Oklahoma City Thunder vs San Antonio Spurs - OKC WINS in 6, Congrats!

[jordan23dotcom]

Originally Posted by nflowshoe

 All they people who think Scott Brooks is a terrible coach, does he get a little bit of respect now for his adjustments? Or was that all the OKC players that made the adjustments

Thank you, like I said these people hate him when they lose but when they win they zip it. But I guess they'll just says the players won the game. People have no clue how a team works, everything is to blame for a loss or a win.

 

[scientific method]

Amazing such an elementary adjustment, just switch the pick and rolls, has worked so well and going to the Russell Westbrook downscreening for Durant forcing the switch play all 4th quarter gave KD most of those 18 4th quarter points. I can't believe Pop was just living with those mismatches and didn't start calling for a double or trap.

---

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Here's another 4th quarter where they ran that almost exclusively with success

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

and a breakdown with photos available here http://www.dailythunder.c...ders-new-crunchtime-set/ It still ends up an iso, but at the free throw line with a mismatch after movement as opposed to just giving him the ball 25ft away with the shotclock and defender all over his back

---

By the way, credit to Royce Young of @dailythunder for all this content

 

[big j 33]

I'm a vocal critic of Scott Brooks and gave him credit a few pages ago.

Originally Posted by Big J 33

Nice adjustment by having Russ screen KDs man to get the mismatch. Well done, Scott Brooks.

He still has improvements to make and a lot of the Thunder's struggles on offense can be attributed to his gameplan, or lack of one, but he made a good adjustment last night.

 

[scientific method]

A few of the Thunder's play calls

 

[kenji714]

How the hell you get that locker pic ?

 

[crazy dav0]

KD makes it look so easy ... just watched the replay .... it's funny to see all the spurs going 15-0 ... spurs gonna sweep, spurs in 5 ...

thunder are a problem ... gonna be a great 3 games

 

[nflowshoe]

Originally Posted by Scientific Method

A few of the Thunder's play calls

  

 They got a play called "floppy" 3

 

[T0INE]

OKC seems to have the momentum now, but I think the Spurs take Game 5, Thunder Game 6, and Game 7 is a toss up.

 

[fraij da 5 11]

Originally Posted by KenJi714

How the hell you get that locker pic ?

I'm like 99.8% sure that its not his pic...

 

[scientific method]

The Thunder posted it on facebook. Most of those play names are fairly common names used by everyone around the league, so there's no danger in posting it like other teams will find out our plays.

 

[mister negative]

Originally Posted by nflowshoe

Originally Posted by Scientific Method

A few of the Thunder's play calls

  

 They got a play called "floppy" 3

Floppy is a play where a player comes off 2 consecutive screens

 

[Kimchi Papi]

So Scientific Method & Big J 33, if you guys had Scott Presti's job, who would you bring in once you fired Brooks? Aside from Phil because I don't think he's coming back.

 

[scientific method]

Originally Posted by psk2310

So Scientific Method & Big J 33, if you guys had Scott Presti's job, who would you bring in once you fired Brooks? Aside from Phil because I don't think he's coming back.

Equally or in fact even more important, is convincing Bennett to give us a few yrs in the luxury tax to keep this core together. Particularly with the fan support in OKC, if this team can get a title, it'll pay off in some capacity.

Here's an article I just read on the topic of Brooks and his looming contract status with this being his last yr. It's interesting because Russ played horrendous this season, as chronicled by JapanAir21, until he got his extension. Could you make the same argument for a coach?

But outside of Phil who I would still call and offer the world to, there's not a lot of guys out there who aren't already under contracts who wouldn't just be more of the same; young coaches developing with the players at the same time, maybe the players at a faster rate though.

I like Avery Johnson and Byron Scott, both seem to be "player's coaches" and I think would get along well with our guys, but I'm not saying it's a move I would make even if they weren't already under contract somewhere else. I really like Mark Jackson too although I need to see what he can do with a good roster. But he would be a step backwards though, whole point is a coach who is already on or at that level to help these players who are on the cusp make that next step.

