lb's tenure in philly

these are players that broke 1000 minutes and their ages

97/98 (31-51)        98/99 (28-22)    99/00 (49-33)     00/01 (56-26)       01/02 (43-39)
iverson 22           iverson 23       iverson 24        iverson 25          iverson 26
ratliff 24           ratliff 25       ratliff 26        ratliff 27/deke 33  deke 34
mckie 25             mckie 26         mckie 27          mckie 28            mckie 29
dc 30                snow 24          snow 25           snow 26             snow 27
jim jackson 27       lynch 28         lynch 29          lynch 30            harpring 26
tim thomas 20        geiger 28        geiger 29                             claxton 23
spoon 27                              hill 31           hill 32             dc 34
                                      hughes 21


02/03 (48-34)
iverson 27
dc 35
mckie 30
kvh 27
kenny thomas 25
bucker 26
skinner 26

his oldest team that consisted of 3 players over the age of 30 in their top 8 in minutes was the nba finals team in 2000/2001. in philly, his team mostly consisted of young vets in the 24-28 age group.

Posted by djsunyc:

in philly, his team mostly consisted of young vets in the 24-28 age group.

...which most of our key guys haven't hit yet.

Look at 98/99, his first winning season: Ivy 23, Snow 24, Rat, 25, McKie, 26

Similar to the ages of guys like Curry, Frye, JC, and the Q boys.

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Look at 98/99, his first winning season: Ivy 23, Snow 24, Rat, 25, McKie, 26

Similar to the ages of guys like Curry, Frye, JC, and the Q boys.

actually, about 1-2 years older, but whatever, why quibble ISIAH SUX BROWN 4EVER

It is quibbling when Curry was 23 and crawford 25, which means they'll be 24 and 26 this year, if not already.

one thing of note is that brown had HEAVY say in personnel decisions with billy king and pat croce. so it wasn't like these rosters were thrown upon him.

there is non doubt he can coach green kids, the problem is that he's a Point guard coach and the point guard is old. He can mold a 22 year old iverson, I think there was an article posted today that stated curry, frye, lee and crawford (our starters of the future) there was no arguments with the coach, so saying he can't coach youngins is kind of over blown.

I think our big fear now is that he can't coach the veteran's of the Me-Generation...and while that may not be a pre-requisite, it would be nice.

I think we are all in agreement, that if it was a fact that we could be better without all the players he hates, then we would do it, but we know that we can't because he tried it the last 11 games of the season and it was misery.

But there is a future.

Why larry and dolan are having a pissing contest is beyond me...in philly's first season they won 8 more games then my beloved knicks.

and the next year they were .500.

Jim Jackson and tim thomas, role players, historically...we have those same role players on our team...do I see any reason for anybody from last year not to come back? NOPE.

who do i want to see turned into a solid contributor? Franchise and MoT and Jrose...if they can play like they should or be traded for players that play like they should (defensive wing player, sure handed PG and shot blocking specialist) then we are well on our way.

But cutting marbury, firing LB and Zeke coaching are not the answers.

If you are asking me if removing one of those three will result in the most wins next year, then it is obvious the answer is LB.

Keep them all, trade expiring contracts for solid overpaid role players and picks or a stud.

I dont think the LB/MArbury drama was LB's big problem with this roster. There were just no grinders and the defense was deplorable. Lee, Frye and JB all played hard on D but were awful, mostly because of experience. I'm sure they will all get better, especially with LB teaching them.
Marbury scores with a high% of FGs, doesnt chuck a lot of 3s and takes excellent care of the ball. I have no doubt Larry can work with that. We were dead last in oppenents FG% and sending guys to the FT line, and as the season went on we didnt get any better. THAT was the problem.

Every young guy on our roster got better last year under LB, and will be prepared for more minutes and bigger roles next year.

They are all good players. Not stars, but good smart players. Only Nate strikes me as dumb but he's got an energy that if channeled has its own benefits

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by djsunyc:

one thing of note is that brown had HEAVY say in personnel decisions with billy king and pat croce. so it wasn't like these rosters were thrown upon him.

yup. and he traded Iverson before Geiger stepped in with his no-trade clause before their fabeled trip to the Finals. that Brown sure is a guru.

...and what's the point? did iverson not COMPLETELY change after that non-trade? who's to say he still wouldn't be a problem child if the trade went through? you have got to stop trying to discredit his history. you do not have solid ground to stand on. just stick with this past season...at least there are two valid points of view to that. but arguing about brown's history as a head coach and his success is blatantly one sided.

Posted by fishmike:

I dont think the LB/MArbury drama was LB's big problem with this roster. There were just no grinders and the defense was deplorable. Lee, Frye and JB all played hard on D but were awful, mostly because of experience. I'm sure they will all get better, especially with LB teaching them.
Marbury scores with a high% of FGs, doesnt chuck a lot of 3s and takes excellent care of the ball. I have no doubt Larry can work with that. We were dead last in oppenents FG% and sending guys to the FT line, and as the season went on we didnt get any better. THAT was the problem.

Every young guy on our roster got better last year under LB, and will be prepared for more minutes and bigger roles next year.

They are all good players. Not stars, but good smart players. Only Nate strikes me as dumb but he's got an energy that if channeled has its own benefits

I agree with this. I don't think Nate is dumb, maybe just a little too ****y, but I think it's the RIGHT kind of ****iness (see? Larry is rubbing off on me!).

I have no problem getting a guy like Kmart (if healthy) or Evans or Boone to sure up the defense. But I'm terrified that Brown won't like the way one of the kids is developing one week and try to trade him for whatever. Brown is a good game coach. It seems he is too impatient to actually develop a team into defenders and would prefer to just ship out guys who don't defend instinctively. He should not get final-say roster power, he needs to be able to work with someone, and it seems that he can't work with Isiah (or Dolan, which is the obvious bigger problem in our sad case).

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by djsunyc:

one thing of note is that brown had HEAVY say in personnel decisions with billy king and pat croce. so it wasn't like these rosters were thrown upon him.

yup. and he traded Iverson before Geiger stepped in with his no-trade clause before their fabeled trip to the Finals. that Brown sure is a guru.

Was Iverson on the team when they went to the finals? You sure like to deal with IF's and And's a whole lot. You put way too much stock into things that could have happened and didn't happen.

People are talking about Brown's ability to work with a young roster and his success with having input in building a roster. He didn't "think" about "maybe" trading Iverson, the trade was at the league office for approval before Matt Geiger stopped it with a no-trade because he didn't want to go to Detroit.

So, I think it's material when you're talking about ability to work with a young roster and build a team when he pulled the trigger on trading the heart and soul of the team, a future MVP and guy who would drive them to the finals. What does that say about him as being an evaluator? I think it proves what I've been saying - he's impatient. Do we have anyone with a no trade clause to save us when he tries to trade Frye or Nate? No.