2013-2014 NBA Thread - IND @ WAS and OKC @ LAC on ESPN

Status
Not open for further replies.
We measure coaching success by wins, and up until this series the Thunder have been incredibly successful during his tenure in OKC. Increasing wins every year, then Finals, 2nd round, (Westbrook got hurt), and now down 3-2.

*Shrugs*. I'm not a Brooks apologist by any means, (Hell, i'm not an apologist for almost any coach honestly.) But the aforementioned has to be noted. If Brooks was so horrible that he draws up fadeaway 30 footers in a 100-99 game, he would not have this amount of success thus far in OKC. Hell he wouldn't even be there by now.

In Before "The Thunder won in spite of Brooks"
 
We measure coaching success by wins, and up until this series the Thunder have been incredibly successful during his tenure in OKC. Increasing wins every year, then Finals, 2nd round, (Westbrook got hurt), and now down 3-2.

*Shrugs*. I'm not a Brooks apologist by any means, (Hell, i'm not an apologist for almost any coach honestly.) But the aforementioned has to be noted. If Brooks was so horrible that he draws up fadeaway 30 footers in a 100-99 game, he would not have this amount of success thus far in OKC. Hell he wouldn't even be there by now.
In Before "The Thunder won in spite of Brooks"
he has terrible X's and O's, and doesnt understand coaching based on matchups in the playoffs.

word to him playing perkins against miami in the finals 
 
Crucial game 5, let's see if Dallas can steal this one. They have surprised me with how successful they've been against San Antonio thus far in this series. They aren't really struggling with them, and if they could play from ahead as good as they play when behind, they would be up 3-1 right now.
 
he has terrible X's and O's, and doesnt understand coaching based on matchups in the playoffs.

word to him playing perkins against miami in the finals 

He got to the finals though. If his X's and O's were "terrible" he wouldn't have gotten to the NBA finals. Also, people like to use wins for evaluating head coaches, but that goes out the window when it comes to Brooks I guess :lol:

Playing Perkins at any given time is a bad move to me but his success with playing perkins suggest it's the right move. 60 and high 50 win seasons, recent finals appearance, etc.
 
Surprised this wasn't posted.
laugh.gif


 
Crucial game 5, let's see if Dallas can steal this one. They have surprised me with how successful they've been against San Antonio thus far in this series. They aren't really struggling with them, and if they could play from ahead as good as they play when behind, they would be up 3-1 right now.
I feel like Dallas gave away the last game they had a killer comeback but just couldn't close out. I am very surprised how good they have been playing in this series and I hope they pull a win out tonight.
 
He got to the finals though. If his X's and O's were "terrible" he wouldn't have gotten to the NBA finals. Also, people like to use wins for evaluating head coaches, but that goes out the window when it comes to Brooks I guess
laugh.gif


Playing Perkins at any given time is a bad move to me but his success with playing perkins suggest it's the right move. 60 and high 50 win seasons, recent finals appearance, etc.
lenny wilkins is the winningest head coach in NBA history if we go by wins alone 

his offense is terrible, especially with the pieces he has. 

perkins has a time and a place to be useful (even though he is literally one of the least productive players in the league), but starting him against MIA and going down double digits early in every game, all while refusing to change your lineup and having a befuddled look on your face is inexcusable. 

he is a good teacher and motivator, but like i said his game management and strategies are fundamentally flawed
 
Last edited:
lenny wilkins is the winningest head coach in NBA history if we go by wins alone 

his offense is terrible, especially with the pieces he has. 

perkins has a time and a place to be useful (even though he is literally one of the least productive players in the league), but starting him against MIA and going down double digits early in every game, all while refusing to change your lineup and having a befuddled look on your face is inexcusable. 

he is a good teracher and motivator, but like i said yhis game management and strategies are fundamentally flawed

By the way, I don't use wins to evaluate coaches :lol: I was just making a point of the hypocritical nature that comes with evaluating coaches.

And everything you said may be true, ( I think it is actually) but his coaching philosophies got him all the way to the NBA Finals. That's an incredible feat in it of itself. And he got there coaching his way. So because he lost the finals that means his coaching style doesn't work.

But then again, I think coaching is overrated anyway so what the hell.
 
By the way, I don't use wins to evaluate coaches
laugh.gif
I was just making a point of the hypocritical nature that comes with evaluating coaches.

And everything you said may be true, ( I think it is actually) but his coaching philosophies got him all the way to the NBA Finals. That's an incredible feat in it of itself. And he got there coaching his way. So because he lost the finals that means his coaching style doesn't work.

But then again, I think coaching is overrated anyway so what the hell.
i think he was the right coach to get OKC to the point they are at, but another coach could take them further

players def make the tam, but coaches can help when theyre good and utilize their players, word to rick carlisle
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom