Reply With Quote
The pro is that he will help them tank, intentionally or not
Let's start with the Pro's first.
First, let's get one thing out of the way. Byron Scott is not a bad coach. He's had success in this league, and a lot more of it than many other coaches could claim. He did take the New Jersey Nets to two straight NBA Finals appearances in 2002 and 2003. The Finals trips began just one year after a 26-win campaign. He also helped build the New Orleans Hornets from a woeful 18-64 team to a 56-26 record in 2007-08. It's not like the man is a dud.
Now the Cons:
He's also been fired twice, both times in the middle of a season! The teams employing him thought the situations under which they let him go were bad enough that they could not let him finish the year. It's a telling sign of some fault in his style of coaching that this has happened twice now, after previous success.
Why was he fired? The first time, his players tuned him out. They quit on him. He lost his team. He lost them though his demanding and grating style. The second time? He lost them with their lack of confidence in his ability to devise in-game strategies. Does this sound like a man who could take over a team defending a championship? No doubt they would second-guess his decisions and authority if they clashed with what has gotten them there previously. Wouldn't Scott want to come in and do things his way? Wouldn't he have to? How else could he earn the respect of a championship staff, unless he implemented a system in which they know Scott has 100% confidence? In the style of coaching he feels best suits him?
The pro is that he will help them tank, intentionally or not
He didn't take that team to the finals twice in a row. Prime Jason Kidd carried that team to the finals twice In a row
Con: He's black
Kool must have posted this from the club, surrounded by es....
Pro: He will allow Kobe to chuck
Con: He will allow Kobe to chuck
He's been tight with God since God's rookie year so that is a pro. God trusts him and when God trusts a coach the Lakers go all the way and win it all.
CP3 was the coach of that 56 win Hornets team with the help TC, David West, and Peja's 3-point shooting. Scott was basically a spectator.
^ Illogical POV.
What would Pop be without Duncan, Parker, Gino-Belly, what would Phil be without MJ, Pippen, Rodman, Kobe, Shaq. In every instance players make coaches..
Right, but Scott couldn't get the team through tough times and when things would go bad, it would get really bad. He wasn't much of a leader. Too much of a players coach and liked to play too much golf.
And he never ran a structured offense. He basically let CP3 run the show with the same old pick and roll. When teams would gameplan against it, no adjustments.
so was scot responsible for cp3 giving up 40pts beatdown?
He didn't do anything to make it better. The whole team basically quit under his watch which translated early into the following season where the blowouts continued to happened before ownership ended his misery.
I'm not here to defend B. Skizzle because as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on him....but let's be honest about CP3..the dude is fools gold...even today he's doing the same he did in NOLA. His only excuse for flaming out with a very good team this past season is to "Blame it on Sterling."
pros: its not dunleavy jr
cons: none. we don't have a roster either built for winning championships nor developing talent (we got randle, but he's probably trade bait) b scott is perfect for laker fans wants someone who has ties to the Laker history and scott is the only logical choice
Pro: When they fail it's Byron Scott's fault
Con: Kobe likes him so he'll be a Laker for a while
Byron Scott + Lin + Kobe + Boozer = The goods
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
