Uh, when did Brown ever build a team himself? He wasn't the GM of his former teams. Thank God! Let's not forget his now famous bipolar love/hate thing with his players. Some of his suggestions have been good, but I give him ZERO credit for his one championship team, cuz Dumars built that team.

Isiah may not have had many wins, but in terms of remaking this team in just 2.5 seasons, coming from where he started, I think he's done a decent job with this team. Now he'll get to prove whether his work has made the team better. See if all your doing is looking at how poorly we've done in the past, then you're missing the point of what has been going on since he traded Nazr. That's when he started this process of going younger and making this team over. If not for LB we would have had a good start to this teams focus on our younger core. We've got a nice mix of vets and kids. If Lb had done his job, Isiah would only have 1 bad year on his record. Now many of those who don't like Isiah, can make it sound like he's had all these failures here, when its still only been 2.5 seasons. We thought it would take longer than that to get this team straight when he got here. In fact MOST analysts thought it would take a long time to fix that mess. Here we are going into our 3rd full season and I think this team is setup nicely for having some success after a long drought. Compare that to how long it took Chicago or many other teams to get things right.

Posted by fishmike:

I actually liked the way he played guys, and thought it made a lot of sense considering we knew this wasnt a good team pretty quickly. 2 years ago I hated how we never got to see Sweetney or Ariza for extended minutes... rather it was 10 here, 15 there. Every single guy on the roster from Ariza, to Mo T to Lee to Nate got a chance to show what they could do for a stretch of games with starter minutes. Now some of us will say thats a result of a bad season. Others will say that resulted in a bad season.

Now we get a coach that has no choice but to stroke and coddle his untradable starphucked babies, because he has too. If they quit on him he's canned by Christmas. If they dont maybe we win 38 games and oohah and holfresh can rejoice and talk about how much better Isiah is than Larry. I cant wait :)

Posted by nixluva:

Who said that our plan is to simply score a ton of points and not try to defend. Isiah never said that. I happen to think that our offense is the strongest side of the ball, but that doesn't mean that Isiah's plan is to basically ignore the defensive side or not to stress defense.

Also I think you need to rethink whether or not he's remade this team. The bulk of this team is under 30 with a long future in front of them. This was not the case before. IF ALL he did was bring in flashier players with long contracts then why do I see so much youth in our roster?:

Steph - 29
Francis- 29
Jamal - 26
QRich - 26
Jared - 25
Curry - 23
Frye - 23
Lee - 23
Nate - 22
Balkman - 22
Collins - 22

Its one thing not to like what's happened over the last 2.5 years, but don't try to make it seem like he's done nothing with this roster. Isiah clearly has started to turn the corner with this roster. Over the next 2 seasons we'll shed 3 30+ year old guys off the roster. Its OK to doubt whether this team will have success but Isiah hasn't done a bad job of turning over this roster.

Let's be fair. When he got here we still had some hope that H2O would be part of this and since we still had KT, that meant that Dolan wanted to give it a shot with those guys. It made some sense, since H2O had a huge contract. Once that dream was over, Isiah moved to go in a new direction and we haven't been at this for very long. Last season was going to be the 1st year. So I fail to see what your issue with him is. There's a CLEAR distinction between the H2O/KT Knicks and where we're going now. But then details don't matter to some of you guys. Why worry about that when you can just lump these years all together. Isiah spent a yr and half going one way and so far 1 season going in this new direction. With the arrival of Curry, Frye, Lee & Nate this is a new direction, so let's keep up with current events. LB ruined yr one, but we can make up for that this year.

Posted by fishmike:

I actually liked the way he played guys, and thought it made a lot of sense considering we knew this wasnt a good team pretty quickly. 2 years ago I hated how we never got to see Sweetney or Ariza for extended minutes... rather it was 10 here, 15 there. Every single guy on the roster from Ariza, to Mo T to Lee to Nate got a chance to show what they could do for a stretch of games with starter minutes. Now some of us will say thats a result of a bad season. Others will say that resulted in a bad season.

Now we get a coach that has no choice but to stroke and coddle his untradable starphucked babies, because he has too. If they quit on him he's canned by Christmas. If they dont maybe we win 38 games and oohah and holfresh can rejoice and talk about how much better Isiah is than Larry. I cant wait :)

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by wsdm:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Don't hear this wrong, but Brown said that Isiah told him who to play. I'm not saying isiah told him to use 42 lineups, but it's possible that since they had different concepts on who merited time that they decided between them to give everybody a good look. An extended audition if you will, especially after Marbury went down and all shots at the playoffs were kaput.

