- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Lakers fired head coach Mike Brown, just five games into the eighty-two game NBA regular season.
The decision by Lakers hierarchy to sack their coach so early in the season indicates that the franchise is either hitting the panic button, or simply stridently adhering to their ‘win now’ mentality.
Patience has never been a strong suit of the Lakers organisation, but on the surface, the decision to part ways with Brown after a 1-4 start did seem hasty and a little harsh on the coach.
Apart from the obvious fact that the season was a mere five games old, the team isn’t completely healthy.
Kobe Bryant is playing on an injured foot, Dwight Howard is not yet 100% following back surgery, and Steve Nash had played just one and a half games after suffering a small fracture in his leg.
That means the Lakers top three players are hurt. There are zero teams in the NBA that would be firing on all cylinders if their best three players were ailing. And when you consider the Lakers’ lack of depth, injuries to their stars have an even greater negative impact.
Additionally, Brown was attempting to integrate two new All Stars into the starting five, along with implementing a new offensive structure, in the form of the much published Princeton offense.
Though the Lakers did look disjointed at times on offense, it’s important to remember that these types of changes take time, for they are not minor adjustments. Brown arguably should have been given a longer grace period for his team to gel with one another, and for them to become comfortable with the new offense.
However, there is a strong counter-argument that the call to relieve Brown of his duties was the right decision.
Despite the media and many fans suggesting otherwise, the new offence wasn’t really the issue at all.
At the time of Brown’s release, the Lakers were sitting fifth in the league in field goal percentage at 47%, and averaging 97 points per game. Even allowing for the Detroit blowout (won 108-79) to pad those numbers, they are pretty solid for a brand new offense.
In truth, it’s the defence that has been the problem. And when you position yourself as a defensive specialist coach, that’s a big problem.
Apart from the numbers, which were poor (giving up 99 points per game at 45%), you only had to have watched the Lakers play to know something was wrong. Opposition wing players have been given far too much space on the perimeter, providing open jumpshots or unpressured passing.
This lack of perimeter defence doesn’t necessarily turn up in statistics, but anyone who has played basketball will tell you how easy it is to execute your offense when there is no pressure on the ball.
Yet the problems haven’t been consigned to the perimeter. The frontcourt tandem of Pau Gasol and Dwight Howard have put up good numbers, but they haven’t controlled the boards and protected the rim in the manner that you would expect of two seven-footers.
The biggest concern is that Lakers defensive issues have primarily been the result of a lack of effort. And while it might be over-simplifying the team’s woes, that suggests that the players weren’t trying for Brown. When that happens, it’s rare for a coach to regain control of the team.
This is especially true when said coach has no championship rings to flash at his players as proof of his worth and standing in the game. For an NBA coach, knowledge of the game is almost secondary to the gravitas you hold among players.
You might know your X and O’s, but unless the players respect you, it counts for nothing.
Which made the appointment of Mike Brown questionable in the first place.
While he built a very good win/loss record with the Cleveland Cavaliers, the team’s success was primarily due to the presence of superstar LeBron James. Yes, Brown implemented some strong defensive principles, but on offense, it was simply a case of get LeBron the ball and get out of his way.
Brown was never truly respected, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time.
The Lakers signing of Brown was therefore a surprise. The way he let LeBron do whatever he want raised concerns that he wouldn’t be able to handle Kobe Bryant, who is an even bigger personality than LeBron.
The fact that Kobe was never consulted about Brown’s hiring got the pair off to a shaky start, and you could argue that the two of them never really connected. Though to be fair, you could say that about Brown and the entire Lakers squad.
He never seemed to be in charge of the team, just merely ‘there’.
So, while harsh, the realities of the NBA probably dictate that firing Brown was the right call. There is no point compounding a mistake by not fixing it.
If Brown was not the right choice of head coach last year, he wasn’t magically going to be this year either.
So what now for the Lakers?
Phil Jackson and Mike D’Antoni appear to be the favourites to replace Brown.
Jackson’s penchant for dealing with egos could certainly be used with this roster. Likewise, if championship rings bring respect, Jackson can bring his eleven to training.
And in terms of offense, Jackson’s favoured Triangle may not be exactly right for this squad, but it is better a better fit than the Princeton.
Considering the talent at the team’s disposal, offensive guru D’Antoni could be a wise choice. Having worked wonders in Phoenix with Nash, you can be sure he would get the ball in the point guard’s hands and run more pick and rolls.
And his assistant coach role with Team USA means that he has worked with Kobe, which can only be a positive.
Whoever the new coach is, their task is simple in its complexity: he needs to ensure the team plays harder on the defensive end, while implementing a simplified and intuitive offensive structure that maximises the player’s skill sets.
By firing Brown, the Lakers have signalled what we already knew: this team needs to win right now.
In acknowledging that fact, the answer to the question of whether the decision was a panic move or the right call is easy: it was both.