I’m on record (well…at least in my circle of friends) with not being happy with the Washington Wizards’ coaching “search” that led to the hiring of Scott Brooks this week. It seemed – and, I guess, was – totally telegraphed and earmarked for one guy and one guy only.

It translated to me as if, hypothetically, of course, the Wizards had the sixth pick in the 2011 NBA Draft, and they knew, irrespective of context, who they were going to be selecting.

Additionally, watching his OKC teams and looking at his seemingly uncreative offense and his rotations and certain decisions led me to thinking that Brooks is a coach that on a macro level isn’t all that much different than Randy Wittman, just with muuuuch better talent.

After a couple of days to accept and digest it all, and reading countless comments and opinions, I decided to be a bit reflective. Maybe my line of thinking here is as short-sighted as what I am critical of what I think the team did in their search. As always, other than social media, maybe the best forum for sports talk around the town is the barber shop.

So below are comments I overheard at the barber shop.

It’s like a point-counterpoint thing: some positive, some negative, and some completely nuts, as is any conversation in a barber shop with die-hard fans. I could write on over 20 different comments overheard, but I will leave it to five here.

“The Wizards only signed Scott Brooks to bring in Durant”

“KD comin’!!!!”

You know, even I am not naïve and cynical enough to think that the Washington Wizards would bring in or even have interest a head coach only on the notion that he could help attract a single player.

It’s a short-sighted, unfair, and I don’t know if you should trust the judgment of anyone who would say such a thing.

Report: Kevin Durant's mom, and no less than three of his cousins are also on the #Wizards coaching radar — Ward Watkins (@PhoneBoothWiz) April 14, 2016

OK, see the media takes stuff out of context…I was hacked..I was drinking…uhhh..alright, fine I said it. I was being a little cynical there. But hey, you can now never question whether or not I will call myself out on something.

In all seriousness, this really is an unfair assessment.

I have my issues with the process, but I truly believe that Brooks was brought in because the front office thought he would be a great hire, with or without Durant.

In fact, John Wall said that almost verbatim here in Jorge Castillo’s latest column.

The signing of Scott Brooks definitely does not mean that Kevin Durant coming to the Wizards is in the bag.

In fact, if you’ve paid attention to the Narrative of the Week, you would know that Durant isn’t interested in coming home.

As said above, while Brooks’s familiarity and relationship with Durant certainly isn’t going to hurt the pursuit, Brooks stands on his own merit as a worthy candidate for the position.

I can only hope that there is a backup plan if/when Durant makes a decision where he doesn’t end up in DC. As a fan, there’s always hope, but I just hope there’s a solid alternative that doesn’t revolve around unicorns and magic.

“SEVEN MILLION A YEAR?!?! D********MN!! Can’t say owner is cheap now, can we?”

This is an angle that I hadn’t heard or thought about directly before. I’ve heard comments that were correlated to this, like the Washington Wizards overpaid for Brooks, but never from the perspective that this was a sign of progress. I don’t remember how Flip Saunders’s contract shaped up to the median of coach salaries at the time, but I definitely know that Randy Wittman wasn’t a highly paid coach.

At current salaries, seven million a year would put Brooks behind only Greg Popovich and Doc Rivers (at $11M and $10M, respectively), and tied with Rick Carlisle and Stan Van Gundy as the highest paid in the NBA. That is lofty company, so maybe the argument can be paid that Brooks doesn’t have the pedigree of these guys. But, honestly, does that matter?

I’m not losing sleep over what the coach is being paid. From this angle, pigeon-holed or not, I like that money didn’t get in the way of the Wizards getting their guy.

Whether or not he’s worthy of the contract is a different debate that can be settled in the future. But does this dispel the notion that Ted Leonsis is cheap? I’m not sure that I think he’s been a spend-thrift owner to begin with. Have to think more about this one.

“Brooks won all them games. So what! Look who he had! I can lead a team to the Finals with some of those rosters.”

“Yeah, well he led OKC to the Finals, and won 50 games in four of his six full seasons as coach. And yes, he had three of the best players in the NBA at one time. Don’t kill him for that unless you’re willing to say Phil Jackson didn’t earn his rings.”

So the Phil Jackson reference may be over the top, but maybe there’s some merit here, right? There is something to be said for developing talent and getting the chemistry and the pieces working together to win that has possibly been, at least by me, not given enough credit with Scott Brooks.

He was brought in under the same circumstances as Wittman with the Washington Wizards: incumbent coach (PJ Carlesimo) was fired early into the 2008-09 NBA season, and Brooks, an assistant, was tabbed to fill in on an interim basis.

The interim tag, was removed that offseason, and from there, the Thunder began huge annual improvements. Already equipped with Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook, the 2009 Draft left them with James Harden and Serge Ibaka. The Thunder won 50 games in his first full season as head coach, and two years later, the team was in the NBA Finals.

This team had incredible, maybe even transcendent talent, but the Big Three were all very young, and needed the right direction and guidance to harness that talent into success.

So through all of the criticisms about his offense and his decision-making, it should not be understated that under Scott Brooks’ watch, we do have superstars in Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, and James Harden, and pretty good to decent young players in Serge Ibaka, Reggie Jackson, Jeff Green and Eric Maynor .

This has to lead to some tepid excitement for our roster with Wall, Bradley Beal (who are you kidding if you think he’s leaving?), Otto Porter, Markieff Morris and Kelly Oubre. Plus there’s this from David Aldridge:

Also: Brooks is a big believer in potential of Otto Porter. — David Aldridge (@daldridgetnt) April 21, 2016

[BONUS COMMENT] “Fire that *%#* GM. I mean he’s been on the job so long the fat lady was skinny when he started .”

Errr…this maybe is a good place to end this column. So yeah, reactions are mixed with Brooks. Some excitement, some reservations. We’ll see. With tons of cap room, a young star, possibly another if he can stay healthy, and some good, young pieces with potential, maybe there’s a mold of clay here that an evolved and one year wiser after stepping away and hopefully reflecting Scott Brooks can make into something. We can only hope.