Should Scola have been named co-captain?

First, let me say I'm not taking a shot at AB. I like the guy and his play, it's strictly about getting the best candidate for the job next to Battier. I'm not sure why Chuck didn't keep it or if the decision was strictly up to Battier, but i think he (or they) made a mistake in choosing Brooks. Did they think they needed one of the top players as captain? Last year that wasn't the case and the team overachieved, why change it? Battier mentioned it would be a good experience for Brooks and i don't doubt that, but i dont think that also means it's a good one for the team. If possible, can Clutch ask this during an upcoming practice? Was it a team decision, perhaps unofficially? Could Scola have had it, but refused?

Scola is the most experienced basketball player on the team, period. He hasn't been in the NBA long, but he has top level pro experience and has been in more different situations than anyone on the team, including championship experience. He's also the only one who's consistently in games. He's the one who always contributes significantly and never stops working. What better example can you have? The guy doesn't quit, doesnt stop, and steps up his play when it matters most. If he's not doing well percentage wise he's still having an affect with his hustle. If anyone has the resume and play to call players out (in a good way), it's Scola. We have more than enough basketball leadership on this team, with RA, SB, CH, and BM.....but i think we need an emotional and competitive aspect we're not getting. The whole teams lacks the ability to express emotion that others can feed off of and Scola's play is the closest the team gets to expressing it. He's definitely the most competitive of the bunch.

We've had trouble in the third quarter in the past and it seems to be creeping up again. 2 games is a very small sample, but both games had us in good position at the half. Then, things unraveled too much in the third qrtr and Houston couldnt recover completely in the 4th. I dont know if not enough is being said at halftime. Perhaps they're fooling themselves into thinking everything will keep working out and there's no need to step on the gas. I'd love to know what is being said at halftime and what the attitude and environment is like. I think RA deserves some blame here as well. He's not the type of coach who can deliever the emotion, so he should persuade players, especially captains, to do it.

Finally, i know it's been brough up that Yao and Scola may struggle in this role because english is their second language. That's a legitimate concern, but i think that applies more to Yao. Scola's english is better and even in spanish his words would probably convey more emotion than anything the others can say in english. He does seem too calm and quiet during interviews, but i think we have all seen he can change once the game begins. Besides, he has the best speaker on the team in Battier, who can handle most of the general basketball talk. Right now, I can picture Battier speaking about what they need to do in the second half and turning it over to Brooks, who'd say "yeah, i agree, let's go". Ok, maybe not that lame, but you get the idea....

 

yeah, i definitely agree it'll benefit AB, but like i mentioned, im not sure it helps the team more than Scola having the title....AB didnt even want the job, which i think may be a problem. I dont think being, acting, talking, like a leader is something you just switch on or learn at this point in your career. I'm sure he'll give it a good try, but Scola seems more natural for that role and i'm afraid he'll hold back or let Brooks have more say in certain situations because of the co-captain title.

 

Scola: "Ice cream for everyone if we win!!"

Might work :grin:

 

Dont you think that may be a problem ? I get what you're saying...they're grown men, professionals, who can speak up regardless of whether they have a title or not....but we have a very unique set of personalities that most teams dont have...maybe none of them. All of these guys are by the book types...they're not going to challenge much, speak out of turn, etc...Yes, if scola wants to say something he'll probably will anyway, but when? During the next day in practice? Post game? I think that's the difference between having the title or not. In order for this to benefit Brooks he has to feel like a captain, not just have a title. To feel that way you need the other players to act a certain way towards you, mainly defering in certain situations. They should also expect you to speak up and allow you time to do so. Otherwise, with time, Brooks won't feel like a captain and won't benefit much from it.

 

Then why are we changing captains, if it doesnt matter? Why not keep it the same? Why not do it like middle school teams and just automatically give the title to the best player(s)?

It's not about being controlling and dishing out orders. Im not suggesting captains decide the game plan and shut every other opinion out. It's about having a consistent voice, not just waiting for someone to feel like speaking up when they want to or because they have to. I think Scola will always want and have something to say, where as Brooks won't and will force it more.

I definitely understand the perception that it's just a formality, but like someone else mentioned, without access to the locker room and meetings it's really hard to say for sure how much or little it matters.

Anyone in here actually have inside knowledge on this? I wouldnt use NCAA as an example though, since players come and go more frequently and they're all still fairly young and inexperienced at that age.

 

So then why put any thought into it? Why not just have the coach pick two people randomly or the best two? Why not pick just one (i believe they only need one officially)?


The bulls felt it was necessary to pick 4. Do you really need 4 just to talk to a ref? Again, i get the notion that captains just go through the motions from game to game, they don't have a lot of official responsibilities, but does that mean teams don't take it to mean more than that? Does it mean they don't place more responsibilities upon the captains internally? It could mean something different from team to team.

I dont think it's clear one way or the other, which is why i thought it was worth discussing. It could not mean much or could have a significant effect on their play, if not during most of the game, then at least during key moments like the start of a half or after a time out.