Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

the1gq2nvy

Avery Johnson Fired

Recommended Posts

Heck yeah! When Brown got hired, it pissed me

Off so much, theres no freakin way Lakers will win a Championhip with him EVEN with supporting talent like Kobe, It was a

Relief he was pulled out, i do like DAntoni especially with SteveNash as head pg, as hes imvolved in at least 80% of the plays ( wish i can get him on my fantasy-_-)

Betweem DAntoni vs. I.J

Tough call, DAntonis Offense with Nash vs IJ ISO with Kobe , i would have to say DAntoni, just becase I really think Lakers will flow better on offense, but he really needs to work out his Defense, Defense wins championships.

Yeah, see, this makes more sense to me - that they just hired Brown because he was available at the time, but they never really stopped looking around. They're not going to say that out loud, but for the official statement, a better alternative would've been to just say something like "we want to go in a different direction" and leave it at that. The "pace of improvement" explanation was nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with assuming that fans have superior knowledge about their home teams is this: fans are typically not as patient as management needs to be. Does anyone really disagree with this?

Now, the problem nowadays is that many team owners or managers behave like fans rather than like long-term visionaries. You get lucky on occasion when LeBron and Wade and Bosh fall into your lap (or KG and Ray Allen), but you could argue that those championships had more to do with the players than the management. For the most part, impatience dooms franchises to mediocrity or worse.

By contrast, look at the Spurs. Anybody care to find a team that has had 2 players and a coach who have been together as long as Duncan, Parker, and Popovich? A lot of other teams would've broken them up a long time ago. The Spurs have a vision, they have patience, and they have good management that leads the fans, not follows the fans. Duncan and Parker are past their prime, and the rest of the team are role players. How do they keep contending year after year? Because Popovich has earned enough gravitas to weather the fans emotional reactions and stay put through ups and downs.

On the other hand, Jerry Sloan and Avery Johnson were not so lucky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a mere coincidence that the only people saying "The Lakers should've kept Mike Brown" ... are people who hate the Lakers?

I know one of you is a Celtics fan up in here. :lol: Come on, stop making it a mockery already.

Mike Brown is not even worth fighting for. He's not a great coach. Mediocre at best. Arguably one of the worst. Got his success from riding Lebron's coattails with this "Give the ball to Lebron" Offense.... in a rather weak Eastern Conference.

Mike D'Antoni, if anything, revolutionized the game. Him and Nash created a new style of play in today's game. Yes, it was a high-powered Offense: speed, 3's, pick'n'rolls. Flashy as hell. And I recall many people regard this style of basketball as the "Right way to play Basketball". "If your kid is interested in playing Basketball, have him watch the Phoenix Suns".

And yes, MDA was criticized for not putting an emphasis on Defense. But you can't blame him too much, because first of all, the Phoenix Offense was so over-powering that they didn't need to worry about Defense. Secondly, the Suns didn't have the personnel to be a great Defensive team. They were small with Amare at Center, and Matrix at PF. Granted Amare and Matrix did get some decent Defensive stats such as Steals and Blocks. But obviously they weren't big enough to defend bigger post players like Tim Duncan and Gasol and Bynum. But the Suns did very well and went pretty far in the Playoffs. Especially the great battles against the Lakers.

WIth the Knicks, MDA again didn't have the type of personnel that could play great Defense. Amare was PF/C again. Mozgov sucked. Then the trade for Carmelo took place. Melo doesn't play great defense. Tyson Chandler just got there and was the only one who could play D, but it wasn't enough. Then they relied on Jeremy Lin's offense, but that's another story.

Anyway, now D'Antoni has a team that has good Defensive players. Dwight, Metta, Kobe. Pau sometimes.

This team has a good foundation of talent. Now they just need to execute things on both ends of the court, but it will take some time because of the injuries to Nash, Pau, Dwight. But it's still early enough in the season to right the ship before it's too late.

And sooner or later people will stop arguing that "the Lakers should've kept Mike Brown!". ...That's Ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with assuming that fans have superior knowledge about their home teams is this: fans are typically not as patient as management needs to be. Does anyone really disagree with this?

Now, the problem nowadays is that many team owners or managers behave like fans rather than like long-term visionaries. You get lucky on occasion when LeBron and Wade and Bosh fall into your lap (or KG and Ray Allen), but you could argue that those championships had more to do with the players than the management. For the most part, impatience dooms franchises to mediocrity or worse.

By contrast, look at the Spurs. Anybody care to find a team that has had 2 players and a coach who have been together as long as Duncan, Parker, and Popovich? A lot of other teams would've broken them up a long time ago. The Spurs have a vision, they have patience, and they have good management that leads the fans, not follows the fans. Duncan and Parker are past their prime, and the rest of the team are role players. How do they keep contending year after year? Because Popovich has earned enough gravitas to weather the fans emotional reactions and stay put through ups and downs.

