Watching Deke in the playoffs...

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
cpawfan

cpawfan

Monsters do exist
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
8,703
Likes
12
Points
38
Watching Deke in the playoffs reminds me how much Scott sucked.

The moron couldn't figure out how to use him.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ May 2 2008, 11:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What Scott?</div>

This one

p1_byronscott.jpg
 
Scotts no idiot, the guy knows how to use his players, where they can excel.

Chandler's having a career year
peja's having his best years since Sacramento
David West was a bench warmer, before Scott came in
 
Damn it, the Nets could have used that offensive rebounding against the Spurs
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ May 3 2008, 12:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Scotts no idiot, the guy knows how to use his players, where they can excel.

Chandler's having a career year
peja's having his best years since Sacramento
David West was a bench warmer, before Scott came in</div>

Chris Paul would make lots of coaches look smart
 
You can't say a coach was successful they have a certain superstar, not many coaches are good without, a certain superstar on the team. Either way, you can't give all the credit to Paul, There;s been plenty of instances where, he has drawed up a play at the end of games, to let not paul, but David West or peja get a game winner or game tying shot.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ May 3 2008, 12:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You can't say a coach was successful they have a certain superstar, not many coaches are good without, a certain superstar on the team. Either way, you can't give all the credit to Paul, There;s been plenty of instances where, he has drawed up a play at the end of games, to let not paul, but David West or peja get a game winner or game tying shot.</div>

Those plays work because of the attention that Paul draws.

Besides, it is very silly to bring up what Scott has done with the Hornets when talking about how bad he was with the Nets. I give credit to Scott for actually learning from his mistakes.

If Chandler had been on the Nets, he would have been as poorly used as Deke was.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan @ May 2 2008, 11:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I never followed the Net, all i know is now he's a pretty decent coach</div>
Why are you arguing with him then?

Mutombo is 42 now and is playing great. He was 4 years younger when he was with NJ. Duncan and Robinson destroyed us in the Finals of '04. If Scott wasn't such a retard and played Deke more (or at least get him involved), the stinky meadowlands may have a championship banner hanging in the rafters.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ May 2 2008, 11:50 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>

And that was back when Deke was still in his forties!!
 
In fairness to Scott, Deke didn't change from eating only cookies to a more balanced diet based on the "food pyramid" until 2004.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ May 3 2008, 07:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>In fairness to Scott, Deke didn't change from eating only cookies to a more balanced diet based on the "food pyramid" until 2004.</div>

In 2001, the NBA instituted the new defensive three second rule and permitted zone defenses for the first time. The rules dramatically limited Dike's effectiveness. He had twice as many defensive three second rule violations as any other player the first year of the new rules, the last year he played with Philly. He couldn't sit in the paint. His diminishing mobility was exposed. He couldn't defend the pick and roll.

In the years before he joined the Nets, Mutombo averaged 12.3 points, 12.3 rebounds and 3.4 blocks. In the years after, he has averaged 3.8 points, 5.7 rebounds and 1.2 blocks. He never recovered...never.

Rather than blame Scott, blame Thorn for trading away two offensive threats around the basket for a guy who played in 24 games...and then failing to replace them. The Nets didn't lose the Spurs series because Scott misused Mutombo. It lost because it didn't have reliable shooting, particularly upfront and on the wings. Rogers was out of shape from Day One. Thus, KMart goes 3-for-23 because there is no one else.
 
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.
 
Deke was also hurt a majority of that season, no?

And also had a hard time fitting into the motion offense, because he would hold the ball entirely too long.

I would take Scott over Frank eight days a week.
 
scott has improved immensily as a coach. he finally realized he can't rely on his assistants that much in NO. guys like pargo, bonzi, julian wright have all been playing well and he's giving them the chances. having a PG like paul helps but scott has improved chandler and west. frank on the other hand..... just gets worse as does our team every year
 
it's also pretty sad that nobody respects our coach as well, our players certainly don't and just thinking about it, shaq calling frank "Laura" is just sad
 
<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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Featured content

Back
Top