You're Welcome, Jmizzy.

[playmakr]

 

[jmizzy4ou]

:clap:clap:clap

 

[SoonerBounce13]

Nice physical game

 

[gracefor24]

What happens if Tom Thibodeau and Scott Brooks switch jobs?

 

[stoops4pres]

What happens if Tom Thibodeau and Scott Brooks switch jobs?

I'd answer this question, but I don't want to feel the wrath of the Thunder homers. So I'll just say, "no comment."

 

[uberjamb]

I'm a thunder homer, and you're answer would be correct.

 

[Smash Williams]

What happens if Tom Thibodeau and Scott Brooks switch jobs?

playmakr sobs uncontrollably, until Tim Grover discovers a combination of PEDs and training regimens that turns MJ into a 30-year-old version of himself.

I'd answer this question, but I don't want to feel the wrath of the Thunder homers. So I'll just say, "no comment."

Most Thunder fans, or at least the ones that follow the rest of the league, would probably argue that OKC would be significantly better, perhaps to the point that an OKC-Miami series would be a legitimate toss-up. You give Thibs a roster with OKC's combination of length and athleticism, and I'll show you a defensive monster with far more offensive firepower than Thibs has had in Chicago.

I don't think Brooks is a bad coach. It's difficult to evaluate coaches because so much of their impact pertains to things we can't directly observe or measure. For example, young players typically improve significantly their first few years in the league, but the rate of growth is also partly dependent on the quality of the coaching staff and the organization as a whole. If Durant and Westbrook had started out in Sacramento, I think they're still very good players today, but I can't imagine them being equally as good as they are in OKC. Sacramento is an extreme example, but I use them to illustrate the point that the development of young talent is dependent upon a larger context that includes the coaching staff. I think Brooks' ability to relate to his young players and earn their trust and respect has played some part in their development; the contrast between Carlesimo and Brooks in that aspect is readily apparent. PJ was fired not for losing games, but because the noticeable lack of effort from this players that was indicative of a larger problem with the team's culture.

In other words, the Thunder were in all likelihood going to improve from 2008 to the present, barring extreme incompetence, so the dunces that want to give all or even most of the credit to Brooks are oversimplifying and exaggerating his impact (they're also discrediting their beloved Presti's ability to assemble a roster). On the other hand, the Thunder wouldn't have improved as much as they have with a truly bad coach at the helm this whole time. What percentage of that improvement goes to Brooks is up in the air, but it's not close to the 0% or 100% that fans at each extreme believe.

Brooks often drives me crazy, especially with his rotations (Derek Fisher, playing two bigs more than necessary, etc.), but I think he's one of the better coaches in the league. He'll get better more with more postseason experience, but I also think it's fair to question how much patience the front office should have with Brooks' own improvement when they already have a contending roster on their hands.

 

[Smash Williams]

And incredible win for the Bulls (since that's what this thread was about in the first place), and respect to the Heat for keeping that streak going for so long. This game only made amplified my sadness over the reality that we're not going to see the Bulls with a 100% Rose in this year's playoffs.