Posted by Silverfuel:

I dont know why he is doing this. If he wants to get rid of Steph, why not just stfu and let Isiah do his job. Why confuse everyone by saying things that make no sense?

Because he is bi-polar. I defy anyone to give a more rational explanation for his constant contradictory statements.

Very interesting. That was 6 months ago.

Why post that now? Larry sucked this year.

Here is the difference and why Larry still gets another chance.

He has a successful history of winning.

Steph has a history of being a great player with great stats but yields little in terms of winning or beinga leader.

Its not that its stephs fault the season sucked, but its just that he is not a type of player who can bind with his players. This is not new by any means.

Question is not convincing us that Larry sucks, but how do we go forward and improve.

Personally my choice is for Marbs to take his incredible talent and use it properly but he fights maturit and fights humility.

Having incredible tools is wonderful but not knowing how to use them is a waste.

Sad he might have gone past the point of no return.

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by Silverfuel:

I dont know why he is doing this. If he wants to get rid of Steph, why not just stfu and let Isiah do his job. Why confuse everyone by saying things that make no sense?

Because he is bi-polar. I defy anyone to give a more rational explanation for his constant contradictory statements.

dude is a yenta. but something was going on behind the scenes that we're not aware of. he always complains and he never really went at steph until steph started "suggesting" things in the press. but there are some people he never criticized openly despite their horrid play, like q and malik. there has to be a reason why he did.

It is truly amazing how you have twisted this into Steph vs LB and found a new way to excuse his childish behavior. This dude is a senior with a bladder problem and acts like hes 12!!! Yeah, itas all Steph's fault. Do you see what I mean? I am pointing out how he said that you don't fix things by changing players and than shortly after hes talking about how flawed the roster is. You see, 'Its all Steph's fault.' Unreal.

Q's brother was killed mid-season, and I think he deserved a pass for that. Plus I think he was kissing Brown's ass to keep that pass in tact. Malik was his pet, so he saw no flaws in his game, no matter how bad it was. LB plays favorites.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 04-24-2006 10:09 AM]

[Edited by - killa4luv on 04-24-2006 10:11 AM]

Posted by Silverfuel:

Posted by Nalod:

That was 6 months ago.

Crap. I should've realized that when it read "0-4". I take back my previous statement. I would be annoyed if he said something like that now though. What about you Nalod? Would u be confused/annoyed if he said something like that now.

Thats why I posted the whole quote, I didn't want to mislead people, I wanted them to know around when he said it.

DJ brings up an interesting point, who exactly has the best interest of this team. I posted this link awhile back but I thought maybe it would make sense just to post it.

http://blogs.foxsports.com/TrainOntheBall/Larry_Brown

"Stephon Marbury called Coach Brown "insecure." That's pretty funny... and accurate.

Let's take a closer look at his career to see if Mr. Brown is just as good as everyone seems to think he is.

Larry Brown started his NBA career (I’m not going to count his four years in the ABA) in 1976 with a Denver Nuggets team. That team had David Thompson, Bobby Jones, Paul Silas and Dan Issel. Thompson and Issel are Hall of Famers, and the other two were excellent players. The team went 50-32 - tied for the second best record in the league - but lost to Portland 4-2 in the first playoffs series they faced.

In 1977, the Nuggets basically returned the same team and went 48-34 - fifth best record in league. They squeaked past the Bucks 4-3 in the semis, before losing to the Sonics 4-2 in the West Conference Finals.

In 1978, the Nuggets traded Bobby Jones, a player Brown loved, for the George McGinnis, a player that epitomized everything Brown detested - a scorer who did not fit into Brown's team concept. The team stumbled around .500 (28-25) before Brown was fired. Donnie Walsh stepped in and the team went on to win 19 of their remaining 29 (.655) and make the playoffs. Hmm... I wonder why the team responded so well to Brown's exit.

He then went to UCLA for three seasons. My guess is that the money was there.

In 1981, he joined the Nets and went 44-38, losing in the first round of the playoffs. Why did he join the Nets? Because the year before, they were horrible, and then they got two promising rookies in Buck Williams and Ray Williams. This was an entirely different team and Brown knew they could only improve, and ultimately, make him look good. Still, they lost in the first round of the playoffs to a team with a lesser record.