As I've mentioned before, wouldn't touch Larry Brown with a 10 foot pole. Guys like Jeff Capelll, Kelvin Sampson (who last I saw is an asst in Milwaukee) would be HUGE fan favorites, but they aren't ready for this level.

So summation, yea stay with Brooks. Give him a 4yr extension. With his record/resume, it's hard to sell firing him anyways. I guess Dallas did it when they fired Avery though.

http://msn.foxsports.com/...-future-uncertain-052612

"Why Hasn't OKC Committed to Brooks?"

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

Scott Brooks has won 191 basketball games in less than four full seasons, directed the turnaround of a dormant franchise in a small market, managed the fragile chemistry of a young team and coached the Oklahoma City Thunder to within a whiff of the NBA Finals.

Spurs vs. Thunder
SPURS VS. THUNDER

Durant shoots lights out in 4th
Thunder even series behind Ibaka
Photos: Game 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
Spurs postgame video: Game 4
Thunder postgame video: Game 4
NBA Playoff Central

And still the question roars louder than ever across the landscape of this league: Is he good enough?

If it were only me asking that question, that would be one thing, but it's not even my question. It's the Oklahoma City Thunder's question. And the fact they haven't answered it with a contract extension hangs over the Western Conference finals like an anvil.

Whenever the Thunder's season ends — whether it's this series against the San Antonio Spurs or some time later in June — Brooks will no longer be under contract as their coach. And though industry sources believe Oklahoma City will come to terms with him after the season, the failure to extend him up to this point has brought a message the team may not have intended.

If he can't get Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook to the Finals this time, why keep him?

It may not be fair to make this series with the Spurs a referendum on Brooks' ability to win a title, but it sure looks like that's what it is. Maybe that would be an issue no matter what, even if they had locked him up to a new five-year deal in January like they did with Westbrook. But with Brooks in the final year of his contract, it promises to loom over every timeout and every out-of-bounds play Gregg Popovich finds a way to blow up.

That's the only interpretation Oklahoma City has left us: Win and you can keep your job. Lose and the clock starts ticking. And no matter what you think of Brooks as a coach, that's not the easiest way to go about trying to win a championship.

FOX SPORTS POLL

Who will win the West finals?
Spurs in 4 or 5
Spurs in 6 or 7
Thunder in 4 or 5
Thunder in 6 or 7

It's not altogether unusual for NBA teams to let coaching contracts go down to their final year before negotiations on an extension take place. Then once the season starts, there's generally little time to hammer out the deal. The focus is solely on the season, especially this year with a schedule compressed by last summer's lockout.

But Oklahoma City and general manager Sam Presti have erred here because these are not typical circumstances.

Everything you'll hear out of Oklahoma City indicates the team believes in Brooks. However, at some point, if the Thunder don't win it all this year, or at least get to the Finals, they'll start running out of fingers to point.

Remember, when Brooks got the job in 2008, Oklahoma City was not one of the more desirable locations in the NBA. He was 43 with no head coaching experience, and he inherited a team that was 1-12 under P.J. Carlesimo. Few understood back then what kind of transcendent star Durant was going to be. Westbrook was a rookie widely perceived as a reach as the No. 4 overall pick in that summer's draft. James Harden was a sophomore at Arizona State.

By the first full year of that trio's existence, the Thunder had become a tough out for the Los Angeles Lakers in the first round of the playoffs. By the second, they were in the conference finals. But rarely will you hear that this sudden run of success is a testament to Brooks' ability to X-and-O, as opposed to the fact that Oklahoma City had drafted three of the top 20 players in the NBA.

It will be that way for anyone who coaches the Thunder, as long as Durant, Westbrook and Harden stay together, which seems likely given their ages (Durant and Westbrook are 23; Harden is 22) and contract statuses (only Harden is still on his rookie deal, which expires in 2014).

THE DAILY
The Daily is the first daily national news publication created for the iPad. For more, click here.

Such is the arrangement when a roster comes together like that under a young coach who is not perceived to be among the best at his profession. Until Brooks wins a title with this group, the issue of whether he's the weak link will remain unresolved. And when the organization decides to lock up Durant and Westbrook for the future, while deciding to leave Brooks' status unchanged until after this season, the alarm of expendability has been sounded.