On the other hand, Jerry Sloan and Avery Johnson were not so lucky.

Duncan, Ginobili, Parker and Popovich. Parker is actually in his prime, not past it, while the two others are in their declination period, although Duncan seems to have found the fountain of middle age this season....

And I'm not sure you can realistically say that Lebron, Bosh and Wade fell in Miami's lap out of some blind happenstance. Riley had been clearing cap space for almost two years and it took a major recruiting effort and great instincts to understand the pieces on the board and the predilections of those players involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it a mere coincidence that the only people saying "The Lakers should've kept Mike Brown" ... are people who hate the Lakers?

I know one of you is a Celtics fan up in here. :lol: Come on, stop making it a mockery already.

Mike Brown is not even worth fighting for. He's not a great coach. Mediocre at best. Arguably one of the worst. Got his success from riding Lebron's coattails with this "Give the ball to Lebron" Offense.... in a rather weak Eastern Conference.

Mike D'Antoni, if anything, revolutionized the game. Him and Nash created a new style of play in today's game. Yes, it was a high-powered Offense: speed, 3's, pick'n'rolls. Flashy as hell. And I recall many people regard this style of basketball as the "Right way to play Basketball". "If your kid is interested in playing Basketball, have him watch the Phoenix Suns".

And yes, MDA was criticized for not putting an emphasis on Defense. But you can't blame him too much, because first of all, the Phoenix Offense was so over-powering that they didn't need to worry about Defense. Secondly, the Suns didn't have the personnel to be a great Defensive team. They were small with Amare at Center, and Matrix at PF. Granted Amare and Matrix did get some decent Defensive stats such as Steals and Blocks. But obviously they weren't big enough to defend bigger post players like Tim Duncan and Gasol and Bynum. But the Suns did very well and went pretty far in the Playoffs. Especially the great battles against the Lakers.

WIth the Knicks, MDA again didn't have the type of personnel that could play great Defense. Amare was PF/C again. Mozgov sucked. Then the trade for Carmelo took place. Melo doesn't play great defense. Tyson Chandler just got there and was the only one who could play D, but it wasn't enough. Then they relied on Jeremy Lin's offense, but that's another story.

Anyway, now D'Antoni has a team that has good Defensive players. Dwight, Metta, Kobe. Pau sometimes.

This team has a good foundation of talent. Now they just need to execute things on both ends of the court, but it will take some time because of the injuries to Nash, Pau, Dwight. But it's still early enough in the season to right the ship before it's too late.

And sooner or later people will stop arguing that "the Lakers should've kept Mike Brown!". ...That's Ridiculous.

I don't think there are very many people saying the Lakers should've kept Mike Brown. I think what a lot of people are saying, including me, is that what's "ridiculous" is saying that Mike Brown was fired because the team was not improving fast enough 5 games into the season. So, let's summarize:

1. The Lakers should not have hired Mike Brown in the first place. That was mistake number one.

2. It is perfectly understandable that the Lakers wanted to part ways with Mike Brown. The ridiculous thing isn't firing him. What's ridiculous is trying to say with a straight face that he was fired because the team wasn't playing well this season ... after 5 games and no Steve Nash.

3. I'm not fighting for Mike Brown. I don't know if anyone really is. I can only speak for myself, but I'm just saying that they should've fired him in the summer, not after the season started.

But, I'm not a Lakers hater, so maybe the haters really do want Mike Brown back. I just don't think that's what I'm reading.

Does anyone seriously believe that the Lakers' management was all-in on Mike Brown throughout the summer, and then did a sudden about face based on preseason and 5 regular season games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with assuming that fans have superior knowledge about their home teams is this: fans are typically not as patient as management needs to be. Does anyone really disagree with this?

Now, the problem nowadays is that many team owners or managers behave like fans rather than like long-term visionaries. You get lucky on occasion when LeBron and Wade and Bosh fall into your lap (or KG and Ray Allen), but you could argue that those championships had more to do with the players than the management. For the most part, impatience dooms franchises to mediocrity or worse.

By contrast, look at the Spurs. Anybody care to find a team that has had 2 players and a coach who have been together as long as Duncan, Parker, and Popovich? A lot of other teams would've broken them up a long time ago. The Spurs have a vision, they have patience, and they have good management that leads the fans, not follows the fans. Duncan and Parker are past their prime, and the rest of the team are role players. How do they keep contending year after year? Because Popovich has earned enough gravitas to weather the fans emotional reactions and stay put through ups and downs.

On the other hand, Jerry Sloan and Avery Johnson were not so lucky.

