Rumour: Ujiri Targeting Scott Brooks To Try & Recruit Durant

[kopite91]

Completely unrelated, but after seeing Mike Woodson's name on someone's list it reminded me of how many people from that 1979-1980 Hoosiers team have had coaching careers and GM positions. Isiah Thomas, Mike Woodson, Randy Wittman, Glenn Grunwald, Butch Carter..

[Mack North]

Completely unrelated, but after seeing Mike Woodson's name on someone's list it reminded me of how many people from that 1979-1980 Hoosiers team have had coaching careers and GM positions. Isiah Thomas, Mike Woodson, Randy Wittman, Glenn Grunwald, Butch Carter..

You're old! haha

[2KJ]

Please not Scott Brooks! He's pretty much Dwane Casey with 2, even 3 superstars and they never won shit. His offense is pretty much KD iso or Westbrook iso.

[magoon]

Please not Scott Brooks! He's pretty much Dwane Casey with 2, even 3 superstars and they never won shit. His offense is pretty much KD iso or Westbrook iso.

Good lord, do people even watch basketball? Or read about it? Because Scott Brooks is a vastly better coach than Dwane Casey.

It's true that Brooks isn't good at adapting his playbook on the fly, but he has a playbook - he uses a combination of pick-n-roll/drive-n-kick. More importantly, though, he teaches his players how to play smart basketball so his lack of a playbook isn't crippling. Also he has a competent defensive scheme. Also he's excellent at developing young talent. All of these are things Casey has shown himself to lack.

I know everybody wants the next Pop or the next Brad Stevens, but you have to be really lucky to get a Pop or a Brad Stevens because once you have a legendary coach, you have to be crazy to let him go; coaches love longterm job security better than anything because unlike players they don't have a prime or a shelf-life, and there's no salary cap for coaches so you can pay them as much as you need to in order to keep them. (The fact that Chicago might lose Tom Thibodeau is frankly kind of amazing.)

So stop fantasizing about the perfect coach in the sky; focus on finding a decent one with a good track record. Brooks is one of them.

[Bonus Jonas]

I think you have to pursue Thibs if he's available, his track record is too good not to.

Messina interests me a ton too mainly because of Budenholzer's success

[2KJ]

Good lord, do people even watch basketball? Or read about it? Because Scott Brooks is a vastly better coach than Dwane Casey.

It's true that Brooks isn't good at adapting his playbook on the fly, but he has a playbook - he uses a combination of pick-n-roll/drive-n-kick. More importantly, though, he teaches his players how to play smart basketball so his lack of a playbook isn't crippling. Also he has a competent defensive scheme. Also he's excellent at developing young talent. All of these are things Casey has shown himself to lack.

I know everybody wants the next Pop or the next Brad Stevens, but you have to be really lucky to get a Pop or a Brad Stevens because once you have a legendary coach, you have to be crazy to let him go; coaches love longterm job security better than anything because unlike players they don't have a prime or a shelf-life, and there's no salary cap for coaches so you can pay them as much as you need to in order to keep them. (The fact that Chicago might lose Tom Thibodeau is frankly kind of amazing.)

So stop fantasizing about the perfect coach in the sky; focus on finding a decent one with a good track record. Brooks is one of them.

Yes I do and I watched OKC get destroyed by Miami, Memphis and San Antonio the past years. The guy's got no plan B so it ends up either Westbrook or KD (usually Westbrook) playing hero ball similar to what Lowry's been doing here. OKC should have fired him 2 years ago if they really wanted to go over the hump.

[magoon]

Yes I do and I watched OKC get destroyed by Miami, Memphis and San Antonio the past years.

Miami: their only Finals appearance against peak LeBron James. Losing to peak LeBron is hardly a crime.

Memphis: A healthy Westbrook and they win that series.

San Antonio: A healthy Ibaka and they win that series.

Here's the thing: Brooks has never coached a true playoff team because OKC is too cheap to go into the tax. He's only ever had his star players to be his go-to guys because the rest of his team has usually been mediocre.