What would the Thunder do if they lose in the Finals, or worse, get stopped cold by the unrelenting discipline of the Spurs? Look, Brooks is clearly a competent NBA coach. But do they reward someone who still hasn't proven he's got the goods to win a championship with a long-term contract they might have to revisit in another year if they fall short one more time? Do they cut the cord now, which would seem hasty and unreasonable after so many wins? Or do they try to negotiate a one-year extension, which would be an abject disaster since it would send the clearest message of all that the Thunder only believe in Brooks to a point?

This wouldn't be as much of an issue if Brooks already had a new five-year deal staring him in the face. However, there are no easy answers now, and the end of a contract means both sides have the ability to explore options if things don't go the right way.

Is Brooks good enough to win it all or just good enough to get to the Western Conference finals? We're going to find out a little more about that over the next two weeks, but now's the time for him to deliver. The great unknown waiting for him at the end of this contract demands it.

 

[Kimchi Papi]

I think this team needs a veteran coach but having said that (not Larry Brown. He's waay past his prime), I'm kind of intrigued with Brian Shaw. He worked under Phil Jackson for many years & I'd like to know if he'd employ the triangle offense. I think this offense would fit the team Presti built.

I know a lot of OKC fans bemoaned Brooks but it's evident that he, the coaching staff,  the players watched a lot of film after games 1 & 2 & came up with a simple game plan that worked. They need to stick to that game plan & make sure the players excute it so they get a chance to get to the finals.

 

[cbrooks3]

Scientific Method coming through with some really good reads. Also, I'm super jealous you got to go to the game(s?).

I also greatly admire that KD is really watching that film (assuming very detailed as well). I wish I could acquire valuable and large amounts of knowledge in watching film, but hooping at a junior college is so different because it is almost like organized pickup.

 

[buggz05]

Originally Posted by dmbrhs

Originally Posted by buggz05

Everyone was saying the Thunder can't win it all because they don't have the bigs to match up with the Lakers or Spurs...

Wow, nobody said that at all about the Spurs. The Spurs' weakness is their interior. They have no center, and their best interior player is an old Tim Duncan. Brooks crapped the bed the first two games not exploiting that. He finally figured it out by Game 4. But now they're back on the road.

As I said, it's 2-2, with the home team winning every game. The outcomes of Game 3 and 4 were predictable (blow out Game 3, close Game 4). The home team hasn't lost yet. This isn't a series...yet.

Check the Mavs playoff thread. Unless there was sarcasm in those statements. Doubt it.

 

[jesusshuttlesworth34]

Ha at people saying the Spurs would sweep to now saying the series is nothing surprising to them thusfar.

I still think OKC will win the series.  Russell will have one huge game out of these next couple.

People actually thought Leonard or Jackson would shut down KD?  Really?

I expect the Spurs to come out with a sense of urgency, but I don't feel like OKC is scared to play in San Antonio.  The crowd there is nothing like the fans in OKC. 

I expect OKC to win in San Antonio. 

 

[ag 47]

Originally Posted by jordan23dotcom

Originally Posted by nflowshoe

 All they people who think Scott Brooks is a terrible coach, does he get a little bit of respect now for his adjustments? Or was that all the OKC players that made the adjustments

Thank you, like I said these people hate him when they lose but when they win they zip it. But I guess they'll just says the players won the game. People have no clue how a team works, everything is to blame for a loss or a win.

He still can't draw up an offensive play in crunch time. I don't know who's worse...him or Spoelstra when it comes to getting your best players clean looks at the basket. You can't just say, "Hey Kevin, just make something happen..."

 

[M. Fresh]

Originally Posted by JesusShuttlesworth34

People actually thought Leonard or Jackson would shut down KD?  Really. 

please who said that. Even Jack said you couldn't stop kd, everybody knows this. You can't stop great scorers, you can only make them work harder to get their shot off

 

[jesusshuttlesworth34]

Originally Posted by The Fresh Sole

Originally Posted by JesusShuttlesworth34

People actually thought Leonard or Jackson would shut down KD?  Really. 

please who said that. Even Jack said you couldn't stop kd, everybody knows this. You can't stop great scorers, you can only make them work harder to get their shot off

You would be surprised the things that come out of some people's mouths when they get caught up in emotion.  I share your vantage point on that, but people were talking out of their necks during the Spurs 20 game win streak.


