| . |
 |
I'm told the Pelicans have hired Duane Brooks as athletic trainer. He replaces Jon Ishop, who was hired by the Detroit Pistons last month.
— John Reid (@JohnReid64) September 28, 2014
Duane Brooks was the assistant trainer with the Saints.
— John Reid (@JohnReid64) September 28, 2014
Well, you guys got your wish. Ishop is out, and Brooks is in.
championship
Contributor
Just needs to keep our players loose and limber. Hopefully we can prevent some injuries.
And with us practically sharing a facility with the Saints, may as well bring a trainer that knows the area better, right?
Thank you, this is long overdue.
1-6
Why do people assume this guy will be better? Its not as if the Pelicans recognized a problem, fired Jon and hired this guy after an extensive search.
The guy that you all assume was bad left for another job and the Pelicans brought in a guy who was basically already in house.
He might be better. He might not be. Heck, maybe the trainer wasn't a problem. I just don't see any reason to assume this is an upgrade. Or any reason to make Ishop a scape goat.
@mcnamara247
Do you know if Ish left for a promotion? Or was it a lateral move?Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara
Lateral move, but likely with more pay. Bower and SVG throwing money around up there. I mean, if Meeks got 19 mil, Ishop probably got 16 or 17
Thanks Mike. But then I have to pose the question: why move if he was happy here and we still wanted him? It would seem to me that, perhaps (pure speculation here), Dell told him that we were going to go in a different direction, so he found another job. Loomis probably urged Demps to promote from within. I mean, if we wanted him here, we could have just matched the offer.
Sounds logical to me I guess haha
Literally millions of people change jobs for this reason. Another company overpays. Your current company likes you but can hire someone similar for a lesser cost.
Regardless, I can't argue for this being a good move or a bad one. Time will tell.
Agreed. We'll see how this team fares health-wise over the next couple of seasons.
All that said - we had the same trainers in 06-07 and 08-09 as in 07-08.
In 07-08, we had few injuries. Tons in the other seasons. Correlation does not equal causation. We can never really know if these guys are doing a bad job or a great job. We can just direct our anger toward them when guys get hurt.
Contributor 
Ishops wife works in michigan
Can somebody take a look at the numbers on our injuries? I'm still not so sure we get hurt more often than others - even if it does feel that way.
Over the last 3 years, only the Lakers, Warriors, and Nuggets lost more games due to injury. Of those teams, only the Warriors lost as many "significant" games. By that, I mean games lost to a high end player who averages either 15 ppg or 30 mpg when healthy.
The Trailblazers held the crown prior to that, along with the Bucks from 2008 -2011.
We have had terrible luck, with the lone exception of the 2007-08 season.
Contributor
Yikes. But is it bad luck, or something more? Do guys that were healthy someplace else start getting hurt here, or guys that were injured here get healthy someplace else? Seems like guys that get hurt here get hurt when they move on too, but I could just be thinking of the big names. Are we not doing a good job evaluating who are fragile players?
I would say:
20% bad luck - Ryno type injuries that are just a freak thing. Same with David West injury.
20% - Resting guys because we are out of the playoff picture. We wouldn't have been as careful if we weren't tanking or already out of the playoff picture the last few years. Guys like Ariza and Okafor would have played if we were in the hunt.
15% - Trainers and staff are not ahead of the curve when it comes to injury prevention knowledge and resources.
45% - Injury prone players. Some guys bodies and games are not made for the 82 game grind. We tend to think we can overcome that. We knew who Eric Gordon was, and it didn't matter - we committed to him. Tyreke also isn't a guy who is likely to give you 80 games based on his playing style.
Obviously I can't back this up with numbers or facts. Just an educated estimate.
Based on the numbers you've just given, what approach would you then take so that the team can remain productive/competitive. I take it that you mark Reke and Gordon as injury prone (though we assume that Gordon is not part of our long term plans and has a redundant skillset).
Assuming you can trade Gordon for capspace what would you think could help this team? Would you sign a playmaker type player that could provide 70-80% of what Reke does (As we assume that Reke will miss a decent amount of games each year from injury), or do you think that the rest of the team can cover most of the holes left by Reke and sign up a player with another skillset?
BTW do you think we might need a perennial all star/superstar to put with AD to be a serious title contender, or are you still relatively confident with Demps strategy of young vets? Since Schwan put up that article on the relatively average level of play from our guards, I'm starting to think we might need that one player to push us to that level.
Asik shout help AD with the injury bug and if Tyreke can develop any type of shot he can give you 80 games. It's a surprise he can play how many games he does with his play style.
What was so great about Ish? I mean, he seemed like a good guy, but why was he so highly touted? Our team was always injured.
I do not think we NEED another superstar to win a title. I watch SA win one without 1 current top 5 or10 player, let alone two. I watched the Mavs win a title with only one top tier guy. You can even argue 2013 Miami only had 1 guy playing at a superstar level.
I think you need pieces that fit well first and foremost. I like the way all our pieces fit with one exception. You get rid of Gordon and get a wing who can defend and knock down an open three, and that team is a title contender IMO with good health. Now, I wouldn't turn down a superstar, but I don't think it is necessary
So you're still pretty confident about the roster we have ATM then, signing a better version of Salmon's the the next season and re-signing ad and Anderson would do it for you? And assuming Reke will miss around 20 games a season due to his history and style of play, you are still pretty confident in the personnel to be a potential top 3 seed and contender? I remember in one of the podcasts you mentioned his skillset the hardest to replace so will 60 games a season be enough?
Get rid of Gordon, add a Danny Green or Jimmy Butler type and an Anthony Morrow type (Jimmer?) and I think they can contend by 2015-16
Contributor
But realistically can we get rid of Gordon by the deadline? Or even the summer, or will we have to wait until he expires?
I'm expecting a sports hernia epidemic.
We are all hoping he has his best season since moving to NOLA and he opts out.
Otherwise I think we will have to use the stretch provision to obtain the missing SF from the team.
2015/16 is filled with SF free agents. 2016/17 is really poor unless of course we have plans for Batum to come here.
Michael,
If you were a betting man, who would you put your money on for next season to finally fill the SF position (If Gordon opts out of course)?
My money is on Draymond Green.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote