I'm not sure how anyone could take the original post, given the time it was posted,to mean anything OTHER than the opinion that OKC would be a better team going forward in the 2013 playoffs without Westbrook. I think we saw, as I stated earlier in the post, that Jackson was indeed much better than people anticipated he would be, but obviously OKC is nowhere near the team without Westbrook. Yes, he makes some dumbass plays in the clutch. That is an area he has room for improvement. He's young, he has a lot of room to grow. However, despite his flaws, he brings a dynamic to the game what no other PG in the league can. I'm not suggesting he's the best PG in the league, I'm simply suggesting he brings to the game at the PG position that no other player can. Comparing him to a Parker or CP3 is beyond re ed. They're completely different players. I do agree that Brooks is stubborn. He's a good guy, a good coach, but can be irritating with his lack of flexibility. Westbrook isn't OKC's problem, by any means. I'd pin it more on coaching and frontcourt offense. I'll continue to ask myself and other why Kendrick Perkins would start for any NBA team, let alone OKC. He's a situational player that should be playing limited minutes off the bench, perhaps in a starting role against maybe a Memphis. In addition, he's a complete and total offensive liability. Ibaka is clearly a good offensive weapon, but does so almost strictly from set perimeter jumpers. It still boggles my mind why this guy is not given more touches on the block. That could be a very important weapon for OKC if Ibaka can be more of a threat on the block.