3 game series should be good. 

 

[mikeknows]

Originally Posted by AG 47

Originally Posted by jordan23dotcom

Originally Posted by nflowshoe

 All they people who think Scott Brooks is a terrible coach, does he get a little bit of respect now for his adjustments? Or was that all the OKC players that made the adjustments

Thank you, like I said these people hate him when they lose but when they win they zip it. But I guess they'll just says the players won the game. People have no clue how a team works, everything is to blame for a loss or a win.

He still can't draw up an offensive play in crunch time. I don't know who's worse...him or Spoelstra when it comes to getting your best players clean looks at the basket. You can't just say, "Hey Kevin, just make something happen..."

ummmmmm did u miss the last game?
  

 

[ag 47]

Originally Posted by Mikeknows

Originally Posted by AG 47

Originally Posted by jordan23dotcom

Originally Posted by nflowshoe

 All they people who think Scott Brooks is a terrible coach, does he get a little bit of respect now for his adjustments? Or was that all the OKC players that made the adjustments

Thank you, like I said these people hate him when they lose but when they win they zip it. But I guess they'll just says the players won the game. People have no clue how a team works, everything is to blame for a loss or a win.

He still can't draw up an offensive play in crunch time. I don't know who's worse...him or Spoelstra when it comes to getting your best players clean looks at the basket. You can't just say, "Hey Kevin, just make something happen..."

ummmmmm did u miss the last game?
  

One play? Seriously? Out of how many Durant Isolations? If Kevin didn't cook everybody trying to stick him, that one play wouldn't have been relevant. And given Scotty's track record, I'm more inclined to give Mo Cheeks the credit for that one play.

 

[jordan23dotcom]

Originally Posted by AG 47

Originally Posted by Mikeknows

Originally Posted by AG 47





He still can't draw up an offensive play in crunch time. I don't know who's worse...him or Spoelstra when it comes to getting your best players clean looks at the basket. You can't just say, "Hey Kevin, just make something happen..."

ummmmmm did u miss the last game?
  

One play? Seriously? Out of how many Durant Isolations? If Kevin didn't cook everybody trying to stick him, that one play wouldn't have been relevant. And given Scotty's track record, I'm more inclined to give Mo Cheeks the credit for that one play.

ummmm, did you watch any of the playoffs?? game winning shots galore. like i said shot missed = blame the coach, shot made = the player did it. lose lose. not to mention the switch in line ups, and defense. and what is scott's track record? they're in the WCF  and have a good chance to win. that not good enough

 

[ill steelo]

They're not going to get game 5 or game 7 unless Westbrook has a big, efficient game.

He needs to step up

 

[big j 33]

I know all about the coach getting blamed for losses and no credit for wins, I sort of defended D'Antoni this past season over that same kind of stuff.

With that in mind, the bottomline is Brooks playcalling and offensive sets leaves a lot to be desired. Switching Thabo to cover Parker was smart, he finally ran screens with Russ for Durant to get a mismatch and that worked beautifully.. those are good things he's done. You say game winning shots galore.. the KD shot against Marion was just him going one on one, he hit a 3 over Ron Artest that was just an isolation.. sorry, but I don't give the coach tons of credit when the play call is "let the scoring champ go one on one". Maybe it's the smarter call to keep it simple than run some complex play that might break down for the last shot. Sure, he gets credit for recognizing he has one of the best scorers in the game, but anyone can figure that out.

He probably meant Scott's track record in not being great at calling up plays, not the team's actual record. I'm not rooting against the guy, I just see his weak points and what needs to be improved. Of course, the team's record has improved every season but most of that credit goes to the players. Yes, Brooks plays a role in the team's success and it's certainly unfair if he's the only one to get blame when the lose (which by the way, doesn't happen.. Westbrook gets blame, role players do, it's not just Brooks).. but it's not exactly that crazy to credit most of the team's success to having three talented players who are only continuing to get better.