In 1982, the Nets were 47-29 when word was leaked that Brown had already agreed to the Kansas job six days before the playoffs. Hmm...Sounds familiar? The Nets refused to go to the playoffs with a lame duck coach and fired on the spot. His dealings with the Nets left much to be desired, for he broke his contract and put the Nets in turmoil at an inappropriate time. Even Donnie Walsh, Brown's close friend and ardent supporter, admitted that Brown's departure in New Jersey was entirely Brown's own fault. The Jersey experience helped create a perception that Brown could not be relied on as a long-term solution. Needless to say, the Nets lost in the first round of the playoffs.

He then went to the Kansas Jayhawks, where he coached from 1984 through 1988. Brown's reputation as an unreliable wanderer grew as he waffled between returning to Kansas and taking the Knicks job in the spring of 1987. Brown had all but agreed to the Knicks job when he backtracked and returned to Kansas. In the following year, Brown and his star Danny Manning went on win an NCAA title. After that, Brown left Kansas abruptly (and with probation violations) to go coach the San Antonio Spurs. Brown had been coaching for 15 years at this point but the multiple job incidents from 1983-1988 continued to feed into the perception that Brown did not want to hang around any town too long.

In 1988, Brown coached the crappy Spurs (a pattern is starting to develop) to a 21-61 record, knowing they would be much improved in the next season with a top draft pick.



In 1989, David Robinson debuted, as did Sean Elliott. The Spurs also traded for Terry Cummings, Maurice Cheeks and Rod Strickland. This was a good team that went 56-26 but lost in the semis to Portland. Was Brown to credit for their success? I'll give credit to the GM on this one, as well as David Robinson.

In 1990, the Spurs returned to the same team and won 55 games. Why this talented bunch and their precious coach lost in the first round of the playoffs, playing at home, against the lowly Warriors (44-38), is beyond me. Sounds like someone didn't prepare his team.

In 1991, the Spurs struggled out the gate to a 21-17 record and Brown got into a dispute with new owner Peter Holt. The result was Brown stepping down immediately under the claim he was fired. Holt said Brown resigned.

In 1992, Brown joined the mediocre 22-25 Clippers (why does he keep going to struggling teams?) and actually turned them around into a playoff team by going 23-12 the rest of the way. Of course, they lost in the first round of the playoffs.

In 1993, Brown led an improved Clippers team to a 41-41 record (makes the end of the previous season seem more like luck) and 7th seed in the playoffs. Of course, they lost in the first round. The only reason the Clips made it in the first place was because the Western Conference was so weak. The 8th-seeded Lakers were 39-43.

1993-94 looked to be a make or break year for the young Clippers, who were on the verge of becoming good. But many of the players were going to be free agents and wanted to renegotiate. Brown wanted no part of this potential problem and bolted town.

1994, Brown joined a Pacers team that was coming off a mediocre season; they were bound to improve. This team had Reggie Miller, Rik Smits, Dale Davis, Byron Scott and a rookie named Antonio Davis. This team went 45-37, picked up a 6th seed, and almost made the championship game (they lost to the Knicks in 7 games in the Eastern Conference finals). I'd give Brown some credit here, but history tells me to give it to his players. Look what happens during his time with the Pacers.

In 1995, Brown returned and the team won 52 games, reaching Game 7 of the Eastern Conference finals before it bowed out to the Shaquille O'Neal-led Orlando Magic.

In 1996, Brown and the Pacers went 52-30 again, but lost in the first round of the playoffs.

In 1997, Brown and Pacers went 39-43 and failed to make the playoffs. Seems to me, it was this year in which he lost the ability to reach his players. They had returned their tops players, so why was the season such a failure? Needless to say, it was Brown's last year in Indy.

The 1998 Pacers, under Larry Bird, went on to win 58 games only to lose valiantly to the Bulls in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference finals. Isn't it interesting how the same exact group of players could win 19 more games and almost reach the championship under a new coach?

The 1999 Pacers, under Bird, went 33-17 in a strike-shortened season, before losing again in Game 7 of the Eastern Conference finals.

The 2000 Pacers, under Bird, went 56-26, reached the finals, but lost to the Lakers in six games.