And, crucially, Brooks is excellent at player development, which is the part everybody keeps skipping. Do we want a coach who knows how to turn young, raw talent into superstar-level players? Because Brooks is one of the best at actually doing that. He turned Durant, Westbrook and Harden into MVP-calibre performers, turned Ibaka into an All-Star calibre performer and was probably on track to do the same with Reggie Jackson.

Everybody who keeps talking shit about Brooks' playbook (which, again, isn't nearly so bad as you're claiming it is) needs to remember that this team as constructed does not have enough talent to contend and finding it outside of internal development is going to be extremely difficult, so there's a solid argument for focusing on internal development and creating stars here rather than trying our luck in free agency when we're not a glamorous free-agent destination. And Brooks is a strong choice for that.

[OldSkoolCool]

Scott Brooks is alsp bad at developing young players. Both Lamb anf PJ3 have been buried on the bench even though they have been extremely productive when played.

No to Scott

[Scraptor]

Good lord, do people even watch basketball? Or read about it? Because Scott Brooks is a vastly better coach than Dwane Casey.

It's true that Brooks isn't good at adapting his playbook on the fly, but he has a playbook - he uses a combination of pick-n-roll/drive-n-kick. More importantly, though, he teaches his players how to play smart basketball so his lack of a playbook isn't crippling. Also he has a competent defensive scheme. Also he's excellent at developing young talent. All of these are things Casey has shown himself to lack.

I know everybody wants the next Pop or the next Brad Stevens, but you have to be really lucky to get a Pop or a Brad Stevens because once you have a legendary coach, you have to be crazy to let him go; coaches love longterm job security better than anything because unlike players they don't have a prime or a shelf-life, and there's no salary cap for coaches so you can pay them as much as you need to in order to keep them. (The fact that Chicago might lose Tom Thibodeau is frankly kind of amazing.)

So stop fantasizing about the perfect coach in the sky; focus on finding a decent one with a good track record. Brooks is one of them.

This is definitely not the league-wide consensus about Scott Brooks. Go read the opinions of educated Thunder fans; they've been criticizing Brooks and his playcalling for years now. There's a good reason the following comic became so popular.

[magoon]

Scott Brooks is alsp bad at developing young players. Both Lamb anf PJ3 have been buried on the bench even though they have been extremely productive when played.

Jeremy Lamb is trash - a shooting guard who's average-at-best at shooting threes, who isn't good at drawing fouls and who's lousy on defense. He's your prototypical midrange shooting guard and he sticks on the end of the bench for a reason.

PJ3 is a below-average rebounder for his position, a lousy shot, not much of a shot-blocker and an okay rim protector. He's really very athletic, and that's great, but it hasn't translated into being a good basketball player. Also, he plays behind Durant and Ibaka so what exactly is he supposed to do for minutes exactly?

And I note you've just named the only two prospects Brooks hasn't managed to turn into quality players. Good work there. If you cherrypick enough you can prove anything.

[2KJ]

Miami: their only Finals appearance against peak LeBron James. Losing to peak LeBron is hardly a crime.

Memphis: A healthy Westbrook and they win that series.

San Antonio: A healthy Ibaka and they win that series.

Here's the thing: Brooks has never coached a true playoff team because OKC is too cheap to go into the tax. He's only ever had his star players to be his go-to guys because the rest of his team has usually been mediocre.

And, crucially, Brooks is excellent at player development, which is the part everybody keeps skipping. Do we want a coach who knows how to turn young, raw talent into superstar-level players? Because Brooks is one of the best at actually doing that. He turned Durant, Westbrook and Harden into MVP-calibre performers, turned Ibaka into an All-Star calibre performer and was probably on track to do the same with Reggie Jackson.

