Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by djsunyc:

so you finally bring in an old school coach that wins and command respect. and it all went to hell. and the owner decided that he was the problem. great.

This is the problem. You jump from A to Z and don't look at any of the letters in between.

It didn't just all go to hell. Larry Brown took them there. We know have heard from just about every player, except JJ, JB and Woods and there is a consistant thread. Larry said one thing and then went to the media and said another, and then came back to them and said another.

You have a problem looking at facts. You begin with a premise, and will wists and contort all available data so that it fits your premise.

You Brown guys are delusional. Yes, Trevor Ariza delusional. Your hate for Isiah & Marbury make you root against your team. You hope that they fail so you can be right. Brown says he wanted Francis, but you have a way to spin that. Rookies & Vets alike say Brown was inconsistant you have a way to spin that (Dolan made them). Since player quotes are the closest we can get to understanding what actually went on, what is it you propose we go by?

What would it take for you to lose faith in Larry? Nothing apparently.
I can't even get straight answers out of you Brown guys. You can't even answer simple, straight, yes or no questions about Brown. ITs all really crazy to me. When do you stop and take an objective look at things and say, LB really asked for this, he wasn't trying to win or develop our youngsters. Sp what could he possibly have been trying to do?

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by djsunyc:

so you finally bring in an old school coach that wins and command respect. and it all went to hell. and the owner decided that he was the problem. great.

This is the problem. You jump from A to Z and don't look at any of the letters in between.

It didn't just all go to hell. Larry Brown took them there. We know have heard from just about every player, except JJ, JB and Woods and there is a consistant thread. Larry said one thing and then went to the media and said another, and then came back to them and said another.

You have a problem looking at facts. You begin with a premise, and will wists and contort all available data so that it fits your premise.

You Brown guys are delusional. Yes, Trevor Ariza delusional. Your hate for Isiah & Marbury make you root against your team. You hope that they fail so you can be right. Brown says he wanted Francis, but you have a way to spin that. Rookies & Vets alike say Brown was inconsistant you have a way to spin that (Dolan made them). Since player quotes are the closest we can get to understanding what actually went on, what is it you propose we go by?

What would it take for you to lose faith in Larry? Nothing apparently.
I can't even get straight answers out of you Brown guys. You can't even answer simple, straight, yes or no questions about Brown. ITs all really crazy to me. When do you stop and take an objective look at things and say, LB really asked for this, he wasn't trying to win or develop our youngsters. Sp what could he possibly have been trying to do?

there's no contorting. it's not that complicated and it's totally objective in it's simplest form. i don't care about micromanaging on a game by game basis. he used 43 lineups. i don't care. he called our team a bunch of pansies. i don't care. will he fix it? the answer to that is all i care about. and to me, the answer is yes. the methods used to get there are of no consequence. if that means hurting feelings and making the gm look like a dolt, then so be it. if it means winning 23 games to put that on your own personal coaching resume, so be it. the dude has an ego and is a prick. you think the 23 wins don't matter to him on his resume? especially if this is his last stop? that's why this thing is bigger than all the BS we were fed all year long. it comes down to who knows how to build a winning team. and it's obvious that lb and isiah were on two seperate pages.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by codeunknown:

And who's to say a positive environment translates into more wins in the long run anyhow?

Everyone who calls Steph a cancer and claims that him being a bad teammate and a generally not nice guy are the reason teams lose with him on it; thats who.

the same people who talk about how the Suns win because they love each other so much, etc.

the same people who post quotes from Tim Thomas about how bad a treammate Steph was and why that made him play poorly.

Those are different scenarios. A player doesn't have the authority to dominate and control the environment like the coach does. The coach is 100% of the vision behind the gameplan, the rapport with coaches etc. If he wants it a certain way, its not the player's position to interfere.

I've never cared whether Steph is a cancer or normal or a piece of degenerative tissue. I'm more interested in the on-court dynamic. And there, Stephon has positives and flaws. So, what those people may think is irrelevant to a discussion between me and you.

The Suns loving each other is crap - in other words, not the major factor behind their impressive performance. Again, talent and strategy and implementation are my interests. I happen to like Stephon - he isn't the issue. The point I was making was about the correlation between a perceived comfort level and level of performance. Mainly, that it isn't necessarily positive.

I respect that point. But it really isn't their happiness thats the key factor. Its the fact that they know their roles, and know hard play will be rewarded, thats actually why they are happy. As opposed to an atmosphere where there are no rewards, or consistancy or rhyme or reason for any of the decisions.

Thats my point, they are happy because things finally make sense, not because they think Isiah is such a nice guy; because I am certain he is not effing around with these guys at all, his professional life is on the line.

