Really, is it Byron, or is it ourselves?
Here's The Deal On Byron
[Ed. note: Really, we were serious when we told you we wanted to cut back on the workload. Think you want to be part of the Joe Netsfan funfest and be a contributor (either regular, or semi-regular)? Send me your ideas longer than a Backlash, and we'll run them in our planned new section entitled Your View. Have dreams of more? Well, maybe you'll get your own regular feature. And we mean it - want to contribute thoughts on the Nets or the NBA? Want to give take a game review or an opponent off our hands? Let us know - please, no random submissions - and we'll work it out. Now, our first "Your View" from Adam Porter.]
Byron Scott's talent and achievements as leader and head coach of the powerful and rejuvenated New Jersey Nets have been called into serious question in recent months by the media and the fans (and by the players if you believe the reports.)
As a fan and supporter of Byron Scott, I have found these sentiments a bit perplexing.
Behold the case of our Byron Scott: There's no need to recount his current team's success since he arrived. Coaches are usually judged (by the fans) based on the team's record and the general expectation level for the team's success. If an NBA team's play doesn't live up to fan expectations, the coach usually takes most or all of the blame. When a team meets or exceeds fan expectations, the coach gets a very small share of the credit if any at all. Which NBA coaches in recent years have been widely viewed as essential to a team's success? Start counting and I suspect you'll stop before you use the fingers on one hand. So somehow only 5 of 29 NBA head coaches are above average?
Good things about Byron:
1. He knows what it takes to win. He's a champion Laker who's played with and been coached by some of the best in the business. He acts like he belongs in the Finals and expects the Nets to win a championship. As he should.
2. He's brash and tough. He doesn't back down and he shows the fight, heart, and guts Rod Thorn (and Nets fans now) expect from the players and organization.
3. He handles the media well. He answers the questions he's asked. He doesn't lose his cool, try to get cute or make excuses. He never seems to be putting too much spin on anything. Ever watch a Pat Riley or Phil Jackson interview? Often more spin than content. Scott (like Rudy Tomjanovich and Jeff Van Gundy) gives very good basketball (if unemotional) interviews.
4. He's had tremendous success. He's been at the helm while the team has risen from doormats to title contenders. It's fair to argue how much of the credit he deserves (maybe even a lot), but wouldn't an incompetent (or even undertalented) coach find a way to hinder the team's progress more than Scott has? Let's be honest here. The current Nets are very talented but not quite as talented as the elite teams of the Western Conference. It's hard to find underachievement at the team level here.
Let's look into the knocks against Byron Scott.
1. Scott made bad substitutions in the NBA Finals. I don't think fans can accurately judge a head coach's performance. Some of us have a lot of basketball savvy, but few have as much as professional NBA decision-makers. We don't watch practices. We don't know the players personally. We don't hear what's said on the bench or in coaches' huddles or on team flights. We only see what's on the court.
Game-time decisions are a small (important) part of a head coach's job, including substitutions. Let's face it... Kerry Kittles and Lucious Harris have both been inconsistent with flashes of brilliance. Kittles could have had a monster quarter/game/series instead of a bad one... We all know that was just as likely as Lucious having one. As for his handling of Dikembe Mutombo, it was gutsy of Byron to bench a multiple-time All-Star and Defensive Player Of The Year when Mutombo was obviously shaky and played horribly after returning from his injury. I have no doubt Mutombo would have started and played big minutes throughout the playoffs had he shown Byron the shot-blocking monster Mutombo of the 90s in practice.
It's a gamble anytime the game's on the line. Coaches are forced to roll the dice all the time. But they have the advantage of knowing the players better than we fans do, seeing the players work in practice, talking to them during the game, all to aid in adjusting a game plan designed in advance by (presumably) the entire coaching staff. How pompous for us remote-control-punching geniuses to second-guess Byron's substitution patterns.
2. Scott isn't a good X's and O's guy, Eddie Jordan was really doing all the coaching work.
When Rod Thorn interviewed Byron for the head coaching job, they met in an airport hotel room and went over X's and O's strategic situations for hours. Thorn was very impressed with Scott's basketball IQ. Thorn is a better judge of coaching talent than the fans are. As far as the teamwork of the Nets coaching staff: As with any group, its leader delegates how he/she sees fit but is still ultimately held responsible for its success or failure. If Byron decided to delegate big parts of the Nets show to Jordan, one certainly has to respect his results.
3. The players don't like Scott and complain about him to management.
Maybe true, maybe not. As we well know, Jason Kidd doesn't always mean exactly what he says. We've seen a lot of headlines and stories with unmamed sources but I think the fans are naive to think we really know the truth about Net player criticism of Byron. Even if true, many a successful coach gets criticized by players who are often jaded, often overpaid, and very hard to please. These accusations may or may not be true, but fans (and possibly reporters) simply don't have enough real information to conclude Scott doesn't have the confidence of his players.
4. Scott is a hands-off, lazy CEO type coach who doesn't work hard to make the team better.
This one may have legs since Scott has made comments that he has room for improvement in this department. But his team has made it to 2 NBA Finals in his 3 years here. Yes, Jason Kidd has more to do with that than Byron Scott does. But it's hard to blame the Nets for not making big adjustments to the coaching staff given the team's celebrated rise from the NBA's cellar to its elite.
It's too early in Byron Scott's career to judge with any certainty if he is or will become a star NBA head coach. Head coaches are (and should be) judged by their team's success and ability to best utilize its talent. Few would claim the Nets have the most talented roster of players in the NBA. Yet here they stand, favorites to capture a third consecutive Eastern Conference championship and have another legitimate shot at the NBA title. No matter how much or how little Byron Scott changes his coaching style this season, he may well be hailed as a great coach should the Nets finally hit paydirt and become champions.
Perhaps Byron Scott really already is a bona-fide championship NBA head coach. As with many judgements we love to make about coaches and players, we fans don't know nearly as much as we'd like to think.
- Adam Porter
Archive | Backlash | Bio | Calendar | Champagne's Blog | Diatribe | Game x Game | History | Home | Joe Netsfan's Blog | Media | Opponents | Players | Playoffs | Search | Specials
© 2003 Shawn Belschwender and Michael Kozlowski
