<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Republican @ May 3 2008, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Give a <span style="color:blue">*removed*</span> some credit.Scott is a great coach period</div> Scott isn't close to a great coach comma, semicolon, exclamation point
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 3 2008, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Republican @ May 3 2008, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Give a <span style="color:blue">*removed*</span> some credit.Scott is a great coach period</div> Scott isn't close to a great coach comma, semicolon, exclamation point </div> ...but it is hard to call him a bad coach anymore. I thought it was a bad move at the time, but when the Nets reeled off 14 straight wins, who was I to question Thorn's judgment.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 3 2008, 11:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His per 36 minute rebounding numbers are better the 3 full seasons in Houston than they were on the Nets and his FG% is much better. He has also played better in the playoffs for Houston than he did for the Nets. Scott's inability to use him also caused the Nets to buyout Deke and have a huge unmovable load on the cap for two seasons. Deke has fully demonstrated that he can still be useful and the Nets and Scott screwed the pooch.</div> First of all, the fact that Deke was hurt all year needs to be considered as one big factor. Secondly, this was a big transition year for Deke. In addition to all the changes NI mentioned league-wide, that season in NJ was when Deke was forced out of the spotlight and into the position of role-player. He plays about 15 minutes a night now. The season before NJ in Philly he played 31. That's a mental adjustment, and one that he wasn't ready to make for another year and a half. Also, Deke now plays on a slow team, relative to the rest of the league. The Byron Scott Nets were a fast-paced team relative to the rest of the league. I don't have stats to back this up, but the conventional wisdom was that the Nets played best when they were running, and Deke CLEARLY slowed the team down. That's not a problem in Houston - they're used to being slower paced that whoever they're facing. Byron Scott had a tougher job than JVG ever did as far as integrating Deke goes.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ly_yng @ May 3 2008, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 3 2008, 11:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His per 36 minute rebounding numbers are better the 3 full seasons in Houston than they were on the Nets and his FG% is much better. He has also played better in the playoffs for Houston than he did for the Nets. Scott's inability to use him also caused the Nets to buyout Deke and have a huge unmovable load on the cap for two seasons. Deke has fully demonstrated that he can still be useful and the Nets and Scott screwed the pooch.</div> First of all, the fact that Deke was hurt all year needs to be considered as one big factor. Secondly, this was a big transition year for Deke. In addition to all the changes NI mentioned league-wide, that season in NJ was when Deke was forced out of the spotlight and into the position of role-player. He plays about 15 minutes a night now. The season before NJ in Philly he played 31. That's a mental adjustment, and one that he wasn't ready to make for another year and a half. Also, Deke now plays on a slow team, relative to the rest of the league. The Byron Scott Nets were a fast-paced team relative to the rest of the league. I don't have stats to back this up, but the conventional wisdom was that the Nets played best when they were running, and Deke CLEARLY slowed the team down. That's not a problem in Houston - they're used to being slower paced that whoever they're facing. Byron Scott had a tougher job than JVG ever did as far as integrating Deke goes. </div> It goes beyond that one season though. Scott's use of him convinced Thorn that he had to buyout Deke and leave a giant 2 year untradeable albatross on the cap for two more seasons. Deke proved he could still be effective in a limited role and the Nets would have been better off with him.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 3 2008, 04:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Republican @ May 3 2008, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Give a <span style="color:blue">*removed*</span> some credit.Scott is a great coach period</div> Scott isn't close to a great coach </div> In your opinion, what are the criteria for being a good, or even a great coach? Specifically, how would you rate the relative importance of aspects like: ability to draw up effective plays in high leverage situations, preparation, the ability to perceive and adapt the mental state of a team, leadership, getting a team to consistently run offensive plays and defensive schemes effectively, the ability to develop the basketball skill of young players, the ability to develop the mental attitude of young players, the ability to work with difficult personalities, having the trust of the players I think Byron Scott is very good at some of these, and not as talented in others. Same goes for Lawrence Frank. I am not convinced which are most important for a coach, although I'm starting to think that certain aspects are more important for certain teams.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 3 2008, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It goes beyond that one season though. Scott's use of him convinced Thorn that he had to buyout Deke and leave a giant 2 year untradeable albatross on the cap for two more seasons. Deke proved he could still be effective in a limited role and the Nets would have been better off with him.</div> Isn't that Thorn's mistake more than Scott's, especially if Thorn was just going to turn around and fire him the next season? I doubt Byron gave Thorn an "it's me or him" ultimatum with respect to Deke. I'm sure they could have co-existed for another season if management had made that decision.