Washington.... Hahahahahahahahaha! Detroit - They fired Carlisle to get to Brown? Now they need to trade Ben Wallace for Todd Mc Culloch and their insanity will be complete Clippers.... See Washington (add a lot more emphasis) Rockets - Says who. They interviewed him, they didn't act irrationally and treat him like the next messiah... Philly - Why wouldn't they? Now they have to train another baby sitter for the almighty "answer"...
LAL was intended just as an example. I didn't mean that coaching Lakers or not is the deciding factor. what I meant is the fact most of those teams Brown coached had bad talent level is a bigger reason they failed than Brown's coaching. ok, i'll admit I'm not terribly familiar with baseball. but it sounds to me that Yankee is a pretty big name in baseball. i assumed that they didn't have any 4-year stint during which they didn't have enough talents to compete with the best. what made you think I didn't read the thread in its entirety? ok, i missed one or two here and there since some people are on my ignore list. but i think i read all the relevant posts to make my comment. i know the point you used your example to prove. but i feel that your example isn't convincing enough to demonstrate your point. this isn't to say Macbeth's logic is flawless, though. btw, do you have a different handle here? you sound like a senior member here to me.
Per Clutch, the Rockets wanted Brown. And His source is a lot more credible than anything you can speculate on.
Why? These threads change every three or four posts. What someone said five pages ago doesn't even relate to what was just posted. That would be a total waste of time....
"His" source? God... Do you know His source? Do you know me? For all you KNOW, I could be CD posing on this board. Don't you think it is absurd to tell me what I or Clutch know or who has better information when you don't know... Reminds me of the photographer at the end of Apocolypse Now...
His team's talent level had much to do with Larry Brown himself. That is one of his knocks. Even so, your theory is a litttle off. His Indiana team went from 50 wins, to 39 wins (Brown resigns) to 58 wins under Bird. The talent level base of that team did not change (Smits, Miller, Rose, etc.). Also, with the exception of the Clipper job, Brown has had talent to work with in Denver (David Thompson, Bobby Jones and Dan Issel), New Jersey (actually, not great talent, but a decent talent base); Buck Williams, Otis Birdsong and Dawkins (ok, go ahead and laugh at me for that one), San Antonio (Cummings, Robinson, Elliot and Strickland), Clippers (Manning and Harper), Indiana (Rose, Miller, Davis boys and Smits) and Philly (Iverson (perhaps the most unstoppable player in the NBA)). Again, where I see that the Yankees reference is when you are specifically equating that to a coaches legacy. There were a ton of managers that the Yankees had when they did not make the post season 4 consecutive times. Based on that reference, they would be considered bad or mediocre managers. Yet, Lou Pinella is one of those managers and he has the best regular season in MLB history (with Seattle) on his resume along with a World Series ring (Cincinnati). Exactly. Both MacBeth and my statements had flaws in them. I didn't say my statement was flawless, but rather, was just using that as a comparison to MacBeth to show that his had flaws too. Ive been lurking on here for about a year or so. I usually post over at ESPN and hoopsworld but grew tired of those places (immaturity).
I have to disagree..the talent level was inequitable. Brown has never before gone to a team with a winning record, yet he has a winning record. He makes teamsexceed their abilities, or at least he makes more out of those abilites than others. Can we say the same about Dunleavy? The one time he went to a team with a losing record, the Bucks, he continued to lose for four seasons. Larry Brown has had for losing seasons...in his entire career. He has a better winning percentage than Dunleavy despite the fact that MD has spent the majority of his career on very talented teams with deep pockets, whereas Larry Brown has historically taken on projects...and won more. It's that simple.
That's pretty much the difference. Larry Brown goes to losing teams and makes them winners. Once again, who holds the rcord for taking the most different teams to the playoffs? Mike Dunleavy goes to a losing them and they don't improve. Not one iota.
Hmmm... MacB isn't for Dunleavy as head coach...Does this mean we won't get to read ur thread on what system the new coach will implant?U know,the one u were going to make IF LB had been hired? Just asking... ALA
Then if this is so, how will he deal with the rebuilding of the ROX ? It is a rebuilding job and a difficult one! The Rox Game is going to need an overhaul and must have some structure based upon the development of Yao Ming. The Guards will need a mind 'MELD' [see Star treck] for them to play the team game and not their individual game. Learning to play together will need to start from scratch,as will the installation of plays. The new coach will be in for a big shock if he isnt aware of the challenge that is awaiting him! Having Francis and Yao Ming on the same team sounds great at first glance but still could be a headache that will test any coach.
