Reply With Quote
They should not be .500 in the West minus Westbrick and Durcan't,,,,where do you get that from?
How is he 3-12 with that team? Even without Westbrook and Durant, they should be at least .500.
They should not be .500 in the West minus Westbrick and Durcan't,,,,where do you get that from?
are you serious or
A decent coach would make better use of Jackson/Ibaka/Adams
didn't realize they were 3-12 tbh
OKC's problem is that they didn't trade some of their assets for proven players. No way do I look at that roster and see a .500 team.
A lot of OKC's games have been close. If they had one of their two closers, it would likely be a different outcome. On the other hand, Brooks' unimaginative playcalling is even more obvious now... He also needs to rein in guys like Reggie Jackson who is talented no doubt, but shouldn't be allowed to chuck they way he does.
They aren't a 3-12 team either, talent wise
They are not a .500 roster. What are you smoking?
And yes Brooks does suck but still.
maybe you're just overrating a couple of guys there...
The coach is only as good as the talent on the floor. At best, they should be 5-10, 3-12 is about right for a team missing it's Top 2 players.
So the Thunder lose their two best offensive players (basically their only two proven scorers)...and you expect them to be "at least .500". You do understand they play in the Western Conference right?
I'm not trying to give Scott Brooks a pass here....but seriously what do you expect the Thunder team to do without KD and Westbrook? I'm pretty sure Pop, Phil Jackson, and Pat Riley would have trouble reaching .500 with this squad in the West right now.
What would a few more wins do? They'd still be an under .500 team.
This team has more problems than the coach at this point. A team with no true leader is ed.
Pistons, Jazz, Nuggets, Nets x2, Bucks so six of their losses have come against teams that likely won't make the playoffs (in the Nets case it depends on how much the rest of the conference stinks it up). They've had a cakewalk of a schedule to date - wins have been Nuggets, Celtics and Kings (who have improved but still won't make playoffs), and it'll only get harder.
If they don't win at least three of their next six before the Cavs game, they'll be kicking themselves (Utah, Knicks, Philly, NO, Detroit, Milwaukee). 3-3 still leaves them at 6-15 and having to go 42-19 the rest of the way to get to 48 wins, which is 56 win pace (i.e. #1 seed pace) with a tougher than average schedule.
WE WILL SEE
Well they lost 6 games to teams they should have beat, and better coaching likely does. Nets, Nuggets, Jazz, Pistons, Bucks, Nets again. Win those games, they're 9-6 at this point.
If only they had a legitimate scoring option from the bench to move into the starting lineup and carry the load...
I obviously think losing Westbrook and Durant is a bigger deal than you seem to think it is.
Could the Thunder have won a couple of the games that they lost with better coaching.....probably.
Is this Thunder team (minus Westbrook and Durant) a .500 team? no......
Seriously, do you understand how the entire offensive and defensive play calling has changed with the subtraction of those two guys? It takes time for the players to make that kind of adjustment.
They have one quality starter in Ibaka and one decent bench guy in Jackson. 3-12 seems about right. They're the 2010 Cavs minus LeBron.
Theyre missing 30 free throws a game.
Last edited by UZER; 11-23-2014 at 11:55 PM.
So you think Brooks could have kept a Spurs team losing Duncan/Parker/Gino/Leonard/Green for weeks at a time last year at .500?
Or put another way, you don't think Pop could lead a Jackson/Ibaka/Lamb/Perkins/Collison/Morrow/Adams/Telfair team to .500 over a couple of weeks?
I don't.
It takes time to adjust Splitty. I don't expect the Thunder to lose their two best players (by far)....and keep a .500 record. No coach....not even Pop....could just snap his fingers and get the "others" to pick up the slack left by those two guys.
I agree with a lot of people in this thread....3 wins so far (with the KEY losses of KD and Westbrook) isn't really that bad. Could it be 1 or 2 games better? Sure. Could it be 9-6 like dumbjohn suggested? Not so sure about that one....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