Duncan, Ginobili, Parker and Popovich. Parker is actually in his prime, not past it, while the two others are in their declination period, although Duncan seems to have found the fountain of middle age this season....

And I'm not sure you can realistically say that Lebron, Bosh and Wade fell in Miami's lap out of some blind happenstance. Riley had been clearing cap space for almost two years and it took a major recruiting effort and great instincts to understand the pieces on the board and the predilections of those players involved.

Ginobili is an errant omission. All the more compelling because you just don't see any teams that are able to keep that many people together for that long. A solid decade+.

I actually think Tony peaked last year, but if he ages as well as Duncan, I'll be flat wrong there.

Point taken on the Heat, and I'll give props to the Heat for clearing the cap space, but plenty of other teams tried that without landing LeBron. I think the best thing that they had going for them was location, location, location. I think there's a reason why Miami and Los Angeles always seem to win the sweepstakes over the likes of Cleveland and Sacramento ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with assuming that fans have superior knowledge about their home teams is this: fans are typically not as patient as management needs to be. Does anyone really disagree with this?

Now, the problem nowadays is that many team owners or managers behave like fans rather than like long-term visionaries. You get lucky on occasion when LeBron and Wade and Bosh fall into your lap (or KG and Ray Allen), but you could argue that those championships had more to do with the players than the management. For the most part, impatience dooms franchises to mediocrity or worse.

By contrast, look at the Spurs. Anybody care to find a team that has had 2 players and a coach who have been together as long as Duncan, Parker, and Popovich? A lot of other teams would've broken them up a long time ago. The Spurs have a vision, they have patience, and they have good management that leads the fans, not follows the fans. Duncan and Parker are past their prime, and the rest of the team are role players. How do they keep contending year after year? Because Popovich has earned enough gravitas to weather the fans emotional reactions and stay put through ups and downs.

On the other hand, Jerry Sloan and Avery Johnson were not so lucky.

Duncan, Ginobili, Parker and Popovich. Parker is actually in his prime, not past it, while the two others are in their declination period, although Duncan seems to have found the fountain of middle age this season....

And I'm not sure you can realistically say that Lebron, Bosh and Wade fell in Miami's lap out of some blind happenstance. Riley had been clearing cap space for almost two years and it took a major recruiting effort and great instincts to understand the pieces on the board and the predilections of those players involved.

Ginobili is an errant omission. All the more compelling because you just don't see any teams that are able to keep that many people together for that long. A solid decade+.

I actually think Tony peaked last year, but if he ages as well as Duncan, I'll be flat wrong there.

Point taken on the Heat, and I'll give props to the Heat for clearing the cap space, but plenty of other teams tried that without landing LeBron. I think the best thing that they had going for them was location, location, location. I think there's a reason why Miami and Los Angeles always seem to win the sweepstakes over the likes of Cleveland and Sacramento ...

Took a look at Parker's stats and he's actually doing better this year than last, at least by the numbers. I think he looks a tad slower from watching him, especially defensively, but that's very subjective and I'm persuaded it's premature to call him past his prime.

My key point with the Spurs is that they keep fielding great teams even though their individual players aren't necessarily the most ballyhooed out there. Their best player is an All-Star reserve. Every other contender has 2 or 3 all-stars on them. The "all-star" designation isn't the end all be all, but on paper the Spurs probably aren't a team that you would pick to go to the Western Conference finals, but I certainly wouldn't count them out this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with assuming that fans have superior knowledge about their home teams is this: fans are typically not as patient as management needs to be. Does anyone really disagree with this?

Now, the problem nowadays is that many team owners or managers behave like fans rather than like long-term visionaries. You get lucky on occasion when LeBron and Wade and Bosh fall into your lap (or KG and Ray Allen), but you could argue that those championships had more to do with the players than the management. For the most part, impatience dooms franchises to mediocrity or worse.

By contrast, look at the Spurs. Anybody care to find a team that has had 2 players and a coach who have been together as long as Duncan, Parker, and Popovich? A lot of other teams would've broken them up a long time ago. The Spurs have a vision, they have patience, and they have good management that leads the fans, not follows the fans. Duncan and Parker are past their prime, and the rest of the team are role players. How do they keep contending year after year? Because Popovich has earned enough gravitas to weather the fans emotional reactions and stay put through ups and downs.

On the other hand, Jerry Sloan and Avery Johnson were not so lucky.

Duncan, Ginobili, Parker and Popovich. Parker is actually in his prime, not past it, while the two others are in their declination period, although Duncan seems to have found the fountain of middle age this season....

And I'm not sure you can realistically say that Lebron, Bosh and Wade fell in Miami's lap out of some blind happenstance. Riley had been clearing cap space for almost two years and it took a major recruiting effort and great instincts to understand the pieces on the board and the predilections of those players involved.

