Bee: Brooks to have second interview (merged)

[VF21]

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.

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.

 

[ParniValjak]

I doubt any suprises. Same roster at best 4 to 6 more victories. Now let me state this. So I don't get any "I told you so" type of crap later. If we get the players we need or player such as a decent frontcourt and Brooks IS our coach and he wins say 40-50 games I will give the credit to the players more than the coach as I think its all crap anyway with coaches.

How many championships did Phil win without MJ or Shaq+Kobe
How many did Riley win without Shaq+Wade or Worthy,Magic,Kareem,Green list goes on with the 80's Lakers
and the Celts Bird,Mchale,Parrish.

Give Phil Jackson last years Kings team and we still suck.

So I am no anti Brook or Pro this I don't care I just want some players to start rolling in here.

If thats the case then why have coaches at all?! If its all about the player then why do teams hire coaches.

To say that its not about the coaches is being ignorant. Not everyone is made to be a coach. Of course, coach needs the players but some coaches can't even get it done with the players at their disposal. We are a horrible team but we are not as bad as we were with Muss. We were pretty much a similar team with Adelman and made the play-offs.

Despite popular belief, coaches are a MAJOR piece in the team and even though Phil never would have won anything if it wasn't for MJ/Pippen and Shaq/Kobe, he still deserves credit for getting those egos to function as a team and win the games for him. Put Muss in charge of those Lakers and I bet you he doesn't get it done.

Coaches are just as important as players.

 

[Entity]

Adelman made the 8th seed. Take away Bibby and Millers injury and Muss makes the 8th seed. Yes a team needs a coach. But last year with the injuries I didn't matter who the coach was. Look at Dallas they were a playoff team new coach same players still a playoff team. Now take away Dirk guess what not a playoff team. Again you need a coach. All I am saying is some ppl here are acting as if we get a great coach we are title contenders. I GOT NEWS FOR YOU. We have to have players. Phil, Pat, Red, all of them together could not get this Kings team deep into the playoffs. So deat GP pick a damn coach and lets get to the real needs at hand, talent.

You are right some coaches can't get it done even with the players. Thats not what i am arguing. I am saying that NO COACH can get it done without them.

 

[JoMama]

Brooks comes with a clearance sale price tag which disturbs me greatly. Cheaping out on the fans, just filling the position, isn't acceptable. Oh sure, the public is getting the company line - the players love the guy, he's sharper than Muss, a real guy from the valley, Aileen gets her car washed at the Brook's family biz - but this all sounds too choreographed. Is this setting us up for the big cheap-out?
The upside of a Brook's hire is he'll get a "rookie" contract, so he can be inexpensively dumped if it doesn't work out.
Hope I'm wrong about the guy, but I've got a bad feeling.

 

[JoMama]

Oh, and two other assistants who became Kings head coaches - Jerry Reynolds and Eddie Jordan - didn't exactly light it up on the "W" side. Rex Hughes was "interim" so I won't implicate him.

 

[Spike]

I dunno, Eddie Jordan's done OK in Washington.



I like to look at this scenario in a different way. If Brooks is being interviewed again, he must be doing something right. There's nothing wrong with looking around and coming back to someone you had already looked at. Is he the flashy SVG name? No. I understand some of you were salivating at the prospect of Ron Jeremy, but that isn't happening. Given the situation and the concept of rebuilding this team, I think Brooks would be a solid choice. He has the experience that many are looking for, while being green enough to cut his teeth on a potentially young team.

 

[VF21]

Brooks comes with a clearance sale price tag which disturbs me greatly. Cheaping out on the fans, just filling the position, isn't acceptable. Oh sure, the public is getting the company line - the players love the guy, he's sharper than Muss, a real guy from the valley, Aileen gets her car washed at the Brook's family biz - but this all sounds too choreographed. Is this setting us up for the big cheap-out?
The upside of a Brook's hire is he'll get a "rookie" contract, so he can be inexpensively dumped if it doesn't work out.
Hope I'm wrong about the guy, but I've got a bad feeling.

It seems like some people are dead set against him solely because he had the bad luck to be the assistant to Eric Musselman.

I'm not spouting the company line, BTW. I'm saying what I've heard and seen. And that's an excellent rapport between Brooks and the players.

Bottom line is I hope if Brooks is selected people won't have already decided he was "bargain basement" and, therefore, somehow less than acceptable.

Since you're so anti-Brooks, who is out there that you realistically think could step in and do a better job? And I'm not gonna buy either Kurt Rambis or Brian Shaw because they have LESS NBA wins than Brooks does.

 

[Jechtsphere]

I guess for some of the people who don't want Brooks can be for reasons such as they want someone they are familar with in a way, a name.

They know Rambis or Shaw as champions with the Lakers.

