask of them: to initiate the offense quickly, and try to make their teammates better. Ask guys like Mo Cheeks, Mark Jackson, Eric Snow and Chauncey Billips if they appreciate the results of his similar efforts on them. And to everyone else he simply demanded effort and a team first attitude. I don't see why that should be considered an extreme makeover of anyone.

And the truth is that when Marbury finally gave effort everything worked fine and we won 6 straight. What a coincidence that when your best player takes the brakes off things go better. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that had Marbury not gotten injured and AD been traded that the success and momentum wouldn't have continued.

Brown was brought in to rectify a team that went 17-39 (.304) over the second half of the prior season. While Isiah was courting Brown he was telling the media he was EMBARRASSED to be associated with a SOFT team. He was disappointed in their mental toughness. I think it's a fair assumption that Brown's directive was to make the team tougher.

Not surprisingly, into his camp came bad attitudes, poor conditioning, and untied shoelaces. He brought his 30 years of credibility and formulae of success to bear upon the problems, to make a soft team tougher. Some guys did respond. Jamal, Mo and Q for instance were all taking more contact than ever before in their careers. And just when things appeared to be turning the corner with a win streak... WHAM... shnit happened. Marbury was injured, AD was suspended then traded, the GM was hit with a harassment suit, and trades were made that disrupted the already fragile chemistry.

Brown may have failed to make this team tougher. I expect a better result from isiah because I think these guys (as distinct from every other team brown has ever coached) will respond to Isiah's honey better than Larry's vinegar. They wont quit on isiah like they did Larry. But that doesn't mean the issues of toughness and chemistry will be resolved, because that was not allowed to be seen through. It just means we'll be back to square one, with a team like the one Wilkens coached: a team without a foundation -- showing signs of success while perched on a precipice of disaster.

[Edited by - BlueSeats on 07-08-2006 6:18 PM]

Posted by rvhoss:

there is nothing to see here.