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ly_yng @ May 3 2008, 08:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 3 2008, 04:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Republican @ May 3 2008, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Give a <span style="color:blue">*removed*</span> some credit.Scott is a great coach period</div> Scott isn't close to a great coach </div> In your opinion, what are the criteria for being a good, or even a great coach? Specifically, how would you rate the relative importance of aspects like: ability to draw up effective plays in high leverage situations, preparation, the ability to perceive and adapt the mental state of a team, leadership, getting a team to consistently run offensive plays and defensive schemes effectively, the ability to develop the basketball skill of young players, the ability to develop the mental attitude of young players, the ability to work with difficult personalities, having the trust of the players I think Byron Scott is very good at some of these, and not as talented in others. Same goes for Lawrence Frank. I am not convinced which are most important for a coach, although I'm starting to think that certain aspects are more important for certain teams. </div> I've only given this a quick look for now (too many kids running around) but one that I would definitely add is the ability to adapt to the personnel on the team. I thought Rick Adelman and SVG both did very good jobs of adapting to the players on the roster.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 3 2008, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Republican @ May 3 2008, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Give a <span style="color:blue">*removed*</span> some credit.Scott is a great coach period</div> Scott isn't close to a great coach comma, semicolon, exclamation point </div> LOL! Please stop, Scott has improved as a coach and there is NO denying that
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 3 2008, 07:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ly_yng @ May 3 2008, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 3 2008, 11:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>His per 36 minute rebounding numbers are better the 3 full seasons in Houston than they were on the Nets and his FG% is much better. He has also played better in the playoffs for Houston than he did for the Nets. Scott's inability to use him also caused the Nets to buyout Deke and have a huge unmovable load on the cap for two seasons. Deke has fully demonstrated that he can still be useful and the Nets and Scott screwed the pooch.</div> First of all, the fact that Deke was hurt all year needs to be considered as one big factor. Secondly, this was a big transition year for Deke. In addition to all the changes NI mentioned league-wide, that season in NJ was when Deke was forced out of the spotlight and into the position of role-player. He plays about 15 minutes a night now. The season before NJ in Philly he played 31. That's a mental adjustment, and one that he wasn't ready to make for another year and a half. Also, Deke now plays on a slow team, relative to the rest of the league. The Byron Scott Nets were a fast-paced team relative to the rest of the league. I don't have stats to back this up, but the conventional wisdom was that the Nets played best when they were running, and Deke CLEARLY slowed the team down. That's not a problem in Houston - they're used to being slower paced that whoever they're facing. Byron Scott had a tougher job than JVG ever did as far as integrating Deke goes. </div> It goes beyond that one season though. Scott's use of him convinced Thorn that he had to buyout Deke and leave a giant 2 year untradeable albatross on the cap for two more seasons. Deke proved he could still be effective in a limited role and the Nets would have been better off with him. </div> So let me get this straight, paying Mutombo $37 million over two years to come off the bench was a smarter move than paying him $30 million in a buyout. In the last year of his contract, Mutombo would have been paid nearly $20 million, and would have been the second highest paid player in the league that year.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ May 4 2008, 11:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So let me get this straight, paying Mutombo $37 million over two years to come off the bench was a smarter move than paying him $30 million in a buyout. In the last year of his contract, Mutombo would have been paid nearly $20 million, and would have been the second highest paid player in the league that year.</div> Yes, paying a backup center 7 million over two years would have been smarter. The 30 million is a sunk cost in either scenario.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy @ May 4 2008, 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 3 2008, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Republican @ May 3 2008, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Give a <span style="color:blue">*removed*</span> some credit.Scott is a great coach period</div> Scott isn't close to a great coach comma, semicolon, exclamation point </div> LOL! Please stop, Scott has improved as a coach and there is NO denying that </div> Your statement does contradict mine