Instead of arguing over who merited time, give them all a shot and see who rises to the top.

It's possible.

Even if true, this hardly makes Brown's coaching less assinine but I would be interested in seeing the quote you're referring to.

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=560501&sid=f2b17f0280dad0335d6bdc6972020721


Quote:
Larry Brown was interviewed on the John Thompson show yesterday. They didn't ask many good questions (which is typical of John Thompson), but it was still pretty interesting. Larry seems somewhat bummed. He did say that he first got the feeling like he made a mistake taking the job when after a bad loss early in the season, Isiah told him he should play one player over another. He said he told Isiah that he should be coaching the team, because anyone who knows how he coaches should know that he decides who plays. Thompson did ask about the playing people in their home town thing, and Larry said he got that from Dean Smith, and that the thinking is that you play harder when at home in front of friends and family. He also said that he has done that everywhere he has coached. Larry also said that if they fired him because they only won 23 games, he'd understand, but it is incorrect to suggest that he wasn't trying to win, and thus he deserves his money. He went on to say how he hates to end his coaching career on this note, but he doubts he has it in him to coach another NBA team. He said he'd like to watch all his coaching friends coach and go to practices and help them out in some capacity. Although he didn't think he'd be coaching high school, he'd like to coach at some shoe company's camp, or something like that. He seemed turned off by AAU.

Larry also said he liked the format that Team USA was using now, and thought that was the only way we could succeed in the future.

It sounds like they disagreed, though. It sounds like Isiah was NOT the source of Brown's silly rotations but rather disagreed with them.

Posted by wsdm:

[quote][b]Posted by BlueSea
It sounds like they disagreed, though. It sounds like Isiah was NOT the source of Brown's silly rotations but rather disagreed with them.

It sounds like two HOF coaches in the span of a year decided early on that they made a mistake coming here and trying to work for Isiah.

And this is probably consistent with his authoritarian handling of the marketing department, Chaney, Shandon, the medical staff, and the loss of a 30+ year HOF broadcaster.

Posted by oohah:

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by buddapaw:

Posted by joec32033:

Larry showed his true colors and the players reacted accordingly.

If this is the whole point you are trying to make, Larry showed his true colors for 30 years. Same act different teams.

I can't decide whether it was arrogance or stupidity that made Dolan and Isiah think that LB would change his way of doing things(which happen to be very successful) for them.

Larry is an anal, stodgy, old bastard. Not one person has ever denied that. His true colors are out there, and have been for a while. Everyone thought these players were tough enough and committed enou to be winners. Apparently they weren't.

Maybe it was the players who showed their true colors.

[Edited by - joec32033 on 09-20-2006 09:13 AM]

Of his 30 years he has never done anything like this. Why now? Is it the bright lights of NYC? He wanted players to play with consistency and never gave them consistent minutes. He wanted players to earn their time on the court, then when they do perform they can be inactive the next game. Please do tell what was his reasoning, what the hell was going on in Larry's head. How making an adjustment during the year did he do that? Yes he will get his money, but he as sure as hell doesn't deserve it. Yeah the Dolan and IT team makes everyone sick, but this team was in essence rebuilding so why were the old farts playing who are not the future of the team. We needed to give our rooks time to develop we were already losing so why not give them a major share of the minutes. After the all-star break when Nate won the Slam Dunk thingy why was he inactive, Larry preached pressure the ball and playing defence this is what Nate gives you. I think it was Larry's way to show Nate that he was the star in this town. I blame Dolan and IT for hiring Larry Brown, they knew what kind of snake he was and probably made stipulations in his contract, but if it crawls like a snake, looks like a snake well it must be a snake. Again you can't publicly bash players constantly(note I said constantly because you can use the media to light a fire under a players ass occasionally) and expect them to run through walls for you.

Huh? Never pulled anything like this before? Are you kidding?