Defined roles are critical for a team looking to maximize wins. LB tried to take a year of from winning and thus he sacrificed defined roles - to teach players the nuances of basketball. The mechanism is simple. When you put players in 42 different line-ups, play them haphazardly at different positions, and play them either in garbage time or crunch time at the flip of a dime, you are consistently putting them in different, difficult situations - you make them get used to adversity. You expose them to different team dynamics and different levels of opposition. You take away the luxury of monotony for now. When they earn the luxury in the furture, they will be much better prepared. The ebb and flow of a basketball won't phase them - the last seconds of a game won't scare them - because the ability to adapt has been beaten into them.

Some people either can't stomach that and deem LB's intentions vile. Others feel like LB's method in NY wasn't going to work long-term and point to no observable tangible improvement during the season, either 1) record-wise or 2) with the players. While wins are really the only empirical, objective measurement of improvement, coaching to win has 90% to do with that and, as a result, isn't a fair standard with to measure improvement. I also disagree strongly with point 2 that the players didn't improve. I feel that every young player got significantly better and I've posted about that before. To me, its obvious and, as a result, I feel belaboring this point is unnecessary.

For those reasons, I feel like the firing of Brown may have been mistake long-term. Again, its hard to say for sure without objective measures of improvement. I'll just say it would have been interesting this year to have seen LB coach to win. To me, it would have been worth the wait.

Killa, I'm not sure exactly what your point is regarding these newly defined roles. We'll be better this year for sure. Are you suggesting we'll be better 3 years down the line? Will our players be coachable - will they know the nuances of NBA basketball and use that knowledge to limit errors? - will they be clutch performers? Are you interested in if they'll be better long-run or are you more interested in short-term improvement? I think that your point about Isiah not being a lax coach is well-taken. But, until you assess whether last year's experiment was necessary and look at whether our players will benefit most from defined roles in the long-term, your point is incomplete.

nice post code. it's about a process and looking 3 years down the line. testing the roster. seeing who responds. seeing who he can keep and go to war with. none of these things are even remote possibilities to those that think lb just lost it or went senile. he didn't. everything he did was calculated. and there were reasons for it. do i know them? hell no. but i'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt since he's done it time and time again.

if he has to drill eddy for 82 games about not lowering your shoulder...AT THE EXPENSE of playing time, then so be it. he will get the point sooner or later and then he'll be better off b/c of it. it's stuff like that that we don't know. all we know is that the players didn't like being ying yanged in the rotation and starting lineup. and that's what they complained about. and on the other hand, you have isiah telling dolan "hey, it ain't my fault". what a volatile and messy situation...

. I also disagree strongly with point 2 that the players didn't improve. I feel that every young player got significantly better and I've posted about that before. To me, its obvious

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by SlimPack:

Posted by BlueSeats:

This is why Brown wanted one or two of his former players on the team, so they could tell guys "he was the same way with us, and we all hated him, but we rode it out and then things clicked and we went far together." Instead our leaders are uncrackable nuts, hellbent on playing their way, and giving the coach ultimatums thru the media after just 7 games.

Reggie Miller was said to have hated Brown, but as a TV analyst he called him the best coach in the game, bar none. And he probably "liked" Isiah better.

I'm glad our guys like our new coach more, and I'm glad our new coach likes these guys more. But I'd feel a lot better about the whole thing if I had more faith in the leadership of this team -- but our leaders problems have revealed themselves under a multitude of coaching styles. I don't believe in finding that one needle in the haystack of coaches. Isiah makes the 5th in 2.5 years. It's not good enough he be better than Brown (who he signed). He has to make this roster (who he signed) make sense.

Are you sure larry coached the same way this season as he has in the past? becuase I dont think he did.

No, and that's why I laugh when people bask in the glory of Larry's past as if it mattered. Why don't we make Magic and Isiah be our starting back court? They had pretty good pasts too! People get old and bad at what they do and the past doesn't matter

Posted by misterearl:

CodeUnknown - you make some valid points about Brown teaching adversity through the challenge of discomfort and critique. The "Survivor" mentality has merit in an ooutward-bound kinda sorta way.



But why did that tactic need to include calling his impressionable players out in the press?

I don't care what he says behind closed doors. What person looks forward to being dissed in the media and have it spread like wildfire across the internet, on ESPN, and in print?

"Our team is a true team," France Coach Raymond Domenech said. "It's not individuals. Everybody does it together, and everybody is able to sacrifice themselves."

just for effect

keep hhope alive

Posted by codeunknown:

Defined roles are critical for a team looking to maximize wins. LB tried to take a year of from winning and thus he sacrificed defined roles - to teach players the nuances of basketball. The mechanism is simple. When you put players in 42 different line-ups, play them haphazardly at different positions, and play them either in garbage time or crunch time at the flip of a dime, you are consistently putting them in different, difficult situations - you make them get used to adversity. You expose them to different team dynamics and different levels of opposition. You take away the luxury of monotony for now. When they earn the luxury in the furture, they will be much better prepared. The ebb and flow of a basketball won't phase them - the last seconds of a game won't scare them - because the ability to adapt has been beaten into them.

