Basically Frank is at the top (not saying anything amazing there) and everyone else is rounding the toilet bowl. Byron was probably the worst.

Since Dr. Buss died we lost a lot of our identity and leadership from a front office perspective. It’s shown in all the terrible coaching hires, head scratching roster decisions, nepotism, and a lack of a clear vision and identity.

Outside of landing LeBron we’re still the world’s most glorious mom and pop shop. I don’t even want to think about what happens when he’s gone and it’s back to being solely the Buss show.

So, I have a philosophy about downvotes.

I tend not to use them when someone has an opinion I do not share.

Instead, I’ll save them for things like posts with ad hominem attacks or lazy threads.

Sorry, OP. This falls into the latter category. What’s tbe point of posting this if you can’t spare a few minutes to list a few coaches w/ some info concerning their respective Lakers tenures?

– Mike Brown, '11-'12, 42-29 (.591) reg, 5-7 (.417) playoffs.

Good coach. Fired because the team was off to a slow start with the Nash experiment, and it seemed like Brown wasn’t the right coach for a “win now” squad. He was good at holding the ship steady, but LA wanted more.

– Bernie Bickerstaff, 2012, 4-1 reg

Just an interim coach. Was a “Mike Brown guy,” but not an “Antoni guy” (note: the ‘D’ is missing for a reason).

– Mike Antoni, '12-'14, 67-87 (.435) reg, 0-4 playoffs

The Lakers did not have the personnel to play his system. They were also plagued with injuries. Nash was at the end of his career, Howard had dipped a bit, and Kobe and Howard did not get along. Oh yeah, Antoni sucks at defense or using different systems-- can only play one way.

– Byron Scott, '14-'16, 38-126 (.227) reg – Luke Walton, '16-'19, 97-148 (.398) reg

When a team is rebuilding, or at a low period for a few years, an organization must change the coach in order to herald a new era of winning. The psychological benefit is huge, as well as the symbolism. Furthermore, why reward a proven, losing coach?

Also, new players (i.e. for a potential contender) may require the right coach to maximize their talent.

– Frank Vogel, '19-'22, 127-97 (.564) reg season, 18-9 (.667) playoffs, 2020 championship

Started off very well. Great at defense. But after the 2020 ring, could not work well with the rest of the front office to find the right way to adjust the roster. The winning formula was abandoned: gone were the huge frontcourt with McGee/Howard, Playoff Rondo, sharpshooter Green, KCP, Caruso, Kuzma…

Eventually, he lost the confidence of his players. And most notably, he couldn’t figure out Westbrook or find ways to win with AF and Bron often injured.

– Darvin Ham, '22-present, win-loss records in progress, WCF appearance (swept 0-4 to eventual champ Nuggets)

Is loved by the players and is good at revealing the true talents of overlooked/underwstimated players. Willing to try various lineups. Still, has some clear weaknesses: inexperience, Xs and Os, timeout usage , finding the right line-up.

My rankings:

1 - Vogel (great results; experienced, knowledgeable, proven)

2 - Mike Antoni (experienced, knowledgable, proven coach; but very flawed and very stubborn)

3 - Mike Brown (experienced, knowledgable, proven coach)

3 - Darvin Ham (good results, but deeply flawed and inexperienced)

4 - Byron Scott (experienced, knowledgable, proven coach)

5 - Bernie Bickerstaff (not the head coach type, but could be good at it if he wanted to be)

6 - Luke Walton (in my opinion, proven to be not good as a head coach)

Frank Vogel top

Darvin Ham bottom

I know Ham pisses everyone off, but some of yall wouldn’t survive watching Byron Scott actually trying to win games.

Vogel Brown Ham D’Antoni Walton Scott