His showdown with Iverson for six years? Wanting to David Robinson? Begging to have Mark Jackson traded then begging to get him back in Indiana? The crap with Darko? The way he exits everywhere he goes? The reason he never stays anywhere is he is too abrasive and anal and player get tired of it-that is his rep, right? All the crap he pulled with Detroit to get out of there? You remember how he didn't play Dalembert consistently(if at all) in Philly? Everywhere he is the players hate him and everywhere he was they talk about him like dear old Grandpa who was the most influential guy in their lives? And it's not just role players like McKey or Snow it STARS like Miller and Iverson and Rasheed and Billiups...How demanding he is on PG's and how much they hate it? Then when he is done teaching them they say he was exactly right?

Larry is not a players coach. But he is without a doubt one of the best coaches out there. He is also one of the most high maintenance coaches out there.

All that said, he DID have a track record of acting like this. This was not a guy like Steve Spurrier(Washington Redskins) who was unproven and high maintenance-this was Larry Brown. To use the excuse "we'll we didn't expect him to act like this" is a cop out. Noone should have expected LB to act any differently than he did. The only difference is we all expected him to win, which he didn't-through partially his fault and partially his players-who couldn't seem to find a compromise. Which also is a little weak because he has one before. We had 2 players who played any meaningful minutes in the playoffs ever-Richardson and Malik.

Joe you make a very interesting point about why it was better to let LB go rather than give in to his demands. He wanted David top 50 ever Robinson traded. He wanted Allen MVP Iverson traded. He wanted Billups and Hamilton(I think?) traded. He wanted Mark Jackson traded then realized he made a big mistake.

Imagine if he had gotten his way with Robinson or Iverson or Billups/Hamilton. These are very good reason not to trust his judgement regarding player personell indeed.

oohah

And if we were arguing over who should be GM I wouldn't pick LB OR Isiah at this point, considering one has standards to high, and the other's standards is that a player just has to be "long and athletic".

IMO very very very few coaches should throw their hat into the GM ring while being coaches.

Larry always had a strong GM that could tell him no, but Larry also always had a strong GM that stood behind him and told the players he is the boss. He didn't have that here. Not once did Isiah discipline Marbury in the whole fiasco that was last season.

Look, you don't like the barbs, then suspend both of them one game for conduct detrimental to the team. Larry has to know he is the boss over the players-and the players have to know that, also-that didn't happen here. Marbury was given too much leeway within this organization and he used it.

Do you think it would have been more effective if-instead of Larry "flexing his juice card hard", Isiah flexed LB's juice card to Marbury for LB. Based on their relaionship-from an outsider looking in- all Isiah had to tell Steph was "Larry is the boss. You have to listen to him or I WILL discipline you." End of story.

Posted by TheGame:

Originally posted by 4949:

Larry coaching to lose is rediculous! Larry was trying to get control' of his team and that's all it was. All they had to do is get out there and do what he wanted, but starbury led the way in the attitude problem this team developed towards the end of the season. The way Larry coaches is his style, love it or not, was the way we should have went. I hope he coaches again and proves once again his methods and what the Knicks lost out on.

I don't know if Larry was intentionally trying to lose games (although I am not convinced he wasn't), but it is clear he made several unbelievably bad decisions. He failed to establish a rotation that would give the team stability and the players defined roles. He inexplicably pulled the rookies at times when it was clear to all that they were performing better on the court. He tried to play M. Rose as a small forward even though he was ill-suited to the role both offensively and defensively. He decided to attack Marbury, or all people, in the press, a move every other person in the world knew was going to backfire and blowup in his face. Whether he did these things to purposely lose games in an attempt to get IT fired and gain power or whether it was part of some master plan than none of us are smart enough to understand, the bottom line is that the guy was a terrible coach for us last year.

Moreover, I disagree with the team revolted so it was not Larry's fault argument. IT made it very clear to the players at the beginning of the season that Larry was in control, and these players came into camp willing to do what Larry wanted. The loses mounted under Larry's system and ever-changing lineups, and rather than attempt to rally the team, Larry started to sell his players out in the media. Even then the players attempted to continue to follow the guy, but he did not do anything to create any sense of stability in the team. The revolt occurred, to the extent there was one, at the end of the season when everything was already out of control. The simple fact of the matter is that, if the coach is not going to be loyal to the players, the players are not going to be loyal to the coach. Larry showed his true colors and the players reacted accordingly.

I still say Larry exposed' the attitude problem that we have on this team. Be it starbury and maybe possibly a few others. We'll see.