Some people either can't stomach that and deem LB's intentions vile. Others feel like LB's method in NY wasn't going to work long-term and point to no observable tangible improvement during the season, either 1) record-wise or 2) with the players. While wins are really the only empirical, objective measurement of improvement, coaching to win has 90% to do with that and, as a result, isn't a fair standard with to measure improvement. I also disagree strongly with point 2 that the players didn't improve. I feel that every young player got significantly better and I've posted about that before. To me, its obvious and, as a result, I feel belaboring this point is unnecessary.

For those reasons, I feel like the firing of Brown may have been mistake long-term. Again, its hard to say for sure without objective measures of improvement. I'll just say it would have been interesting this year to have seen LB coach to win. To me, it would have been worth the wait.

Killa, I'm not sure exactly what your point is regarding these newly defined roles. We'll be better this year for sure. Are you suggesting we'll be better 3 years down the line? Will our players be coachable - will they know the nuances of NBA basketball and use that knowledge to limit errors? - will they be clutch performers? Are you interested in if they'll be better long-run or are you more interested in short-term improvement? I think that your point about Isiah not being a lax coach is well-taken. But, until you assess whether last year's experiment was necessary and look at whether our players will benefit most from defined roles in the long-term, your point is incomplete.

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by codeunknown:

Defined roles are critical for a team looking to maximize wins. LB tried to take a year of from winning and thus he sacrificed defined roles - to teach players the nuances of basketball. The mechanism is simple. When you put players in 42 different line-ups, play them haphazardly at different positions, and play them either in garbage time or crunch time at the flip of a dime, you are consistently putting them in different, difficult situations - you make them get used to adversity. You expose them to different team dynamics and different levels of opposition. You take away the luxury of monotony for now. When they earn the luxury in the furture, they will be much better prepared. The ebb and flow of a basketball won't phase them - the last seconds of a game won't scare them - because the ability to adapt has been beaten into them.

Some people either can't stomach that and deem LB's intentions vile. Others feel like LB's method in NY wasn't going to work long-term and point to no observable tangible improvement during the season, either 1) record-wise or 2) with the players. While wins are really the only empirical, objective measurement of improvement, coaching to win has 90% to do with that and, as a result, isn't a fair standard with to measure improvement. I also disagree strongly with point 2 that the players didn't improve. I feel that every young player got significantly better and I've posted about that before. To me, its obvious and, as a result, I feel belaboring this point is unnecessary.

For those reasons, I feel like the firing of Brown may have been mistake long-term. Again, its hard to say for sure without objective measures of improvement. I'll just say it would have been interesting this year to have seen LB coach to win. To me, it would have been worth the wait.

Killa, I'm not sure exactly what your point is regarding these newly defined roles. We'll be better this year for sure. Are you suggesting we'll be better 3 years down the line? Will our players be coachable - will they know the nuances of NBA basketball and use that knowledge to limit errors? - will they be clutch performers? Are you interested in if they'll be better long-run or are you more interested in short-term improvement? I think that your point about Isiah not being a lax coach is well-taken. But, until you assess whether last year's experiment was necessary and look at whether our players will benefit most from defined roles in the long-term, your point is incomplete.

Finally a logical, sound, plausible explanation of LB's methods. I will say you have laid out a theory about his style, that could account for what he was doing. However, I think if he were doing that, and communicated that to Dolan and Isiah he wouldn't be out of a job. So your explanation is plausible, but it doesn't seem likely, or why would Dolan and Zeke be so pissed at him? They wanted him here, and knew they needed him, if he said this was his plan, and this is what he was doing, from the beginning, they wouldn't have fired him. Was he using this same style on Zeke and Dolan too?
LB: Waive 6 players or I'm leaving
Zeke: WHAT?!?! You're crazy!!!
LB: Nah, I'm joking. Just get rid of Marbury for me.

I don't think any of our youngsters got better than they would have had they played anywhere else. Frye looked ready to break out big time (from early on) and then declined significantly later. Some say it was the rookie wall, but based on his inerview, it seemed like the environment and the coach demoralized him and the other yougnsters. No one can prove either side, but thats my take.

I think Zeke developed 2 J.O'Neal into a star. I also think that there is more than one way to get it done. Brown has 1 ring, he isn't the only one who knows how to coach or develop players. I don't think its: Brown gets it done or it doesn't get done. I think these young guys will be fine, I think our team will be much improved, playing together as a team, and I think next season will be a good season for us. Definitely over .500