Reply With Quote
I mean, yeah, it's nice. But, we put up that 117 against the TORONTO RAPTORS. Quite possibly the worst team in the league. In only three games, that surely skews the averages.
One of the biggest question mark posed by basketball analysts during the preseason was how would the Pistons perform under the coaching of Flip Saunders. So far so good, the Piston's have started the season 3-0 while Larry's Knicks are 0-3.
One of the things Flip was bringing to the table was more scoring for the Pistons.
The Pistons are averaging 102 ppg while holding their oppents to 85 ppg.
Larry's Knicks are averaging 86 ppg and their opponents 94 ppg
The 117 points scored Saturday matched their highest scoring game of the entire 107 games they played last year and was the most points they have scored in their last 88 games.
I mean, yeah, it's nice. But, we put up that 117 against the TORONTO RAPTORS. Quite possibly the worst team in the league. In only three games, that surely skews the averages.
Flip's Pistons are 3-0, but they still have the Pistons' talent; Larry's Knicks are 0-3, but they still have the Knicks' talent. Even the greatest coach ever would struggle to win with what the Knicks have; the most pedestrian of coaches would look pretty successful with the Pistons' bunch.
I'm not really sure what the point is.
Are you trying to suggest that Flip Saunders is a better basketball coach than Larry Brown?
Keep in mind that we played them on the road.
I freely admit that it's just a starting point and serves as bragging rights and nothing more at this point in the season
Too early for you to have an assessment on Flip?
Are you JoeJam on the Piston's Message Board?
I believe that the Knick fans and organization expect LB to add enough wins to get them into the playoffs.
The position of many is that Larry is heads and tails above Flip when it comes to coaching, the wins and losses by each team will go a long way in dispelling or supporting that position. If the coaching skills are that far apart then the "same" Pistons should lose more and the "same" Knicks should win more.
3-0 is about 1/27th of the season so it's obviously way too early to draw any conclusions but it's unarguably a good start.
from an outsiders view id say Flip looks like he is better for the Pistons than Brown was. Sure they have the talent and Brown took them to a championship but flip has brought more offense to the team and is more than happy to play all the bench and not just run a 7 or 8 man rotation. Darko is a perfect example, people call him a bust all the time but how the heck was he meant to try and shrug off that tag by sitting on the bench under Larry. His confidence will grow as he gets more time and has the faith of his coach for once. This will work for the whole team as the starters arent purely relied upon and the bench is shown faith by getting more minutes. Its a win-win situation for the Pistons.
I could be totally wrong in my assessment but thats how i see it at the moment
I don't know that you've come up with a fair measure. Brown's Pistons from last year lost a lot of games that they should have/could have won because Larry wasn't coaching the team. It would stand to reason that the Pistons will win a lot of games this season -- they may even win more than last year -- but IMO that wouldn't necessarily mean that Flip was a better coach or did a better job.
I think it's just that Flip is the right coach for the team right now. Just like LB was the right coach in 03-04. Right now, the team is already a great defensive team with experienced vets who know how to get it done, but LB's offense was nothing short of awful, and it especially hurt us against a team who's coach knows our plays inside and out in the finals. The Pistons will win more games this year, and Flip will be considered for the COTY award. When your team can't pile points on teams, you let teams sneak back in to games and steal them like last year.
The number one thing that pisses me off though, is when I hear people say "Larry Brown is a Championship coach, and Flip isn't". I've heard that from 5 or 6 "experts" already. Yet, they fail to realize that it was the PISTONS who brought him his first NBA le. And I gurantee it will be his last.
________
Live sex
Last edited by FreshPrince22; 09-12-2011 at 02:09 PM.
Fair enough, we were 54-28 overall and 9-8 in the games LB was unable to coach which would put us at 45-20 in the games he coached. If you use that win percentage for the entire season he would have ended up 57-25.
I believe we're improved over last years team because of a deeper bench, on the other hand other top teams in the East have also improved so it remains to be seen if that improvement will show up in the form of more wins than the previous year.
If we end up with close to 60 wins this year my opinion of Flip's coaching skills would be in that they are in the same league as LB's. Time will allow for a more accurate assessment, as of now I'm aware that it's nothing more than conjecture.
As of today I stand by my thread le.
I hope the success continues for the Pistons, but those playoff runs are what mattered the last two years, not two underachieving regular seasons.
Keep in mind that we played them on the road.
I freely admit that it's just a starting point and serves as bragging rights and nothing more at this point in the season
Too early for you to have an assessment on Flip?
Are you JoeJam on the Piston's Message Board?