They know Brooks as part of a failed season due to Eric Musselman.

That's why I'll trust Petrie with whatever person he chooses for the job, he'll get the right guy for the job.

 

[Entity]

It seems like some people are dead set against him solely because he had the bad luck to be the assistant to Eric Musselman.

I'm not spouting the company line, BTW. I'm saying what I've heard and seen. And that's an excellent rapport between Brooks and the players.

Bottom line is I hope if Brooks is selected people won't have already decided he was "bargain basement" and, therefore, somehow less than acceptable.

Since you're so anti-Brooks, who is out there that you realistically think could step in and do a better job? And I'm not gonna buy either Kurt Rambis or Brian Shaw because they have LESS NBA wins than Brooks does.

I thought Rambis had a record of 24-13 as the Lakers interim coach?

 

[zeke04]

I really doubt GP is going to "settle" on any coach. I'm sure part of what he is looking for is the type of coach that can develope young talent. He has seen Brooks work with players in practice so he knows exaclty how he works with the players.

Why not hire him now if you're that happy with him? He's already under contract if I'm not mistaken. He's not going anywhere. You might as well talk to other coaches and get a better feel about them. As we know GP is not going to rush into anything on his own. Maloofs could push, but according to them this search is on GP and I'm cool with that.

 

[GoSACtown]

went to the same high school as brooks..east union in manteca, many years after him however

 

[PurpleHaze]

I really doubt GP is going to "settle" on any coach. I'm sure part of what he is looking for is the type of coach that can develope young talent. He has seen Brooks work with players in practice so he knows exaclty how he works with the players.

Why not hire him now if you're that happy with him? He's already under contract if I'm not mistaken. He's not going anywhere. You might as well talk to other coaches and get a better feel about them. As we know GP is not going to rush into anything on his own. Maloofs could push, but according to them this search is on GP and I'm cool with that.

I agree, I don't think there's any hurry now that SVG is elsewhere along with a crop of other recent head coaches hired around the league. Therefore, I don't think Petrie feels any particular pressure to get it done before the NBA draft because a lot of work within the organization is going into that pick. Even if a new Kings coach were hired a few days before the pick it could be a mute point as to who is likely to be selected or what trades are in the works. I mean, if Seattle announces their head coach choice before the Kings and it's a Carlisle or PJ retread I could care less.

 

[Kingster]

You're writing a fantasy scenario here. It wasn't up to Scott Brooks or any other assistant coach to step in a "set players straight."

There are only a few possible scenarios to this situation.

1) Brooks steps in to try to stop the chaos, which in my view is not going to make him friends with at least some of those causing the chaos. Ergo, he WASN'T a friend of all.

2) Brooks doesn't step in to stop the chaos. It's definitely easier to remain a friend of all by not stepping in the middle of the snake pit.

If Brooks does #2, it may have been because he was (1) told not to by Muss, or (2) because he didn't do so of his own accord. Regardless, if he did #2 for any reason whatsoever he's not exactly put himself in a position of power as the new head coach of the Sacramento Kings. I don't think he would win points for being the passive observer.

Au contraire, mon ami. There's no reason why players cannot like a head coach and respect him for the job he's doing. Rick Adelman always had the respect of the players, with the exception of a couple of tools who weren't here that long for obvious reasons.

I'm not trying to say Brooks is going to be the next Gregg Popovich or even the next Rick Adelman. I'm simply pointing out that of the remaining candidates for our head coach position, I certainly think he's a legitimate contender.

You are living in a fantasy world. On a team with SAR and Thomas, Bibby and Artest, you are living in fantasyland if you think you can make everybody happy. Or do you think you can "negotiate" the problem? Get real.

Sure, Brooks is a contender. And maybe he is the right man for the job. But the question needs to be asked of him: What were you doing when the chaos occurred?

 

[ParniValjak]

It seems like some people are dead set against him solely because he had the bad luck to be the assistant to Eric Musselman.

I'm not spouting the company line, BTW. I'm saying what I've heard and seen. And that's an excellent rapport between Brooks and the players.

Bottom line is I hope if Brooks is selected people won't have already decided he was "bargain basement" and, therefore, somehow less than acceptable.

Since you're so anti-Brooks, who is out there that you realistically think could step in and do a better job? And I'm not gonna buy either Kurt Rambis or Brian Shaw because they have LESS NBA wins than Brooks does.

For starters, Rambis has more wins as a coach than Brooks but anyway, I want someone who has some sort of head coaching experience and who also has some assistant coaching experience. Someone who has played the game at the highest level and has a good career. In other words, I would like to see Terry Porter as our next coach but I very much doubt our owners would want him here but to me he is easily the best available candidate whose name is not Carlisle.