Ginobili is an errant omission. All the more compelling because you just don't see any teams that are able to keep that many people together for that long. A solid decade+.

I actually think Tony peaked last year, but if he ages as well as Duncan, I'll be flat wrong there.

Point taken on the Heat, and I'll give props to the Heat for clearing the cap space, but plenty of other teams tried that without landing LeBron. I think the best thing that they had going for them was location, location, location. I think there's a reason why Miami and Los Angeles always seem to win the sweepstakes over the likes of Cleveland and Sacramento ...

This is absolutely true and why teams like Cleveland, Milwaukee, Toronto (Milwaukee and Toronto obviously haven't) and even San Antonio have to be smarter and shrewder than the LA, NY, or Miami's of the world. It's simply human nature. Now those inequities are being diffused somewhat thru some salary cap changes and having these advantages doesn't automatically lead to franchise success but it's difficult for the small market teams in less desirable cities to build through luring FA superstars and this cuts off one alternative to success for these cities. They have to focus on the draft and value adds through trade and FA, not superstars. Teams like Indiana, Utah, and San Antonio, and most recently OKC are tremendous examples of organizational management, but they needed a certain level of luck (as most teams do) and better decision making then most to have sustained success.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think there are very many people saying the Lakers should've kept Mike Brown. I think what a lot of people are saying, including me, is that what's "ridiculous" is saying that Mike Brown was fired because the team was not improving fast enough 5 games into the season. So, let's summarize:

1. The Lakers should not have hired Mike Brown in the first place. That was mistake number one.

2. It is perfectly understandable that the Lakers wanted to part ways with Mike Brown. The ridiculous thing isn't firing him. What's ridiculous is trying to say with a straight face that he was fired because the team wasn't playing well this season ... after 5 games and no Steve Nash.

3. I'm not fighting for Mike Brown. I don't know if anyone really is. I can only speak for myself, but I'm just saying that they should've fired him in the summer, not after the season started.

But, I'm not a Lakers hater, so maybe the haters really do want Mike Brown back. I just don't think that's what I'm reading.

Does anyone seriously believe that the Lakers' management was all-in on Mike Brown throughout the summer, and then did a sudden about face based on preseason and 5 regular season games?

And the discussion has ended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, I took the Laker fan point as simply one of expertise. As a Laker fan, we see 82 games + playoffs. I doubt that a non-Laker (he is not saying that you are not a basketball fan) has that experience/level of expertise with the situation. You can provide analysis and numbers to back your argument. However, as a Laker fan, living in So Cal, we have access and info that someone outside of the area is hard press to get. Whether it is talk radio, pre-post games and the like, someone that is not living it on a day to day basis will not get the nuances that we get. Mike Brown had to go. With that said, I think MDA is not a great coach and I was not happy with his hire. As of late, he has made some adjustments with Pau and I am glad to see that. I am sure that Pau has had to tweak his game as well. Cheers.

This is all others posting are asking for, cite your sources as to why Brown was perceived to be disliked by the players (rather then just being your opinion). Then the conversation can go in a positive direction. Simply disagreeing with someone and saying your opinion is more valid because your a fan can be off-putting, depending on how you present yourself. I think you know what I mean.

Example - the Ersan Ilyasova / Skiles situation is well documented on these boards. Everyone is throwing in their two cents evaluating the situation as to why Skiles should be fired (or not) or why Ersan deserves more minutes (or not), etc... Just because I watch more Bucks basketball games then next guy, have presented my opinion on the matter doesn't mean I'm disregarding others analysis on the situation.

And in their lies the continued false assumption: people are assuming that only fans are watching the team they support. (i.e I'm a Bucks fan, only Bucks fans watch their games.)

Some people watch a wide variety of games on a nightly basis with NBA League Pass (especially some of the more interesting teams, like the Lakers who have assembled an interesting roster but is also struggling). There could be a number of reasons people who are not Lakers fans have been following the team just as closely as those who are fans; most likely fantasy implications, like why so many people are watching Bucks games who aren't fans, to evaluate Ilyasova.

Where did I say that the players didn't like Mike Brown? I was just giving my 2 cents on what a Native Angeleno was experiencing around the time of the firing. In my next post I said, "You have to remember that it goes beyond the first 5 games of the season... They were also 0-8 in preseason and it did not look good. This is what I am talking about, the nuances. When you went to a bar, the fish store, the ice cream joint, people were talking about it. It was a freaking mess, especially after the key signings of Howard and Nash"

With that said, Kobe did give the Death Stare:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres another name. Brian Shaw perhaps?

Interesting pick, but I don't think the win-now Nets are ready to hand the coaching job over to a first timer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.