Voisin: Brown Interested in Kings Job (merged)
- Thread starter Rockmeister
- Start date
I'm not suggesting Brown is the best candidate for the job.
Just reminding people that they were fickle for dissing Adelman and insisting they get a "defensive minded" guy like Musselman, because Adelmen's style was never going to win a championship, yet somehow people were buying into the fact that Musselman's "rep" as a defensive coach gave them a better chance.
As hard as it is to believe now, people bought into that every bit as much as the Maloofs. To this day I'm really not sure what gave Musselman his defensive reputation, but reputation is obviously important to people and he somehow earned one.
Well, here's another defensive minded coach: Larry Brown. Anybody want him?
Just reminding people that they were fickle for dissing Adelman and insisting they get a "defensive minded" guy like Musselman, because Adelmen's style was never going to win a championship, yet somehow people were buying into the fact that Musselman's "rep" as a defensive coach gave them a better chance.
As hard as it is to believe now, people bought into that every bit as much as the Maloofs. To this day I'm really not sure what gave Musselman his defensive reputation, but reputation is obviously important to people and he somehow earned one.
Well, here's another defensive minded coach: Larry Brown. Anybody want him?
OK folks, Brown or Brooks? Is that what it has come to? 
That would be cool if we had Shaw as our coach and Shaq as our assistant. So, instead of mentioning the names of our coaching staff, we would just say that the Kings are coached by Shawq.
eh heh...
anyways...I really dont want Brooks because he reminds of Musselman way too much. I would actually take Larry over Brooks, but Shaw over both of them.
Well, I can think of worse ideas.
In LB's favor--
He's got experience and a reputation for defensive play, neither of which is true of the other candidates remaining.
After his much publicized New York fiasco, there's going to be A LOT of attention paid to his next coaching job. That means free publicity, and lots of it. Even if it turns into another fiasco, you'd have a lot of people watching the Kings next year who wouldn't be otherwise. That's good for business.
He's been handsomly paid already so he'd be in it for redemption this time rather than the paycheck. At least for his first year.
He's expressed interest in the job, the players, and confidence in the GM. Any hall of fame coach expressing interest in Sacramento, regardless of the circumstances, is at least worth a look. Can you think of even one hall of famer (player/coach/whatever) expressing interest in Sacramento?
On the other hand--
His performance last year in New York has got to be one of the biggest coaching screwups of all time. He was a distraction the year before in Detroit as well so that's two bad years in a row (along with a failed Olympic stint) tainting his legacy. Is he already washed up?
He's got a reputation for picking fights with his players. I can think of at least one Kings player you don't want to be picking fights with. Uh oh.
Does anyone think he'll be happy in Sacramento any more than a year? He's a temporary fill in, not the longterm solution we're looking for.
---
Looking at our current options, I'd say do it. Nobody else is available right now, he might actually get this team to play defense, and he'd bring a lot of attention to the team which would benefit the Maloofs and David Stern. Clearly there is no one that Petrie or the Maloofs are dying to hire right now, so this would buy us a year so we can start the coaching search over with a new round of possible coaches next year. If everything implodes, we'll get another high draft pick with a lot of good centers and point guards expected next year. If Larry Brown returns to hall of fame form, we've got the big name defensive coach with championship credentials we've been hoping for. Sounds like a win-win to me.
In LB's favor--
He's got experience and a reputation for defensive play, neither of which is true of the other candidates remaining.
After his much publicized New York fiasco, there's going to be A LOT of attention paid to his next coaching job. That means free publicity, and lots of it. Even if it turns into another fiasco, you'd have a lot of people watching the Kings next year who wouldn't be otherwise. That's good for business.
He's been handsomly paid already so he'd be in it for redemption this time rather than the paycheck. At least for his first year.
He's expressed interest in the job, the players, and confidence in the GM. Any hall of fame coach expressing interest in Sacramento, regardless of the circumstances, is at least worth a look. Can you think of even one hall of famer (player/coach/whatever) expressing interest in Sacramento?
On the other hand--
His performance last year in New York has got to be one of the biggest coaching screwups of all time. He was a distraction the year before in Detroit as well so that's two bad years in a row (along with a failed Olympic stint) tainting his legacy. Is he already washed up?
