Scott Brooks does not know how to use a bench

[caw]

Lamb was pretty good on D when he was actually in the rotation and getting valuable minutes, I have to think a big part of the bad D is that he's seriously discouraged with his situation. Brooks benched him for three months for no reason.

That and he has zero experience in the playoffs. I get Brooks is being forced into rotations a bit without Ibaka healthy but that's what happens when you jerk young players time around they end up a step behind in the playoffs. It doesn't help the Spurs are just balling.

 

[otp85]

I think the big problem is that Scott Brooks doesn't have a bench. It's full of guys you either wanted 5 years ago or might want in 5 years. It's just far too easy for the Spurs to defend 2 guys.

That said; no series is over til you lose at home. I mean I don't think they have a shot but I won't count then out

 

[otp85]

Brooks never figured out his rotation all year. Check the game logs and minutes for guys like Sefolosha, Lamb, Jones, Roberson.

Good defensive scheme, bad offensive coach, bad at developing a rotation . I would love to see this offense spearheaded by a guy like Karl

He most certainly did have a rotation. Watch the games; Westbrook/Durant/Ibaka come out at virtually the same times every game; barring foul trouble and things like that. He gave older players nights off and added Butler late which throws off the numbers; which despite what espn will tell you do lie.

And to call him a bad offensive coach is tough since they don't really run an offense.

I know no one wants to hear it because everyone loves them, so do I, but Westbrook/Durant doesn't work. As fantastic a player as Westbrook is I feel like he holds KD back. Maybe you can pin that on Brooks inexperience and inability to make it work but who knows really.

Do think George Karl would be a great fit for Durant especially.

 

[otp85]

Your team has no chance down by 16 at half does it really matter at this point? Try anything

In what world is 16 at the half no chance? You see comebacks like that all the time.

 

[otp85]

has any team in NBA history been this good this long I mean being a title contender every single year like every year literally since 97-98.

I hear the Celtics used to be pretty good. The Lakers too.

 

[Scoe]

I hear the Celtics used to be pretty good. The Lakers too.

Were the Lakers title contenders in the 04-05 season, when Shaq left and Phil retired, were the Celtics title contenders after 87-88 season. My point is the Spurs big 3 is old and they are still going strong, I'm talking about longevity. The Lakers had a legit chance at the title every year in the Magic era, the Celtics did not in the Bird era. A lot of it is health, Popovich does a great job of managing minutes every year, not a single Spur has averaged over 30 minutes per game.

 

[otp85]

has any team in NBA history been this good this long I mean being a title contender every single year like every year literally since 97-98.

You said "NBA History". 1957-1987; Boston Celtics 16 titles and 19 conference championships, contenders every year. And the Lakers numbers would be just as impressive if they didn't have to play the Celtics. Outside of some of the 90s and now the Lakers have been contenders pretty much since Minneapolis.

Love the San Antonio team, but that's longevity.

 

[champs99and04]

You said "NBA History". 1957-1987; Boston Celtics 16 titles and 19 conference championships, contenders every year. And the Lakers numbers would be just as impressive if they didn't have to play the Celtics. Outside of some of the 90s and now the Lakers have been contenders pretty much since Minneapolis.

Love the San Antonio team, but that's longevity.

I think your making his point for him if you're going back to 1957 to find a parallel.

 

[Scoe]

You said "NBA History". 1957-1987; Boston Celtics 16 titles and 19 conference championships, contenders every year. And the Lakers numbers would be just as impressive if they didn't have to play the Celtics. Outside of some of the 90s and now the Lakers have been contenders pretty much since Minneapolis.

Love the San Antonio team, but that's longevity.

The Lakers and Celtics had some years where they had to rebuild, the Celtics had down years after Russell retired, built themselves back up with Cowens, had some down years right before they got Bird, Mchale and Parish in one offseason. Im not talking total number of titles just year to year success, the spurs have had a title contending team every year Popovich and Duncan have been there like every single year literally. Only year the Spurs didn't have a title contending team was in the 96-97 season when the Admiral got hurt, and those Robinson spurs teams weren't too bad either.

 

[otp85]

I think your making his point for him if you're going back to 1957 to find a parallel.

Is that not part of NBA history? My point was Boston/LA have been contenders basically forever.

 

[Scoe]

Is that not part of NBA history? My point was Boston/LA have been contenders basically forever.

I didn't say the Spurs have the best franchise, the Lakers and Celtics have had some down years, the Spurs haven't had one since 96-97 the year David Robinson got hurt, and before the that 88-89 the year before the Admiral was a rookie.

 

[otp85]

I didn't say the Spurs have the best franchise, the Lakers and Celtics have had some down years, the Spurs haven't had one since 96-97 the year David Robinson got hurt, and before the that 88-89 the year before the Admiral was a rookie.

My first comment was just kind of a joke about how good those two used too be. It's forgotten too often. No intentions of the big debate really. I like the Spurs alot.

 

[hyperthink]

Giffey has a very slim shot at the NBA, Kromah has zero shot. The Spurs are the team I could see Giffey playing for, they are a well oiled machine where everyone knows their role.

They both have a decent shot in the nba. There is a need for players like them in the league. With that being said, it might not be this year but in the foreseeable future