Sure but the same could be said about Mike Brown, who took the Cavs on a bunch of deep playoff runs then got Dan Gilbert-ed and got tasked with replacing Phil Jackson and got Kobe-ed like a week into his second season.
You might want to revisit Adelman's tenure with the Kings if this is your argument.
You don't go out there and do something stupid like risk letting Mike Brown walk after his contract is up because "there could be a better coach available after next season". You go out there and do "something stupid" like risk letting Mike Brown walk after his contract is up because there IS a better coach available after next season. So, the question to you becomes...Who, in your mind, IS available after next season that would result in an immediate, and immense, upgrade over Mike Brown?
I am definitely not on the fire Mike Brown bandwagon, but I certainly think there are better coaches out there. The comparison with adelman I think really shows a key difference between good coaching and great coaching. Good coaches find out what their players are good at and encourage them to do it. They design a system in place to take advantage of that talent. Great coaches constantly look at what's going on in the fluid situation adjust and adapt lineups in order to maximize potential on the court moment to moment throughout the game, season and especially series.
And Fox made his first all-star team, clutch player of the year, etc., under Brown.
I didn't think you could make watching the Lakers lose any more entertaining. But coach JJ Redick would do that for me.
Listening to him just heap praise on Nembhard all game as things got progressively worse for the Pacers has me looking forward to when he decides to randomly give Austin Reaves a bunch of plays in crunch time instead of the guy in running for GOAT
Exactly! I don't care what anyone says, 50% of playoff success is luck and good breaks. Monte needs to continue to make solid/smart moves, and strike when you want to take a calculated risk on a big time team changing deal. The Mavs are the perfect example. They took a big swing on Kyrie (generally panned at the time, but a calculated risk). Then they make a couple relatively boring moves at the trade deadline that takes them up a level. I truly believe often these GMs just get lucky and strike lighting in a bottle (I would include Petrie in that group for his original team building... there are a few ways that team doesn't work out but he took the chance). There are certainly dumb GMs out there, but I think often the ones that fail had a fine plan, but for whatever reason just didn't pan out.
Just like with free agent signings, people just have a hard time reconciling what something costs in today dollars with how much something cost ten years ago lol
This is a really good post. This team has many things in place already including the coaching staff, GM, star players, and now needs the finishing touches. This last part is going to be a delicate part to find the final pieces.
I want that Mike Brown back. We need more of “Turn on the mf’in jets” and less of “spray more threes”. We killed our transition game and went for a more deliberate style that took away an important part of what makes our offense dynamic. We traded standstill threes for movement threes and our shooting efficiency went down. When we go back to more running and more cutting, the spray threes would work better.
Yes, I really don't get the apparent obsession over "spray threes" all year. It's clear the team was shooting itself out of games having veered away from what made them successful on offense in year one.
And even if things are relatively flat viewership or popularity wise here in the States..it has grown leaps and bounds OUTSIDE the US…so yeah more money.
