We here in Cleveland who follow the local sports teams can tend to be critical. Part of it is the nature of fandom, part of it the nature of the local sports where frustration has been so prevalent.
So it's good to take a step back sometimes and take a look through the national view. Which is why I found this article by Ian Thomsen of Si.com so intriguing. Thomsen knows basketball, and from afar his view of the Cavs is almost entirely positive. I heartily recommend reading this story. The things I found most interesting about it were addressed in varying detail, but included:
–The importance of the chemistry of the team, which leads to trust, which has been a key for the Cavs all season. I'm going to address this more in a profile of coach Mike Brown that will run in the Beacon Journal on Sunday, the day Brown coaches the East in the All-Star game (I asked Brown if he planned to stress defense in Phoenix and keep the West under 100. His answer "No.").
–The efforts and consideration Danny Ferry is making while pondering a possible trade prior to the deadline.
–The growth of the team — which Thomsen says included Larry Brown leading the Cavs toward Mike Brown and Ferry.
–The Cavs trend of playing better in the playoffs than they did in the regular season in each of the last three seasons.
–The way the team has relied on a defense-first approach and refined the offense to make things work/
In general, the tone is very, very, very positive, and complimentary. And it's probably a good thing to read. These Cavs have won 40 of 51 games, and they belong when the elite of the league are mentioned.
pti and around the horn ripped mike brown yesterday. what a crock of s–t. it's the first time the guy ever opened his mouth about the refs. in my opinion he waited too long. when phil jackson does it he is the zen master when brown did it he is a whiner. espn is garbage. here's hoping jay mariotti, tony kornheiser, skip bayless and stephen a. smith spontaneously combust.
terje, that is not a valid comparison. The difference is Jackson does it when it involves very good competition, and when Jackson has a point. Brown not only did it relative to fairly lousy competition, and lousy competition missing their starters on top of that, but he also conveniently failed to mention the lousy first call which got him a tied game in the first place.
Brown has to learn to pick his spots to yap like Jackson. There is a time and a place. Wrong time, wrong place.
Yes, Jackson is a Zen Master. Jackson reads existential wisdom stuff. Brown, I'm guessing, reads Redbook, Good Housekeeping and Better Homes and Gardens. If anything, after that girly display, Brown is the Hen Master. Or, at the very least, henpecked.
And lose the blue glasses, Mike. Not a good look.
like i said, he waited too long. you're right about the pacers game being the wrong venue. it was the lakers game he should have ripped the refs like that. but better late than never. if i was on the cavs and mike brown didn't finally open up and say something i would have lost a lot of respect for him.
Alan… You'd do better to watch video clips of the press conferences than just reading the quotes the writers elect to print. Nearly everyone edited Mike Brown saying the first call was questionable as well. His point was there was even less contact on the second foul, one, and that it was simply a make-up call, predetermined, two.
Now I'm not a zen master… but I think it's obvious if something is a make-up call, then there is something to make up for… which means Brown is aware of the poor quality of the first call. The point is you don't make it up the next time down the floor. That's is NOT quality refereeing.
Brown wasn't trying to play mind games for psychological reasons. The refs made a questionable call worse by totally blowing the next call. He called them on it.
That's all.
If the pundits out there misplay what Brown meant you don't need to fall for it. Don't rely on analysis… Use your own ears and figure it out.
Stop trying to twist things against the best coach in Cleveland will you? 40 wins before the all star game for the first time in history. The record speaks even more eloquently than Brown.
What a joke of an article by Thomsen.
Did he actually interview anyone from the Cavs or did he just go back and read what Pluto and Windy have been writing all season?
"Make-up call" or not, what's the difference? Wrong time, wrong place. I don't think any head coach of a top-tier team has the right to shriek like a woman about a purported "makeup call" when the original call made against a bad team missing their starters got you to that "make-up call" in the first place." Beat the other team fair and square, or take it like a man. How do you think he would have responded if the shoe was on the other foot, and O'Brien got hit with the bogus second call instead of the bogus first call?
I mean, what point does it serve? David Stern and his right-hand man (is it still Stu Jackson, I don't recall) take a referee in his office and say, "Joey, make-up calls are normally OK, but seriously, man, don't do it in the last 2/10 seconds of a game in the future, OK?" What future benefit will this ever serve the Cleveland Cavaliers in a playoff game against the Celtics? It won't. And when he whines again at the wrong time, it will only serve to future reduce his credibility in the eyes of a referee. James alone should already be carrying around a box of Kleenex with all the shrieking, whining and crying he does to the refs on a nightly basis. Does LeBron have PMS, or what?
Seriously, Brown, flush the grandstanding down the toilet where it belongs. You'll never find any of the genuine master head coach media manipulators go off like that after a deserving loss to a sub-par team.