We played Toronto at HOME, not on the road. The one road game we had was against Boston, and we scored 82 points in that one. But, sure, it's nice to average 100 points ... for like the first time in over a decade.
And, yes, I'm "JoeJam" from our messageboard. What's up ...
Flip Saunders struggled for years to get talented Minnesota teams out of the 1st round of the playoffs. Three regular season games are not going to change that legacy nor allow him to sniff Larry Brown's jock, for that matter.
Luckily we are not Minnesota. It's the players who won the games and won the championship, not Larry Brown.
Meanwhile, look what's happening with the Knicks. Everyone's already going crazy.
________
condo sale Pattaya
Last edited by FreshPrince22; 09-12-2011 at 02:09 PM.
Which "talented" Minnesota teams were better than the Shaquille O'Neal Lakers, Tim Duncan Spurs, Rasheed Wallace Blazers, Steve Nash-Finley-Dirk Mavericks, or Chris Webber-Peja Kings?
How many times were the Wolves beat in the first round when they should not have been? How many times were they favored to win a series and not win it? Honestly, I want to know.
Just because those Minnesota teams were "talented," does not mean they were "MORE" talented or better than the teams that beat them.
Excuse the playoff futility as much as you like, but Saunders coached a number of 50 win teams and bombed in the postseason. Certainly nothing worth placing him above LBrown for when it comes to coaching.
then again a monkey on e could be 3-0 w/the pistons
I don't disagree that Larry Brown is the better coach. I'm just saying Flip Saunders' playoff history as a coach with the Timberwolves must be taken into context. The Wolves only had home court advantage in one first round series they didn't win. You can say the Wolves won 50 games and couldn't make it out of the first round and laugh at that. But, when the teams they were playing won 59 or 57 games, how can you really fault the team for losing the series? Only one time did the Wolves have 50 wins, have more wins than their first round opponent, and have homecourt advantage.
Take a look at the Minnesota Timberwolves' playoff history:
1997: first round loss
Minnesota (40-42) v. Houston Rockets (57-25)
Houston had homecourt advantage
KG's second season in the league at the ripe old age of 21
1998: first round loss
Minnesota (45-37) v. Seattle Supersonics (61-31)
Seattle had homecourt advantage
Tom Gugiotta was injured half the season
1999: first round loss
Minnesota (25-25) v. San Antonio Spurs (37-13)
San Antonio had homecourt advantage
shortened season
Spurs eventual champs
2000: first round loss
Minnesota (50-32) v. Portland Trailblazers (59-23)
Portland had homecourt advantage
if you recall, Blazers loss to eventual champs Lakers after leading the Lakers by 15 points in the fourth quarter of game 7 of the Western Conference Finals
Portland was stacked that year, talent-wise
2001: first round loss
Minnesota (47-35) v. San Antonio Spurs (58-24)
San Antonio had homecourt advantage
Malik Sealy died that year
Joe Smith contract violation fiasco, he was not allowed to play with the Wolves and they lost draft picks
2002: first round loss
Minnesota (50-32) v. Dallas Mavericks (57-25)
Dallas had homecourt advantage
Terrell Brandon was lost that season to injury
Chauncey Billups stepped up, but wasn't enough in the playoffs against the Mavs
2003: first round loss
Minnesota (51-31) v. LA Lakers (50-32)
FIRST TIME T-WOLVES HAVE HOMECOURT ADVANTAGE
Lakers coming off three consecutive NBA championships
2004: made it to the Western Conference Finals against LA Lakers
So, MarkBryant, you tell me what year the T-Wolves SHOULD HAVE made it out of the first round? The only year they had homecourt advantage and didn't win the series was in 2003 against the THREE TIME DEFENDING NBA CHAMPIONSHIP LA LAKERS, who won a WHOPPING ONE REGULAR SEASON GAME FEWER than the T-Wolves.
Now, you can say Larry Brown is a much better coach than Flip Saunders, and I won't disagree with you.
You can say three regular season games does not mean that Flip is a great coach, and I would agree with you.
You can say the Minnesota teams he coached were talented, and I would agree with you.
But, don't imply that he and the Timberwolves should have won all of those first round series against teams that were clearly BETTER and MORE TALENTED than his ballclub. The one year he had more talent and balance on his team that most of the other western conference teams, he actually led them to the Western Conference championship series.
If he was that great of a coach, they should've been able to get out of the 1st round more than once during his tenure, regardless of whether they had homecourt or not.
Which year. Tell me which year they should have beat their first round opponent when they didn't.
You're speaking in totality. Be more specific. Which playoff series?
You can even throw out the first three years up there, 1997-1999, when KG was still too young and the other teams were far and away better teams.
