Should Mike Brown be fired?

May 19th, 2008 | Posted by PostmanE

I just got done reading both FanHouse friend Matt Watson’s and TrueHoop’s unwittingly dueling takes on whether or not Mike Brown deserves to keep his job. A summary of the points therein:

Watson argues that Cleveland’s give-LBJ-the-ball-and-watch sets are so brutal, they’re actually holding the team back. He concedes that Brown is a good defensive coach, but that until Brown is relieved of his duties — and fans of the NBA are relieved of having to watch Lebron take on double teams from 30 feet away — the Cavs won’t win an NBA title.

Henry Abbott argues that the Cavs’ stunning lack of non-Lebron talent is the reason for their mediocrity, and that even with that talent, Brown has managed to take the team deep into the playoffs in consecutive seasons. Abbott credits Brown for his ability to get the most out of players like Wally on defense, as well as dealing well with the “Superstar Challenge” of keeping a luminary like Lebron pacified at all times. No easy task, that.

Where Henry fails in his argument, I think, is where he fails to recognize just how good Lebron is. Lebron, and not Mike Brown, has been the reason the Cavs have sauntered deep into the playoffs the past two years. Abbott’s argument stresses the way Brown is getting the most out of lesser players, but I don’t necessarily buy that. If anything, Zydrunas Ilgauskus has gotten slightly worse under Brown (though his increasing age is a factor), while the rest of the team has been swapped out for relatively unimaginative three-point shooters, a product of Brown’s insistence on the Lebron Stand-and-Watch-And-Shoot space continuum.

Anyway, it’s not an either/or question. Abbott wants new Cavs players; the Cavs need new players. Matt wants a new coach; the Cavs need a new coach. Players are probably more important in the near term, but just because the players are bad doesn’t mean Brown is good. It means that everyone not named Lebron has been bad. Which you probably knew already.