FIRE MIKE BROWN

#38
I think he has done a hell of a job and pushes the right button way more often than the wrong one. He transformed our culture in year one and then turned us into a top 14 defense (top 8 after the break). Think about our history for a minute and then think about how big of a deal that is.

I agree that the threes can get annoying but here’s a thought, how about we start making them at a higher clip? We need a bit more consistency out of our shooters next season.
 
Last edited:
#39
2nd most successful coach in Sacramento history is such a low bar, that it really shouldn't weigh much into an evaluation.

If he hovers between say 43 and 49 wins and never gets out of the 1st round, I'd be surprised if they don't go another direction at some point
How quickly we've forgotten what this org looked like before Mike Brown. Idk how anyone thinks we could fire a coach like him after 2 years and not end up with a nuclear trainwreck
 
#42
How quickly we've forgotten what this org looked like before Mike Brown. Idk how anyone thinks we could fire a coach like him after 2 years and not end up with a nuclear trainwreck
I kind of see Mike Brown as the guy who gets us back to the playoffs (consistently), maybe gets us to be a 2nd round/WCF team (consistently), but who will ultimately need to be let go to bring in someone else who will be able to get us over that final hurdle, and hopefully contend for a championship.
 
#43
two more seasons from now?
I think he gets next year as a "freebie", even if we regress and then year 4 is when that seat starts to get warm. If you don't see actual growth by the end of year 4, it's probably just not working out.

But that's a logical way to map out a coach with a franchise. Firing him after 2 seasons, with 2 of the best win totals we've had in 16 years, is insanity. This past year was our SIXTH best year in franchise history! Think about that for a second.
 
#44
I was frustrated with Brown this season and feel like he cost us a few games.

You CAN NOT fire him. He has built a culture here, and posted back to back winning seasons. We haven’t seen either of those things in Sacramento for 15+ years.

You just found stability as a franchise, you do not ruin that because you missed the Playoffs as a 46 win team in a historically stacked conference.
 
#45
I kind of see Mike Brown as the guy who gets us back to the playoffs (consistently), maybe gets us to be a 2nd round/WCF team (consistently), but who will ultimately need to be let go to bring in someone else who will be able to get us over that final hurdle, and hopefully contend for a championship.
Sure maybe. But you give him years to see what he can do. Maybe he gets a chip, maybe the talent isn't there. But that's a year 4 decision not year 2, ESPECIALLY in Sacramento. We'd never get a good candidate if we fired him.
 
#46
I think has done a hell of a job and pushes the right button way more often than the wrong one. He transformed our culture in year one and then turned us into a top 14 defense (top 8 after the break). Think about our history for a minute and then think about how big of a deal that is.

I agree that the threes can get annoying but here’s a thought, how about we start making them at a higher clip? We need a bit more consistency out of our shooters next season.
The bolded part of your post is pretty much what I despise about today's NBA...Even if threes are not falling, teams still tend to jack them up at such an insane rate. I would much rather a team, as soon as they realize that they're even gonna struggle to hit the broad side of the barn, kind of pull back on the long-range game, and start going inside a little more.
 
#47
I think he gets next year as a "freebie", even if we regress and then year 4 is when that seat starts to get warm. If you don't see actual growth by the end of year 4, it's probably just not working out.

But that's a logical way to map out a coach with a franchise. Firing him after 2 seasons, with 2 of the best win totals we've had in 16 years, is insanity. This past year was our SIXTH best year in franchise history! Think about that for a second.
I think if the Kings tank next season then everyones fair game. Just watching the post game, and from a few reports it sure feels like if anyones seat is getting a little warm it's going to be Monte's. Not Mike Browns.
 
#49
I think he gets next year as a "freebie", even if we regress and then year 4 is when that seat starts to get warm. If you don't see actual growth by the end of year 4, it's probably just not working out.

But that's a logical way to map out a coach with a franchise. Firing him after 2 seasons, with 2 of the best win totals we've had in 16 years, is insanity. This past year was our SIXTH best year in franchise history! Think about that for a second.
Lol, this season was Western Conference Championship or bust apparently. As if that was even realistic for a franchise that hadn't been in the playoffs for a record 2 decades lol. This whole thread reeks
 
#50
How quickly we've forgotten what this org looked like before Mike Brown. Idk how anyone thinks we could fire a coach like him after 2 years and not end up with a nuclear trainwreck
I don't think he has much chance of being fired and am not advocating for it now,.....but to answer your question, if they were somehow able to find a better head coach, then it probably wouldn't be a train wreck.

