Scott Brooks is reportedly the "top priority" in the Wizards' head coaching search and Washington is reportedly in "pole position" in the race to hire him. Frankly, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise, given Washington's situation. Not only does Brooks have an in with Kevin Durant through their time together in Oklahoma City, but he has a proven track record of success (.620 winning percentage, an NBA Finals appearance, three trips to the Conference Finals), which certainly has to appeal to a team who can't afford to waste John Wall's prime years.
So, we get why the Wizards are interested, but is he the right fit? Let's break it down:
Pros
Player/Team Development - There's no arguing the Thunder developed significantly under Brooks' watch. You can quibble over how much of that was Brooks and how much of it was players like Durant and Russell Westbrook growing on their accord, but it definitely happened. And even if you want to give most of the credit to Durant and Westbrook, you also have to concede players like James Harden, Serge Ibaka, Reggie Jackson, Steven Adams, and even Thabo Sefolosha -- a player who was underutilized in Chicago -- grew under Brooks' watch.
Brooks also deserves credit for establishing a culture for a team that lacked one as they moved to Oklahoma City. It's easy now to gloss over the Thunder's rebuild, but a lot of great things had to fall in place to make it work beyond just acquiring great talent.
Considering the Wizards' struggles with developing players and forming an identity over the years, this should be viewed as the best thing Brooks can offer.
Balance on both sides of the ball - As you'd expect, the Thunder were pretty impressive offensively under Scott Brooks. Even in his final season, when the team battled through injuries, they still managed to finish 10th in Offensive Efficiency.
Defensively, they were outstanding as well. From 2012-14, the Thunder had a top-five defense. The only seasons the Thunder were not in the upper-half of Defensive Efficiency under Brooks were his first year with the Thunder, and his final year, when the team battled injuries and finished 16th.
Kevin Durant's former coach - Worth noting.
Cons
Soft spot for ineffective veterans - One of the unusual things to behold during the Oklahoma City run was the stark contrast between the Thunder's young, athletic core, and the decaying shells of the players that sometimes shared the floor with them. Think about all the crunch time minutes Derek Fisher and Kendrick Perkins played during their playoff run. More importantly, think about how little either one of those guys contributed to their success.
Typically, Ernie Grunfeld favors older players over younger ones once they become a playoff-level team, certainly more than Sam Presti did in Oklahoma City. If you were frustrated by how Randy Wittman played Marcus Thornton over Kelly Oubre, there's a chance you'll feel the same frustration next season.
At the same time, it's worth noting any coach would try to take advantage of the isolation skills of their best players, even Gregg Popovich. Also, when your role players are guys who don't really add much on the offensive end, like Perkins, Sefolosha, Roberson, and Adams, you can't expect them to execute a system that emphasizes lots of activity and ball movement at the same level as the Spurs or Warriors.
If nothing else, you can say Brooks didn't put a system in place that kept the Thunder from utilizing their best talents. Still, if he had done a better job of finding creative little tweaks to help the Thunder when teams slowed them down in the playoffs, odds are he's not on the market right now. That brings us to our next point...
He's a retread - Like we said at the beginning, you can understand why the Wizards would want to avoid a risk with a first-time head coach. Wall only has three years left on his deal, and if you waste two of them with a coach who can't handle the position, it would be hard to blame him if he already had a foot out the door mentally in his contract year.
Still, it's hard to make a case that Brooks has the highest upside of any coach on the market this spring. Yes, maybe he has a ring or two right now if his star players hadn't gotten hurt over and over again in the playoffs. Yes, maybe people underrate his role in turning the Thunder into an elite team. But no, you can't definitively say he's better than any of the up-and-coming coaches out there. At best, the Wizards are bringing in an A- candidate, rather than rolling the dice they can find the next A+ coach.
Thing that's still hard to judge at this point
The team's performance since Brooks left - The Thunder really haven't changed all that much since Billy Donovan took over for Scott Brooks. The offense is still ISO-heavy, Randy Foye is getting minutes ahead of Cameron Payne, and the team doesn't appear to be any closer to winning a title. In fact, you could argue the team has taken a bit of a step back this year, particularly when it comes to their performance in late-game situations.
Depending on how you look at it, it's a sign Brooks was much better than he was given credit for in OKC, or that he was so bad that a college coach could come in with no experience and still get the team to be 95 percent as good as it was in any Brooks year.
Final Verdict
Depending on how you value Brooks' contributions to OKC's success, he could either be an incredible signing for the Wizards, or a complete disaster. Considering the environment he'd be walking into if he signs with Washington, it probably won't take long to figure out the answer. Unless Brooks does get Durant in a Wizards uniform, next year's team is going to look a lot different from the one he coached in Oklahoma City.
That might not be a bad thing for Brooks. If you believe part of the reason for the simplistic offense was the roster he had, Washington gives him a chance to implement something fresh and new. And don't forget, he's never had the chance to coach someone with the natural passing skills of John Wall. Pairing Wall and Brooks together could be just the right pairing to bring the best out of each other, as Brooks puts Wall in places he can flourish and Wall implements Brooks' vision.
Hiring Brooks would fall in line with the Wizards pattern of avoiding risk, and valuing stability over potential. But unlike previous instances where Washington's fear of rolling the dice has led to stagnation, Brooks could provide a breath of fresh air if he can establish a new culture that maximizes the talents of its stars like he did in Oklahoma City.
If Brooks is the guy, there are enough reasons for hope that I'm okay with the hiring. And if it winds up that he's as bad as his detractors say he is, at least we can comfort ourselves in knowing it shouldn't take long for people to figure out he needs two phenomenal stars to be a good coach.