Is Mike Brown offensively challenged?

[Coyote]

ARRRRGH. Is anyone really SURPRISED by this? MIKE BROWN IS A ROOKIE HEAD COACH. One who comes from two teams that focus as much on defense, if not more.

I agree he needs to get better at it. No we can't wait 20 games. We need better plays run out of timeouts (those last two in Portland sucked). But everyone knew Brown would focus on defense and planned to let all of the offensive weapons do their thing. He said that from the start. So pointing this out is like saying rookies are inconsistent and need to improve. Yes they do. It's like buying a Hummer and being surprised when you can't parallel park the damn thing. Gonna have to bang up a couple cars until you get it right.

At least he's been getting them to go to Z more often these past couple of games. Where's the love?

 

[LyXo]

I don't really mind his rookie woes. It happens with every coach. It may cost us a win here and there, but all in all, it becomes a learning experience and will build strength and character in the future.

What I do want, expect, and hope for... is LeBron's respect for Mike Brown. If LeBron does not believe in Brown, then we have yet another failed experiment... A very unfortunate turn of events that will set us back another year, another year that we cannot afford.

Getting a rookie coach that helps build towards the future was nice. Good idea. But was it what LeBron needed? A rookie coach that needed to gain respect? Or would a respected coach with a history of winning be better for discipline? I did push for Nate McMillan. His price tag was quite high. But his demand for respect, his disciplinary principles... More importantly, LeBron would not be above the coach as he seemingly is in the current state...

 

[NarlCavs]

The defense of Mike Brown because he's a rookie might demonstrate that maybe he wasn't the right choice for the Cavs at this time. With where the Cavs are in their development is a rookie coach who has a lot to learn and shown he needs to do much better in certain areas what they needed?
Hiring a coach who had never been ahead coach on any level was a risk. A strong case could have been made that the Cavs should have gone with a more proven veteran coach.

Brown's offensive coaching has been poor. He has a simplistic system and has been relying on indivdual talent. Now that teams have adjusted and injuries have hit this weak system and the lack of focus on developing offesne has been exposed.

I hope Mike Brown works out and he has done some good things. I'm not saying he was the wrong choice at this time. If he doesn't work out and proves to have been the wrong choice than it will have set the Cavs back and prove to have been a huge mistake.

 

[Coyote]

The defense of Mike Brown because he's a rookie might demonstrate that maybe he wasn't the right choice for the Cavs at this time.

I didn't mean it as a defense of him, just an explanation and something that I think we should have (and did) see coming. If it were in defense of him, I'd be saying that a lack of offensive game plan - for me, highlighted in timeouts - is hunky dory, and it's not.

Given who was available and realistically willing to come here (so strike Larry Brown, Phil Jackson and Flip), I'm not sure we could have done better. Nate was a good option, but it seemed he really wanted to stay out west.

I'm hoping that Brown's getting players to listen to what he does say. LyXo, I agree that one of the biggest worries is LBJ's respect for the coach. Hard to say right now. Not sure I think he's "above him". But I worry about the rest of the team's respect for Brown, too. Wish I knew what exact plays Brown drew up at the end of that Portland game. Were they awful plans carried out as called, or bull-headed ideas (esp. that 3) poorly executed by the team?