Hypothetical....if one of the teams in the league who has a head coach that you would consider better than Brown, decided to move on from that coach, would you consider jumping on the chance to bring him in?
 
#51
I think he gets next year as a "freebie", even if we regress and then year 4 is when that seat starts to get warm. If you don't see actual growth by the end of year 4, it's probably just not working out.

But that's a logical way to map out a coach with a franchise. Firing him after 2 seasons, with 2 of the best win totals we've had in 16 years, is insanity. This past year was our SIXTH best year in franchise history! Think about that for a second.
If this situation was with another team who has had more winning seasons, would your evaluation of him be different?
 
#52
Lol, this season was Western Conference Championship or bust apparently. As if that was even realistic for a franchise that hadn't been in the playoffs for a record 2 decades lol. This whole thread reeks
At times, it feels, and has felt, as if this season was NBA Champions or bust apparently.

Lol, this season was Western Conference Championship or bust apparently. As if that was even realistic for a franchise that hadn't been in the playoffs for a record 2 decades lol. This whole thread reeks
Ditto.
 
#54
I wouldn’t have been opposed to promoting Jordi (I think he has potential to be a great head coach), but that ship has sailed.

With that being said, Mike Brown is a good coach and we’re not getting anyone better than him. I didn’t like his coaching for the first half of the season and blamed a lot of losses on him, but you could really see him make the adjustments and tweaks as the season came to a finish. His biggest area of improvement was on the defensive end where a number of my frustrations with him subsided. What’s his big fault as a head coach? Keegan going cold? Keon getting scared of the lights? Lyles forgetting how to play basketball? Monk getting injured? Huerter getting injured? He was not the problem tonight. Any franchise would be fortunate to be led by Brown at helm. This roster always had a cap of 1st round. That’s not his fault.

Do you want to end up with George Karl as your head coach? Because this is how you end up with George Karl.
 
#55
If this situation was with another team who has had more winning seasons, would your evaluation of him be different?
No, because I think he's done an excellent job as a coach and good coaches deserve plenty of rope and opportunity to see their plan/vision for the team through. He's proven step 1 (win games). Step 2 is now how he takes this team to the next level to win a playoff series and make an actual playoff run.

If you prove step 1, you deserve the chance to prove step 2. Just in my personal opinion, that SHOULD start to show out by the end of year 4. If we're stuck in mud, or regressing, by then, that's when you consider a change.
 
#56
I think he gets next year as a "freebie", even if we regress and then year 4 is when that seat starts to get warm. If you don't see actual growth by the end of year 4, it's probably just not working out.

But that's a logical way to map out a coach with a franchise. Firing him after 2 seasons, with 2 of the best win totals we've had in 16 years, is insanity. This past year was our SIXTH best year in franchise history! Think about that for a second.
If he doesn’t make the playoffs next year then I think he’s out as HC. Sabonis and Fox are too talented not to be in the playoffs. Missing the playoffs this year sucked, but there’s no excuse for next year barring any major injury
 
#57
No, because I think he's done an excellent job as a coach and good coaches deserve plenty of rope and opportunity to see their plan/vision for the team through. He's proven step 1 (win games). Step 2 is now how he takes this team to the next level to win a playoff series and make an actual playoff run.

If you prove step 1, you deserve the chance to prove step 2. Just in my personal opinion, that SHOULD start to show out by the end of year 4. If we're stuck in mud, or regressing, by then, that's when you consider a change.
Makes sense. I think we need to stop using the 2nd most success in Sacramento bit, as part of the reasoning and evaluation
 
#59
If he doesn’t make the playoffs next year then I think he’s out as HC. Sabonis and Fox are too talented not to be in the playoffs. Missing the playoffs this year sucked, but there’s no excuse for next year barring any major injury
Even if Monk signs somewhere else? Cause that could be used as reason for regression
 

Spike

Subsidiary Intermediary
Staff member
#60
In all honesty and transparency, I thought about closing this down, but y'all proved me wrong.

It sucks, we lost.
We lost to a team that we lost to all year.
We lost to a team who was missing their best player. (Nevermind us not having the wildcard or Huerter)
We lost to a team that has had our number all year.

That said, this loss helps us get to where we want to be. It shows management what we need to be better. We need length. We need a bigger interior presence. We need Huerter to return to form, and Keegan to continue to develop. Among other things.

We're not a finished product. It's ok to be upset. And I'm frankly proud of how we're responding to this. Be upset. Be reasonable. Look for growth.

Thanks, all.