Everybody who keeps talking shit about Brooks' playbook (which, again, isn't nearly so bad as you're claiming it is) needs to remember that this team as constructed does not have enough talent to contend and finding it outside of internal development is going to be extremely difficult, so there's a solid argument for focusing on internal development and creating stars here rather than trying our luck in free agency when we're not a glamorous free-agent destination. And Brooks is a strong choice for that.

With a healthy Ibaka, they MIGHT have beaten San Antonio but they'll end up getting destroyed by Miami again.

Uhm KD, Westbrook and Harden are lottery picks with very high potential. Heck, put them on the Raptors and we would have been/will be perennial ECF contenders if not championship contenders.

Other than the Big 3, Ibaka and Reggie Jackson, who else was he able to develop? You got 2 decent prospects in Lamb and Perry Jones rotting on the bench despite them having decent production. And it wasn't until Perkins got traded that he started to play Steven Adams.

So for me, it's still a no for Scotty Brooks I'm sorry.

[magoon]

With a healthy Ibaka, they MIGHT have beaten San Antonio but they'll end up getting destroyed by Miami again.

In 2014? The Heat were running on fumes. Wade was done and Bosh almost completely gone, most of the rest of the team was dead on their feet, and LeBron was running a one-man show, which is why those Finals only went five games. A healthy Thunder would have completely destroyed them; Durant had been outplaying LeBron that year to boot.

Other than the Big 3, Ibaka and Reggie Jackson, who else was he able to develop? You got 2 decent prospects in Lamb and Perry Jones rotting on the bench despite them having decent production. And it wasn't until Perkins got traded that he started to play Steven Adams.

Again: Lamb and PJ3 aren't "decent producers." They're flawed players. PJ3 might turn into something on a team that was willing to give him extended burn, but it's not Brooks' fault that PJ3 plays the same position as two of his three star players and isn't as good as them while the team is contending. (Honestly, OKC should have traded him last year while he still has "could become something" allure.) Lamb is just straight-up bad, a crap volume scorer who might with some luck become a second-rate heat check guy.

And Adams averaged fifteen minutes per game in his first year, when the Thunder still had Perkins, which is perfectly reasonable development minutes for a rook.

[2KJ]

In 2014? The Heat were running on fumes. Wade was done and Bosh almost completely gone, most of the rest of the team was dead on their feet, and LeBron was running a one-man show, which is why those Finals only went five games. A healthy Thunder would have completely destroyed them; Durant had been outplaying LeBron that year to boot.

It will be the same story again. OKC don't have the teamwork/passing that the Spurs and now that they don't have a Manu Ginobili (Harden), how do you expect them to beat the Heat? And no, Miami wasn't running on fumes. Wade was injured but still effective. Bosh was a big reason why they won Game 2. The Spurs were too good and were able to reduce Miami to a Lebron James one man show.

[Bonus Jonas]

I don't think Brooks is the right fit but you have to admit that OKC has developed young guys very well.

Durant, Westbrook and Harden are all MVP calibre guys
Ibaka has already exceeded expectations
Reggie Jackson has been great
Steven Adams has shown a lot, and grown into a reliable player
Even Mitch McGary has been great as a rook for them and
Andre Roberson has shown he can be very sound defensively

Lamb and PJIII are the only guys that haven't flourished, and PJIII arguably has but just hasn't been given the opportunity.

So either Brooks and his staff were great at developing young talent or OKC has outstanding scouts.

[DogeLover1234]

I don't think Brooks is the right fit but you have to admit that OKC has developed young guys very well.

Durant, Westbrook and Harden are all MVP calibre guys
Ibaka has already exceeded expectations
Reggie Jackson has been great
Steven Adams has shown a lot, and grown into a reliable player
Even Mitch McGary has been great as a rook for them and
Andre Roberson has shown he can be very sound defensively

Lamb and PJIII are the only guys that haven't flourished, and PJIII arguably has but just hasn't been given the opportunity.

So either Brooks and his staff were great at developing young talent or OKC has outstanding scouts.

I agree that is seems like Brooks is good at developing players. Which makes me think that if MU goes after him the Raps would be planning for a rebuild.