So...for these reasons, I credit the Pacers and not Brown for the success that took place under his reign. They had performed better after his departure, nearly reaching three consecutive NBA finals.

In 1998, Brown took up the Sixers, who were coming off a 22-60 record. He took this team and second-year talent Allen Iverson to a 31-51 record.

In 1999, a strike-shortened season, Brown and the Sixers went 28-22, barely made the playoffs, and eventually lost 4-0 to the Pacers in the semis.

In 2000, the Sixers went 49-33 but again lost in the semis 4-2 to the Pacers.



In 2001, a much-improved Sixers team (Allen Iverson scored 31 points per game and won MVP; $14 million dollar rental Dikembe Mutombo won Defensive Player of the Year; Aaron McKie won 6th Man of the Year Award) go 56-26 in an awful Eastern Conference (8 teams under .500 compared to 4 teams in WC) and manage to squeak by the Raptors (4-3) and Bucks (4-3) before getting killed 4-1 by the Lakers in the finals. Of course, Coach Brown wins Coach of the Year - the only one of his career. Was he that great of a coach? Eh. He had everything working in his favor. Mutombo was great then, Iverson was at his best, the team had cream-of-the-crop role players in McKie, George Lynch, Theo Ratliff (led league in blocks that year with 3.7 per game), Tyrone Hill, Toni Kukoc, and Eric Snow.

In 2002, Brown and the Sixers went 43-39 and lost in the first round of the playoffs.

In 2003, Brown and the Sixers went 48-34 and lost in the semis to a rising Detroit team.

What did Brown do after that season?

Bolted for Motown.

The 2004 Sixers had an awful season, finishing 33-49. But was it because Brown had left? No. Iverson missed 34 games with injuries. It's safe to assume that had Iverson played those 34 games, the team would have undoubtedly won at least 15 games and made the playoffs.

Yet another piece of evidence that shows it's not Brown, rather the players who are to credit for his success.

In 2004, Brown took up an excellent Detroit team. How good was Detroit? Well, they won 50 games in 2003, and 50 games in 2002, under Rick Carlisle. This was an elite team before Brown got there.

The 2004 Pistons went 54-28 and won the NBA title.

Was it Coach Brown who made the difference?

No.

Rasheed Wallace.



He along with the improving Mehmet Okur gave the Pistons the front-line scoring ability they so desperately needed. One of the most talented big men ever, Sheed instantly became the best big man in the Eastern Conference and pushed the Pistons over the edge. Jermaine O'Neal was no match for Sheed and Big Ben...nor was Shaq in the finals.

Don't agree? Check this out: The Pistons were 34-23 and had lost 7 of their previous 8 games before the day they traded for Rasheed. With Rasheed, the Pistons finished out the season with a 20-5 record, the best record in the league during that span. They went 16-7 during their playoff run, elevating their overall record with Rasheed that season to 36-12. I rest my case.

The 2005 Pistons won 54 games again but came up short against the Spurs (4-3) in the finals. They were a great team and had a great season but just came up short. Why did they come up short? We don't know. But Brown's lobbying to join the Cavs, and house-hunting in Cleveland -- DURING THE PLAYOFFS -- might have had some kind of negative impact.

What a bum. He was already looking for his next buck.

And the whole "look at what Larry Brown did for Chauncey Billups" argument is a joke as well.

Billups' stats:

2003: 74 games played, 31 minutes per game, 16 ppg, 3.9 assistspg, 1.8 turnovers, 42% FG, 39% 3PT, 149 threes. Team won 50 games.

2004: 78 games played, 35 minutes per game, 17 ppg, 5.7 assistspg, 2.4 turnoverspg, 39% FG, 39% 3PT, 130 threes. Team won 54 games.

Hmmm... Don’t see much improvement there. Seems about the same to me. How about in 2005?

2005: 80 games played, 36 minutes per game, 16.5 ppg, 5.8 assistspg, 2.3 turnoverspg, 44% FG, 43% 3PT, 165 threes. Team won 54 games.

Aside from the shooting percentages, Billups' numbers barely changed. Sure his assists went up, but so did his turnovers and minutes played.