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NetIncome @ May 3 2008, 07:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 3 2008, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Republican @ May 3 2008, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Give a <span style="color:blue">*removed*</span> some credit.Scott is a great coach period</div> Scott isn't close to a great coach comma, semicolon, exclamation point </div> ...but it is hard to call him a bad coach anymore. I thought it was a bad move at the time, but when the Nets reeled off 14 straight wins, who was I to question Thorn's judgment. </div> Not to mention rumors that this was also done to appease Kidd.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 2 2008, 07:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Watching Deke in the playoffs reminds me how much Scott sucked. The moron couldn't figure out how to use him.</div> Yes, I'm sure he's so thinking about that right now too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 4 2008, 08:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy @ May 4 2008, 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 3 2008, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Republican @ May 3 2008, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Give a <span style="color:blue">*removed*</span> some credit.Scott is a great coach period</div> Scott isn't close to a great coach comma, semicolon, exclamation point </div> LOL! Please stop, Scott has improved as a coach and there is NO denying that </div> Your statement does contradict mine </div> No but his COY award does. So does the fact he has his team on track to get to the NBA finals. Also the fact his team was one of the winningest teams in the toughest division in the league. As always your personal issues, always clouds your judgment. The man has become a much better coach. It's 2008, get over it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (infinet @ May 4 2008, 02:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 4 2008, 08:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy @ May 4 2008, 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 3 2008, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Republican @ May 3 2008, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Give a <span style="color:blue">*removed*</span> some credit.Scott is a great coach period</div> Scott isn't close to a great coach comma, semicolon, exclamation point </div> LOL! Please stop, Scott has improved as a coach and there is NO denying that </div> Your statement does contradict mine </div> No but his COY award does. So does the fact he has his team on track to get to the NBA finals. Also the fact his team was one of the winningest teams in the toughest division in the league. As always your personal issues, always clouds your judgment. The man has become a much better coach. It's 2008, get over it. </div> So you are saying a COY award means someone is a great coach? Please tell me where I've said he hasn't improved as a coach.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 4 2008, 02:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (infinet @ May 4 2008, 02:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 4 2008, 08:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy @ May 4 2008, 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 3 2008, 03:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Black Republican @ May 3 2008, 03:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Give a <span style="color:blue">*removed*</span> some credit.Scott is a great coach period</div> Scott isn't close to a great coach comma, semicolon, exclamation point </div> LOL! Please stop, Scott has improved as a coach and there is NO denying that </div> Your statement does contradict mine </div> No but his COY award does. So does the fact he has his team on track to get to the NBA finals. Also the fact his team was one of the winningest teams in the toughest division in the league. As always your personal issues, always clouds your judgment. The man has become a much better coach. It's 2008, get over it. </div> So you are saying a COY award means someone is a great coach? Please tell me where I've said he hasn't improved as a coach. </div> no, of course the COY doesn't mean your a great coach. it's a roation of coaches that get it every year, franks turn might be next. ::sarcasm:: if you think he's imrproved as a coach then there is no argument. you're being sour about the past but that was 5 years ago, a bad coach doesnt take his team to close to 70 wins, and to the WCF semi finals and possibly the finals. worst is, the nets are made to look like the bad guys in this. you know ESPN and the other BS commentators are going to kill the nets for letting him go after such success and rightfully so. we fired him to appease an asshole and then we traded that same asshole so there was no sense in firing him
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jizzy @ May 4 2008, 06:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>no, of course the COY doesn't mean your a great coach. it's a roation of coaches that get it every year, franks turn might be next. ::sarcasm::</div> Explain Sam Mitchell getting the award <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>if you think he's imrproved as a coach then there is no argument.</div> Wrong. Scott isn't a great coach, nor is he close to being a great coach. Neither of those statements is me saying he is a bad coach. Scott was a bad coach when he was with the Nets and he has improved. Chris Paul could make any coach look good and he has done wonders for Scott.
i believe byron scott, sam mitchell and doc rivers are 3 of the worst coaches in the league...yet they are all winning...lawrence frank and scott skiles i believe are just average...i like jerry sloan, greg popovich, eddie jordan and phil jackson (he is a very good coach but not as great as he thinks he is)...of the 3 of worst coaches i mentioned, they are geniuses compared to isiah thomas...
Hey, I've been a Byron basher for a long time, but if he gets past the Spurs, I'll admit I was wrong, and bump him up in my mind to "slightly better than average"
Byron is a good enough coach that he's no longer a liability. He might get beat on a few plays out of timeouts here and there, but for the most part his teams are philosophically and emotionally sound. He's a much better "big picture" manager than a details guy, which is OK when you've got a brilliant point guard making half of your offense up on the fly. The crown jewel of Byron Scott's NJ resume was getting Kenyon Martin to play under control, which turned him into an all-star. I think he's had similar success developing Tyson Chandler, David West and Chris Paul. Hell, even Stojakovich is playing some of the most inspired basketball of his career. I'm not saying he turned these guys into talented basketball players, but I think he did a lot as far as getting them to effectively harness their talent. Re Deke: maybe he's just better at doing it with young guys than old ones.