Brown 31 years, 1 appearance. Nelson 25 years, no appearances. So these guys can't coach either? [/QUOTE] That's exactly why Brown is one of the rare coaches that has been enshrined in the hall of fame. Because he can't coach. You should change your handle to "Pure Genius".
and you should change yours to Blind Man Typing. Does that look like i'm saying Brown and Nelson can't coach? No. It was a sarcastic statement about how good, or even great coaches don't always win the championships.
I rarely post, usually just reading others opinions instead but... Dunleavy, as has been mentioned, benefited from an extraordinary amount of talent during his successful years while suffering from immaturity and youth during his failing years. While Dunleavy's team rolled over and died the year Magic Johnson left the team, Phil Jackson (the only coach with a better reputation than Larry Brown) was able to coax a division title out of a 1993-1994 Chicago Bulls team led by (drumroll) Mr. Scottie Pippen and a cast of failures and has-beens. Along similar lines, another of our candidates, Van Gundy, took the current Knicks plus Camby (Ewing was injured) to the NBA Finals as a number 8 seed. He also happened to work side by side with one of the best and well respected coaches ever Pat Riley. Blue-collar hard work and overachieving was a regular characteristic of Van Gundy's teams. He has never coached a team with so many offensive forces. What's to say he, knowing how fortunate he is, won't take the fullest advantage of it? And no, quitting on the Knicks is simply not indicative of anything he would do to Houston. The NY media killed him for half a decade while his bosses refused to let him rebuild like he wanted to. Instead, they insisted on getting the likes of McDyess (afterward) and Glen Rice. Houston certainly isn't the same. Dunleavy would probably be a decent coach, but, as it has been mentioned so many times, he likely could not make this team substantially better than their talent and basketball acumen could take them without him. While he was given a treasure trove of veteran talent in Portland, Van Gundy worked his ass off coaching the likes of LJ, Camby and Allen Houston. Meanwhile the two got similar playoff results (Van Gundy had to go through Bird's Pacers and Zo's Heat at full strength so don't complain about the whole West vs. Eastern Conference).
GATER has a very good post in the thread - assuming it's down to two choices - brown or dunleavy?. The upshot is that we will need a complete STAFF and not just one "top dog". I think this is the right approach. It was one of the problems with Rudy - its one of the things we can get right next time. A quality team of : Head coach (manager skills) Strong assistant coach (xo skills, teaching, player development) Big man coach (Yao, PF) Small man (fundementals) coach Will get more done than one big headed monster and a boat of trolls. There are quality people out there that want these jobs, that can make our team work today and get better each month.
MacBeth, Lets talk about talent for a second. Intead of looking at talent as a whole, lets talk about the best players on those teams. Of Brown's six teams, he has coached a HOFer in all but 2 of them (Denver - Issel; San Antonio - Robinson (Cummings was headed to the HOF before his injury in 92 (might still be considered though)); Indiana - Miller; Philly - Iverson). Out of the 3 teams Dunleavy has coached, only 1 had a HOFer (Lakers - Johnson and Worthy). I wanted to establish that because I want to talk about the Blazers. Pippen is an HOFer but was a shell of his HOF self once he got there. It has been proven in NBA history that in order to win a title, you have to have a go to guy/HOFer to win it. Dunleavy did not have that in Portland, which makes the job he did there even more impressive. Also, consider that out of Dunleavy's 6 playoff appearances, his team was knocked out by the eventual NBA champion 4 times. So how can anyone say that Portland team could have done better with a coach other than Dunleavy? Did he not get the most out of that team, considering there was no go to guy/HOFer? Whitsit screwed up that Portland team by paying so much money to a whole bunch of above average players instead of investing in a go to guy to put them over the top. Now, I agree with you in that Brown has the better track record with regards to taking over a losing team and turning them into a winner. However, on the flip side, you can say that Dunleavy has a better track record in the playoffs (not by much). Overall, I am not proclaiming Dunleavy is a better coach than Brown. I am standing firm that Dunleavy is a great 2nd option if Brown is no longer available and that Larry is not head and shoulders above Dunleavy.
