I have my knocks on Scott Brook's line ups and match ups ( that all really started last year when westbrook went down). He learned after the 2012 finals when and when not to give Perkins too much time on the floor. BUT to say Spo is special or better as a head coach is ridiculous, and he did not invent small ball wtf, he just had a great roster in which he was able to do it (not every team is capabale of running with a productive and small line up), and he lacked a threat at center always.. so he had no damn choice but to do it. We'll see how good spo is without the "king"
I don't understand this Scott Brooks sucks so OKC has no chance argument. The Packers won a SB with an overrated, average at best coach. Why? They have Aaron Rodgers. The Colts got to the SB with a rookie head coach who lost his job pretty quickly after that. The Cardinals got there with a shitty coach, but they had Kurt Warner. My point here? If you have elite talent, it can easily triumph coaching. And these examples are just of 1 player on a very large team. In basketball it's only 5 guys at once, so I feel like therefore coaching is even less important than the NFL when you have elite talent. The Thunder have 2 elite players, maybe 3, including the NBA MVP. So yeah...OKC can't possibly win it all.
Spo is clearly a better coach than Brooks. When Spo rolls out lineups that start to produce negatively, he is much better at reacting and changing the rotation and lineup than Brooks is. Guess what, most coaches would not have installed the offense and defense Spo did even without a center. Most coaches would not have thrown Rashard Lewis on David West and watched it worked. Yeah he got lucky and yeah he had the best player in the world, but Lebron didn't win any championships in Cleveland with those coaches. Cleveland never used Lebron the right way or a developed a system that maximized his capabilities. If you go and look at the past championship winners, there is always a great player and great coach, not just one or the other. Kobe had Phil. Shaq had Phil and Riley. Duncan had Pop. Dirk had Carlisle. MJ had Phil. Brooks has had bad luck, but the Thunder also really stall offensively and Brooks has struggled with in game rotations and keeping the Thunder clicking. That's not to say he's a bad coach, just that he isn't a top coach which is usually what is needed to win a championship. A top coach and top player. That obviously doesn't guarantee you anything, but that sure is the trend. Brooks is really good at developing players it seems. KD, Westbrook, Ibaka, Harden. That's impressive considering talent doesn't necessarily lead to success, you need the strong coach/development/practices to turn you into that type of player Coaching is absolutely necessary in winning a championship. I don't get why everyone thinks it's so easy or not necessary
Scott Brooks has Xs and Os on offense? Pretty sure his offensive playbook is: 1. Iso with Westbrook, Westbrook shoots or creates 2. Iso with Durant, Durant shoots or creates If both don't work the first time, go back to step 1. Brooks rarely makes adjustments to the team. Not a big fan of him.
Nobody remembers the 2012 WCF finals when brooks put sef on TP and took him out of the series completely and SMALL BALLED the spurs after being down 0-2 to go on to win 4-2 basically a sweep. Nobody remembers just in the 2nd round this year he made the adjustment adding Caron butler to the starting line up and sitting Perkins for all of 5 minutes and Steve Adams played his best game of his career and we went on to blow the clippers out, same happened vs grizz in rd 1. Nobody remembers okc led the league in point differential and points scored in the 3rd quarter of games but I'm sure that has nothing to do with what brooks does in the locker room right? My knock on brooks is how he uses Perkins sometimes but he has it figured out I'm sure if we beat San Antonio perk woulda played very limited minutes. My other knock was him giving washed up Caron butler & fisher all of j.Lambs and perry Jones's minutes. Other than that he has this VERY YOUNG TEAM PRETTY MUCH DOMINATING THE NBA 55+ win seasons , WCF & NBA finals 3 of last 4 seasons.. And his Best players are just turning 25 .. But I'm sure he had nothing to do with all that either. 2012 Coach of the year? Yeah terrible coaches win that often too. So uhh... What's spo's resume prior to getting one of the best rosters in the history of the game with a team full of in their prime future hall of famers? Let's see what okc does with our young home grown stars finally entering their prime . Not 1... nOt 2... not 3...
I don't give Scott Brooks any credit for this series. Durant and Westbrook played hero ball that entire series and they won only because Zach was suspended for game 7. Brooks has no offensive philosophy what-so-ever.
Please, it's a peashooter game of mediocre coaches that have elite talent to play with. None of these guys are elite coaches.
100% agree. That's why I said Scott brooks can just spoelstra his way through kd's and Russ's upcoming years as they enter their primes.
I can't say that because we just blew them the hell out in game 6 .. The butler adjustment stopped them from doubling and tripling down on KD we spread the floor got every one involved n whooped their ass like we should've have done the whole series
Soo...KD won the ESPY for best basketball player...not MVP..best professional basketball player. I'm not sayin...I'm just sayin PS. I'm not sure why, or how Westbrook won comeback athlete. He came back and got injured again technically, and then sat out awhile, and came back again. I mean sure it was impressive? There had to be a better example this year though.
I think Brooks is pretty decent in regards to defense, but offense it's just an ugly system they run there (well they technically don't run a system).
This, and thats why many basketball experts agree the Thunder will never win a title unless that gets changed.
Charles Barkley was right from the get-go. The offensive system and a lack of a low-post threat will stop them from winning a title.