He's got a reputation for picking fights with his players. I can think of at least one Kings player you don't want to be picking fights with. Uh oh.
Does anyone think he'll be happy in Sacramento any more than a year? He's a temporary fill in, not the longterm solution we're looking for.
---
Looking at our current options, I'd say do it. Nobody else is available right now, he might actually get this team to play defense, and he'd bring a lot of attention to the team which would benefit the Maloofs and David Stern. Clearly there is no one that Petrie or the Maloofs are dying to hire right now, so this would buy us a year so we can start the coaching search over with a new round of possible coaches next year. If everything implodes, we'll get another high draft pick with a lot of good centers and point guards expected next year. If Larry Brown returns to hall of fame form, we've got the big name defensive coach with championship credentials we've been hoping for. Sounds like a win-win to me.
They are.
They are also a bit lacking in the ole acumen department, and after they have meddled again, its Geoff and the rest of the staff who have to deal with the old spoiled diva after he hits town, starts lounging around sucking on mai tais and complaining that nobody from the front office has come down to buff his loafers this afternoon.
Last edited:
We do not need Larry Brown. And if the Kings were interested I think they already would have approached him. I strongly suspect he's simply too high-maintenance for even the Maloofs, regardless of what they might say in public. They're already paying one coach to NOT coach. I don't think they'll be interested in having to do it again and Brown's track record speaks pretty loudly about that type of thing.
Sorry, Larry. You need to just kick back and relax, and enjoy spending the millions you're being paid to do absolutely nothing.
Sorry, Larry. You need to just kick back and relax, and enjoy spending the millions you're being paid to do absolutely nothing.
I'm biased because Larry Brown did the best turnaround job in basketball history when he got UCLA to the title game back 1980 (approx). He is not without talent. His baggage and zigzagging is legendary, but he is not an idiot.
I'm scared they'll hire Brooks. I'm scared they are truly interested in Carlissimo. I'd prefer "man's man" coaches like Porter-Shaw-Rambis but I'm afraid they'll wind up with a Wiesenstadt (sp?). Brown is perhaps past his prime, but I thought Nelson was too and he did okay. I just fear they're gonna make another musselman type error and the team will suck worse.
Brown will play a young kid if he's good. My fav UCLA squad had 3 key freshman before it was fashionable to use them. He proved himself in the pros. If he's healthy it might make for a fun season. I dunno. Just my opinion.
I'm scared they'll hire Brooks. I'm scared they are truly interested in Carlissimo. I'd prefer "man's man" coaches like Porter-Shaw-Rambis but I'm afraid they'll wind up with a Wiesenstadt (sp?). Brown is perhaps past his prime, but I thought Nelson was too and he did okay. I just fear they're gonna make another musselman type error and the team will suck worse.
Brown will play a young kid if he's good. My fav UCLA squad had 3 key freshman before it was fashionable to use them. He proved himself in the pros. If he's healthy it might make for a fun season. I dunno. Just my opinion.
That's fairly cynical, but I can understand the reason for cynicism with regards to the recent Sacramento Kings foibles...
...or Brooks starts off 8-25 and in the midst of it the D.A. indicts him for one or more felonies as a result of his Dribbles Car Wash biz.... or Theus or Shaw soon appear in over their head in the loaded Western Conf as a tanking Kings team sinks deep into NBA laughing stock domain. Lots of nightmare visions, not a lot of options, and risk everywhere.
, but I can understand the reason for cynicism with regards to the recent Sacramento Kings foibles... ...or Brooks starts off 8-25 and in the midst of it the D.A. indicts him for one or more felonies as a result of his Dribbles Car Wash biz.... or Theus or Shaw soon appear in over their head in the loaded Western Conf as a tanking Kings team sinks deep into NBA laughing stock domain. Lots of nightmare visions, not a lot of options, and risk everywhere.
