I realize I'm not privy to any behind the scenes info, but I can't shake the thought that if TPTB had been that impressed with the job Brooks did last year, they would have ended the Musselman ugliness sooner and just promoted him then.
Maybe, maybe not. And it might be that TPTB didn't want to shoot two horses in a season that was definitely not going anywhere. It was clear Musselman wasn't the right person but the season was pretty much lost. Bringing in anyone mid-year, when they could really do very little to turns things around, wouldn't have made much sense.
And again, I don't think Scott Brooks has been the lead choice all along. But as things have worked out, it's appearing to me that he might well be an adequate choice. If you feel that's settling, then we - once again - just have a fundamental difference of opinion.
Bricklayer said:If the players were, and I did not particualrly note it, but if they were, that would likely as much be about anti-Muss as pro-Brooks, no?
I don't think it has to be one or the other. It could easily be that players were pro-Brooks partially because they were anti-Musselman and partially because they were pro being treated as human beings and not just graphic images in another power point presentation. They could have been reacting to the vast differences in personality, style, etc. Players being pro-Brooks could just as easily have been players being pro-any coach who actually acts like he understands the needs of the players and the game. They saw the difference and were supportive. And if that's the case, I think it's just another indication that Brooks is a suitable candidate for the opening.