 

[VF21]

Sure, Brooks is a contender. And maybe he is the right man for the job. But the question needs to be asked of him: What were you doing when the chaos occurred?

What he might have been doing is keeping people from killing Musselman. What he might have been doing is what he was supposed to do. What he might have been doing is acting on orders from Petrie to try and keep things as calm as possible in the locker room AND out of the public eye.

We don't know that he did anything, but if he's still being considered I think at some point you have to make the leap to the conclusion that Scott Brooks didn't do anything to make matters worse. Had he done so, he would already be gone.

I think what you're missing is the possibility that the front office knows more than we do about what did and didn't happen.

You're still insisting that it was up to Brooks to stop the "chaos." Define the chaos. Give concrete examples of situations where Brooks should have done something and prove that he didn't.

You can't because most of the stuff that happened is only rumored. It was, for the most part, kept out of the media. And I'm pretty sure it never will see the light of day. It would do no good to air dirty linen now, so to speak.

 

[kennadog]

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. The fact that they didn't, coupled with this year's careful search, would make Brooks' hiring feel like settling.

I, for one, am waaaaay over settling.

There was a story written a while back that the Maloofs did want to fire Muss around December or January. Apparently, it was mama Maloof that saved him from being canned, by saying he should at least have the full year to prove himself. (Thanks for that, mama.) Too lazy to find the story right now...going to bed. Seemed a credible rumor just for the detail.

 

[kennadog]

Sure, Brooks is a contender. And maybe he is the right man for the job. But the question needs to be asked of him: What were you doing when the chaos occurred?

Why do you assume he did nothing? Maybe he was trying not to add to the chaos by openly getting into it with the coach, since apparently he and Muss did not see eye to eye.

Maybe the chaos would have been even worse, if not for actions taken by Brooks. Maybe that's why the Maloofs and Petrie are willing to consider him for the head job. Speculation? Sure, but not anymore than your assumption he did nothing.

Ultimately, Brooks did not have the authority to change anything in that locker room, no matter how much he may have wanted to. We can't judge how he'll do as a head coach, until he's given that level of authority and that responsibility.

 

[Kingster]

What he might have been doing is keeping people from killing Musselman. What he might have been doing is what he was supposed to do. What he might have been doing is acting on orders from Petrie to try and keep things as calm as possible in the locker room AND out of the public eye.

We don't know that he did anything, but if he's still being considered I think at some point you have to make the leap to the conclusion that Scott Brooks didn't do anything to make matters worse. Had he done so, he would already be gone.

I think what you're missing is the possibility that the front office knows more than we do about what did and didn't happen.

You're still insisting that it was up to Brooks to stop the "chaos." Define the chaos. Give concrete examples of situations where Brooks should have done something and prove that he didn't.

You can't because most of the stuff that happened is only rumored. It was, for the most part, kept out of the media. And I'm pretty sure it never will see the light of day. It would do no good to air dirty linen now, so to speak.

First, we know as much as we can know anything that the lockeroom was chaos last year. Corliss Williamson, who has been on several teams over several years, told us so. He said it was the worst lockeroom, by far, that he's ever been in. If he didn't use the word, "crazy", he certainly alluded to it. Also,Grant N., who is dialed in, has also said it was terrible. Forget about dismissing it - there is way too much smoke to avoid seeing the fire.

I'm sure the front office knows more than we do - A LOT MORE - but I doubt very much if they know it all. And I'm not talking about airing dirty linen. That implies that this would be aired in public. No, I'm just saying that it could be extremely illuminating to ask Brooks in the interview about what happened last year, and what he was doing, and thinking, when it happened. These would be very tough questions, but Brooks might knock it right of the park with his answers, or maybe he doesn't. In any case, the pink elephant on the couch should definitely be the subject of some conversation.

 

[VF21]

No, I'm just saying that it could be extremely illuminating to ask Brooks in the interview about what happened last year, and what he was doing, and thinking, when it happened. These would be very tough questions, but Brooks might knock it right of the park with his answers, or maybe he doesn't. In any case, the pink elephant on the couch should definitely be the subject of some conversation.

And I'm simply saying you have no idea - nor do I - of what has been asked in the interviews. Since neither of us will be there, isn't it pretty much an exercise in futility to argue about the conversation?

 

[kennadog]

I would assume that was likely asked and answered in Brooks' "informal" interview at season end (debriefing), when GP talks to everybody. And maybe that's part of what earned Brooks a "formal" interview for the job. Who knows?

Since the season was pretty disastrous, I'm going to assume that GP is likely asking all the applicants how they would handle certain types of issues/situations. That's pretty standard for any job interview.

 

[Entity]

So is this interview over now or was it an all day thing. Just wondering if any reports or rumors are coming out on feelings about the interview from either side.