Still, in 2000, the Portland Trailblazers were the best team in the league that year. In 2001, the Spurs had the best frontcourt in the league. In 2002, Dallas' team was a clearly better "team" than the Wolves. You can argue that 2002 was the year they really should have made it out of the first round, but Dallas was still a much better team. In 2003, the Lakers were the three time defending champs and many thought they slept-walked through the regular season. There was no surprise at all that the Lakers beat the Wolves even without homecourt advantage.
Every single first round series the Wolves lost were against POWERHOUSE western conference teams that had MORE TALENT. Every single one of them. The ONLY time he had more talent was the year they went to the Western Conference championships.
You cannot just say the Wolves should have won more than one first round series. Explain which ones they SHOULD HAVE won. Perhaps Flip was not a "great" enough coach to make a "good" team great. But, that doesn't matter with the Detroit Pistons. If Flip can just be a "good" enough coach to help keep this "elite" Detroit team "great," it should be enough to give the team a chance at another le run.
You're right. I'm am speaking 'overall'. 1 season to advance past the first round out of 8?
2002 aginst Dallas is the only time you could have even a remotely decent argument to say the Timberwolves should have won. So, you could say the T-Wolves should have won 2 out of 8 of those first round series. And, if they had won 2, people would still be saying: "Only 2 out of 8 first round series?"
It's very obvious why the Wolves didn't make it out of the first round of the playoffs in their first 7 appearances. It's because their opponents were better.
It's fairly obvious that Saunders isn't that great of a coach or perhaps he could have knocked off some marginally better teams once or twice in a postseason.
Again, sir, which teams were only "marginally" better than the Wolves when they played them?
The 3 time defending championship Lakers only had one fewer loss.
Dallas in 2002 was the only team they had a realistic chance at beating, and that Mavs team won SEVEN (7) more games in the regular season. In all the other playoff appearances, the teams the Wolves were facing won AT LEAST NINE (9) more regular season games. That's a considerable "margin." Even in a shortened 50 game season, the Spurs won THIRTEEN (13) more games than the Wolves in 1999.
So, I ask you again, which series should the Wolves had won that they didn't? You can only argue against the Mavs in 2002. That's it. And, you can't come down on a team or a coach for not being able to win ONE winnable playoffs series against a team that had the big three of Dirk-Nash-Finley, not to mention Juwan Howard (who was good back then), and with the Mavs having homecourt advantage. All of the other series were basically unwinnable.
Fine, Flip Saunders is not a "great" coach. Again, I never said he was.
But, just so you can see the comparison, here are Larry Brown's first 10 years in the league as a head coach and Flip Saunders' first 10 years in the league as head coach:
LARRY BROWN
Regular season record: 414-326
winning percentage: .559
# of seasons he led his team into the playoffs: 7
Playoff record: 19-26
winning percentage: .422
# of times his team made it past the first round: 2
FLIP SAUNDERS
Regular season record: 434-342
winning percentage: .559
# of seasons he led his team into the playoffs: 8
Playoff record: 17-30
winning percentage: .361
# of times his team made it past the first round: 1
Larry's teams had stronger post seasons overall in his first 10 years in the league, but not by much. And, Larry Brown only made it out of the first round two times in his first 7 tries. He didn't get much success until his eleventh year in Indiana. Pistons hope Flip really turns the corner in playoff success in his eleventh season as a head coach as well.
The two coaches also have identical regular season winning percentages in their first 10 years in the league. Flip might not be a "great" coach like Larry Brown yet. But, how about we give him a few more years, since we have the benefit of over 20 years with Larry Brown? Make sense, don't it?
Not all head coaches are lucky enough to walk into perfect situations like Phil Jackson, or have the fortune of adding a once-in-a-generation player, like Gregg Popovich had in Tim Duncan, to an already strong, veteran core. Flip started from scratch with basically an expansion team in Minnesota. KG and Stephon Marbury were teenagers when he got them. He had to coach them like college kids and really teach them fundamentals. The fact he made it to the playoffs with the youth and inexperience he had in only KG's second season is a testament in itself.
It's so easy to judge Larry Brown since he's been in the league for so long and certainly after his two years with the Pistons. Some would have questioned Larry Brown's legacy as well before his championship run in 2004 on a team he largely did not build or coach.
MarkBryant,
So, instead of thinking in generalities and without the benefit of context when forming an opinion, I personally think you should look at all the variables and contextual factors before being so adamant about an argument.
Last edited by JamStone; 11-07-2005 at 06:25 PM.
Eight postseasons should be enough to ascertain his coaching prowess.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
