This thread never said one nice thing about Brooks til h-bob started talking about his likability making him somewhat worthwhile and now people here just repeat that. Wonder if they have forgot how truly horrid he was at OKC

People forget the Thunder were -150 when they lost in the finals vs the Heat too. After the fact I feel like people think that it was obvious the Heat were gonna win.

Brooks usage of Perk in that series and putting KD and Harden on Lebron instead of Thabo a lot of the time basically gave them no shot to win.



That said Id be fine with him getting a job with a rebuilding team. Would have avoided with the Wiz and Rockets most likely tho.

Brooks is one of the worst and most incompetent coaches of all time and he doesn't deserve a job scouting in lithuania. Doesn't even matter if he recruits Durant. If brooks is your coach you're not winning anything.

Yup

I'd expect coaches in Lithuania to be decent tbh. They're pretty sharp about basketball strategy in eastern europe

If OKC gets steamrolled by the Spurs next round, Durant to Wizards is all but done imo.

I saw a great quote that said if KD wanted to play for Brooks he would still be coaching OKC

woodersons posts can be summed up by taking the most hyperbolic stance possible and being super negative and toxic towards the dissenting viewpoint

like, yeah, he's a bad coach. but doesn't deserve a scouting job, lol, wtf. really dude

Why would he want to go to a worse team than OKC?

Grunfeld - So Scott, you were unable to win a title with KD, RWB, Harden and Ibaka. Please explain how you will win one with Wall, Beal and Gortat?

Brooks - You mean Wall, Beal, Gortat and KD.

Grunfeld - You're hired!

Yeah I do agree with this but definitely doesn't deserve a NBA HC job. He was truly awful

What makes tut great is this is a perfect double down moment that he will pounce on.

Tut goat

lol'd

What has he ever said or done that has demonstrated he has any positive value to a professional basketball franchise?

What has he ever said or done that can make up for playing Kendrick Perkins as much as he did?

Yeah, there's a ton of hindsight bias about that. Brooks got some leeway because he had ****ty luck with guys getting hurt in the playoffs, but that series as it was happening was obviously an inferior team outsmarting and outworking the more talented squad. It was just comical watching Brooks stubbornly let Perkins get guarded by Battier and **** as a crossmatch, playing 4 on 5 every offensive possession and getting smoked in transition.

Getting the players to play hard is an underrated coaching skill and he seemed to get full support from his roster/2 stars

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

Luckily for Brooks the ownership kept that team together and they won the next 3 championships

Like is it possible that Scott Brooks could competently serve as head scout of Lithuanian villages? Yes. It's possible. But why risk it? How could you ever trust his judgment on anything related to basketball?

Then the key factor being that if you don't employ him in any capacity it greatly increases the chances another team WILL employ him, which would be great. Dude is unemployable beyond being an usher in the stadium or something.

notion that durant would go to the wiz has always been lol

Underrated by TZ but overrated by GMs and talking heads

I think its reasonable to assume coaches can improve in this league. Based on that, I can see some appeal to hiring brooks. He can manage stars well, has postseason experience and somehow outcoached Pops one year.

As for him being the best fit for that roster though, I'm not seeing it at all. I wouldn't be shocked if brooks becomes a slightly above average coach, but the wizards organization isn't built for sucess yet. Expecting a lot more scathing takes from the press / twittersphere.

Brooks didn't get hired because he improved though. He got the job bc he is a known entity that has had some success. It's the same damn reason every time a coach is recycled. Everyone is risk adverse and trying to protect their own job.

Durant coming to DC is a joke. Scott Brooks is clearly not very good and doesn't move the needle at all.

Wizards will win 35-45 games every year until Wall leaves

notes about brooks:
i thought he did not come off particularly well on the media tour he did recently. it's not that he came off stupid, just very guarded against accepting criticism and improving (like everyone else). from his POV, they won insane amount of games and ran bad with injuries, and i bet he thinks he's just super unlucky (its not that he hasn't run bad with them). it's unlikely much will change with his offensive style or his ability to determine who deserves to be on the floor.

i bet he's a great hand holder and honestly that is probably a more important skill than just about any other head coaching skill-- but of course it's a ridiculous hire, if you're management the things you CAN quantify in coaching are rotations and late game decisions, picking someone who is clearly bad at those is pretty embarrassing (but unsurprising for an inept organization).

Wall will mask some of his deficiencies if they were to acquire Durant re: Brooks not being an offensive strategist

He's like a better version of Rubio, less flashy but similar players. Ready made half court offense.

I also am not really on twitter so I'm not parroting anything here