Where else are we going to get a coach who has actually won an NBA championship? Hire him....and do it today. Everyone else is an "also ran" to a coach with his credentials. The only other choices that have his credentials are Pat Riley, Phil Jackson, and Greg Popovich. Would any one of you say no to any of those choices? I sure as heck wouldn't. If the Maloofs are serious about winning they should do it in a heartbeat. Stop playing around with all these other stiffs. I mean really. Larry Brown has his baggage, sure, but he can teach...and win championships. He's done it time and time again. New York was an impossible situation and he was lucky he got out. No one could win with that group of misfits. As far as him co-existing with Ron Artest, Ron Ron will be long gone by next season. Take that to the bank. I can"t believe anyone wouldn't take Larry Brown as our head coach. Compared to Brian Shaw? PJ Carlissemo? Scott "what's he proved" Brooks? None of these guys will even give us a chance. At least Larry Brown will give us a chance. And that's all I ask for.
You think?
http://www.sacbee.com/kings/story/225885.html
Is it really worth two stories on a candidate that hasn't even been interviewed (and most like won't be) when there's already been plenty of people who have actually gone through the process? Especially when the only story appears to be the writer calling someone she thinks might be good for her job... er... I mean the Kings' coaching job.
http://www.sacbee.com/kings/story/225885.html
Is it really worth two stories on a candidate that hasn't even been interviewed (and most like won't be) when there's already been plenty of people who have actually gone through the process? Especially when the only story appears to be the writer calling someone she thinks might be good for her job... er... I mean the Kings' coaching job.
Your lame attempt to compare a dead man to a viable candidate for head coach is weak. Any people I noted are all alive and kicking. Have you ever heard the old saying you can't win em all. At least Larry Brown has won...alot. He knows how. H'e proven it. And recently. Go ahead and settle for a guy who doesn't have a history of success like P.J. or Scott brooks . Or better yet settle for a guy who has no history of coaching in the NBA like Reggie Theus. Maybe you'll get lucky. I'm betting you wont. I'll take my chances with a proven winner.
Brown was MUCH worse than unsuccessfull with a group of misfits in NY. It was clear all seaosn long that he not only did not have a clue, he did not even care. He collected his 10 mill and quit. (not necessarly in that order) The sad thing is that now 3 years later he wants to try and rehab his reputation. A good start would have been accepting the buy out offer from NY with the dignity of a leader who knew he faild. He took no responsablity for that debacle what so ever. Were I seriously interviewing him for the job my first question would be tell us everything you did wrong in NY then tell us how you propose to do better here.
Now you may interpet my attempt at humor as a lame attempt to compare a living candidate with a dead man, but I seriously think you miss the crucial point I was makeing wih humor. No matter how good Larry Brown WAS, it was clear in NY those days are gone and THAT coach is dead. Therefore he is no more viable an alternative than Red.
The meere fact Brown has won the Championship doe NOT make him a better choce than candidates that have not won. Plenty of better coaches have no rings (Sloan & Adelman to name two). What Brown has is a track record and while that might be an advantage over guys with no record at all, when the record you bring with you is a long career of hit and run coaching, leaving franchises in shambles and never acknowlaging your errors, Im not sure that IS an advantage over the guy with no record what so ever. I have no Idea what Theus can or would do, nor Brooks or Shaw for that matter, and I have never advocated FOR any of them. But I have seen what Brown can do I will stand by my first post in this thread where I some what sarcastically suggested the Maloofs ought to charge him 2 million to let him lead the team into the lotto next season.
Now you may interpet my attempt at humor as a lame attempt to compare a living candidate with a dead man, but I seriously think you miss the crucial point I was makeing wih humor. No matter how good Larry Brown WAS, it was clear in NY those days are gone and THAT coach is dead. Therefore he is no more viable an alternative than Red.
The meere fact Brown has won the Championship doe NOT make him a better choce than candidates that have not won. Plenty of better coaches have no rings (Sloan & Adelman to name two). What Brown has is a track record and while that might be an advantage over guys with no record at all, when the record you bring with you is a long career of hit and run coaching, leaving franchises in shambles and never acknowlaging your errors, Im not sure that IS an advantage over the guy with no record what so ever. I have no Idea what Theus can or would do, nor Brooks or Shaw for that matter, and I have never advocated FOR any of them. But I have seen what Brown can do I will stand by my first post in this thread where I some what sarcastically suggested the Maloofs ought to charge him 2 million to let him lead the team into the lotto next season.
Last edited: