Scott, 53, has a career record of 416-521 in 13 seasons
You have to look beyond the numbers.
He took over horrible teams and made them all better. A bad coach doesn't make it to 2 NBA Finals.
Scott, 53, has a career record of 416-521 in 13 seasons
You understand the teams he's had to coach recently, right? He took the Nets to back to back finals appearances, he was coach of the year in New Orleans in 2008 (and had a winning record as a coach at that time) and then he took over the Cavs job the season Lebron left. Now he's taken over a Lakers team that even if fully healthy, would have been lucky to be .500 but has lost 4 players to season ending injuries.
If you're going to look at the record and hold that against him, you should look at the teams he's been given to coach as well. It's not as if he took over good teams and drove them into the ground.
Well we shall see Rambunctious. The whole story is not completed unless you can see into the future.
true enough but George Karl would have this injury riddled team playing a lot better in my humble opinion.
No he wouldn't and even if he did, all that would do is cost the Lakers a top 5 pick. I don't care if the Lakers were 100% healthy and had Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach and Pat Riley all coaching them. They would have been lucky to make the playoffs, let alone win a series.
You can call for Byron's head all you want, but there isn't another coach out there that was going to be winning anything with this roster.
You have no idea what kind of fan I am. But I will tell you what kind of fan I am. I'm the kind of fan that will not stand for my favorite team to take the easy less costly road and end up being the 2nd best NBA team in LA. That makes me sick and it should make you sick as well. Mitch has been taking the easy way out for too long and it has hurt this team big time. Hiring Scott was just another example of that. When in doubt try to do what Jerry West would've done. No guts no glory.Clearly Rambunctious is one of those fans who prefers to bitch and complain about anything and everything.
Pure conjecture on your part...I have George Karls excellent win loss record and Scotts terrible record to trump your bologna. Go ahead and believe what you want, If Scott takes the Lakers to the finals or even the playoffs I will eat crow. However I think you will have a very long wait. But I'm only human maybe I'm wrong...I tell you what; lets take a look at Scotts college coaching record oh wait...HE HAS NONE!
You have no idea what kind of fan I am. But I will tell you what kind of fan I am. I'm the kind of fan that will not stand for my favorite team to take the easy less costly road and end up being the 2nd best NBA team in LA. That makes me sick and it should make you sick as well. Mitch has been taking the easy way out for too long and it has hurt this team big time. Hiring Scott was just another example of that. When in doubt try to do what Jerry West would've done. No guts no glory.
I think Rambunctious has some legit concerns with Byron. George Karl was tops on my list of coaches they interviewed. I'm not so sure he would be doing much better with the current roster though. It's not a great roster.
It takes great players to go deep in the playoffs and win championships. Byron has shown he can do such with a competent roster. I think you have to consider roster construction when evaluating a coach's win/loss record.
Stopped reading at the bolded. The fact that you think the teams George Karl was handed to coach and the teams Byron had (especially in Cleveland) were remotely close tells me all that I need to know.]
When Byron had rosters that could win, he won. When he had rosters that couldn't, he didn't. Just like any other coach.
And that's not conjecture. Any coach at any level of any sport will tell you that in order to win, ypu have to have good players.
So when you give a guy great players, he wins a few games. What makes him different than an empty suit then? You can literally say that about anyone. That's just looking for an excuse to forgive his short comings. There are coaches that can actually make a difference. Karl is one of them but I'm not getting into that. Byron Scott is not. You even acknowledged it (though unknowningly) by saying he only wins when he has good players which is a sign that his coaching isn't making all that much difference. He is average at best and at worst, he makes you wonder if he really understands that its not 1994 anymore.
I disagree re: Karl. I don't dislike him as a coach and certainly wouldn't have complained if the Lakers hired him. However, what has he ever truly accomplished? He has a good regular season record, but how many championships has he won? How many times has he even taken a team to the finals? He had some very talented teams and a couple of his Denver teams were considered favorites to come out of the West.
Yet zero finals appearances.
At least when Byron had a roster that was good enough to get to the finals, he got them there.
You have no idea what kind of fan I am. But I will tell you what kind of fan I am. I'm the kind of fan that will not stand for my favorite team to take the easy less costly road and end up being the 2nd best NBA team in LA. That makes me sick and it should make you sick as well. Mitch has been taking the easy way out for too long and it has hurt this team big time. Hiring Scott was just another example of that. When in doubt try to do what Jerry West would've done. No guts no glory.