2006: 81 games played, 36 minutes per game, 18.5 ppg, 8.6 assistspg, 2.1 turnoverspg, 42% FG, 43% 3PT, 184 threes. Team won 64 games.

Without Brown, Billups actually elevated his game and led the Pistons to their best record in franchise history. He led the league with an eye-popping 4-to-1 assist/turnover ratio, while earning career highs in points, assists and three-pointers made. He is an MVP candidate.

I don't need to tell you how Larry Brown ended up, but I will. He jumped onto the Knicks because they made him the highest paid basketball coach in NBA history. He took a team that was supposed to be improved from the 2004-05 squad that finished with 33 wins and actually took them in reverse. This year's squad won only 23 games, finishing with the second worst record in the whole league.

And what did this stand-up gentleman do? Made excuses and pointed fingers. He blamed Marbury, and the rookies, and the lack of defense, and the big men who didn't rebound, and so on - everyone but himself. Never mind the fact he used over 30-something different starting lineups. Never mind the fact he failed to utilize any of his players TO their strengths.

He justed pointed fingers.

Give me a break.



Brown isn't getting out of this one so fast. He will quit under some lame excuse (health problems, player problems) way before this Knicks situation gets righted.

Has anyone noticed any difference between the way Iverson played before Brown, during Brown, or after Brown?

No.

Do I need to remind people about Team USA's performance in the summer of 2004?

Now, you tell me who really has a track record worth feeling insecure about?

I'll give you a hint.

It's not Marbury."

but do you think he really doesn't want the fix this franchise? do you think that in all those previous stops, he didn't try to make those players better or help those teams win? why do most of his former players keep saying that "he's made them a better player"? why do his former players come and hug him before the games? is it b/c he's a selfish old man?

And that is the million dollar question. Is Brown really interested in turning this team around or improving his legacy. I think he was pushing more and more for the HOF which he no longer has to worry about so maybe he won't mind sticking around but as history goes, don't count on it. Before we make shattering changes, I think it is important to make sure that your coach is 100% committed to this team and Brown doesn't have a track record that you can trust.

As for as hugging someone you have serious disagreements with, if you are naive enough to think that means anything, than there is a bridge in Brooklyn that I am selling cheap. I mean come on, Shaq and Kobe hugged, you think they are going to shopping at the mall together?

Posted by djsunyc:

it's clear the track record of lb is helping turn teams around. you may not like the methods or the way he deals with the media but he has a PROVEN history of doing it. is he the only one? no. but he was the best one available for us. and now everyone is abandoning that b/c players that have been known to have problems with coaches and teammates didn't listen to him? and here's the shocker, i don't think it's that many of the players. i think it's just a handful. the problem is that those handful of guys, rank pretty high on the totem pole.

Good post. LB's track record puts me in the 'LB camp' over the 'Marbury camp' at this point.

Posted by Pharzeone:

I don't think anyone really wants Brown gone, but seriously committed to this team. You can't keep leaving stuff up in the air like oh if we don't get rid of these players here, I am gone. Or we got to get these guys or I am gone. Any other coach thinks of signing a contract as a real deal but to Brown it means nothing. If the KNicks want to trade Marbury, then God Bless. But if Brown decides during some point during training camp, that Orlando was his "dream job" want is one to do. I mean you talk about Brown staying here is a given. The guy was interviewing and shopping for a house in Cleveland when his team was in the playoffs.

every coach wants his players or his "type" of players to fit his system. that's been going on since the first day, 500 years ago, that cavemanbury picked up ball and shot it (while refusing to pass to the other open caveman). a clear example is d'antoni trading steph in the first place b/c he didn't fit into his system.

if 1/2 the players on this team don't fit into a coach's system, then what's wrong in trading them? we don't have any lebrons, wades, or melo's here. there's no clear superstar to build the team around. we have some pieces, and they're very young. and besides, the final word goes to isiah. it's isiah that can say yes or no. and if lb doesn't feel like he and isiah are on the same page, then lb will leave. it's that simple. remember, isiah HIRED lb. which means it's on isiah's head if lb leaves, not the other way around.

[Edited by - djsunyc on 04-24-2006 11:24 AM]

I'm interested to see what Isiah could do coaching this team that he put together.