A week ago, Byron Scott found himself mired in controversy after he – or someone with access to his Instagram account – told a disgruntled fan to “Bring it.”

On Monday, Don MacLean brought it.

The former NBA journeyman, who works on the Clippers broadcast and as a private coach to players, lashed out at the Lakers coach with a thorough rant on KLAC/570. He called Scott’s schemes “archaic” and said the Lakers play like a team from 1998.

“I haven’t seen one person go on record,” MacLean said, “either in the media or in print, whatever, and say that Byron’s doing a fantastic job.”

The harsh analysis was the latest turn in an unexpected back-and-forth between he and Scott, which started when MacLean questioned Scott’s use of rookie D’Angelo Russell during the broadcast of the Lakers game against the Clippers on Friday.

“I really wish Byron Scott would just give D’Angelo Russell the keys and say, ‘Go for it, man.’”

He said Russell could handle such a load, and amid a 9-41 season, Scott should tolerate the mistakes – even if it meant 15 turnovers a night.

On Monday, a reporter (disclaimer: It was this one) used MacLean’s comments as an example of the criticism Scott has received, and asked him why Scott prefers his approach of bringing Russell along more slowly.

Scott’s thoughts on that can be read in Tuesday’s Register, but before he got started with his defense, Scott quipped, “First of all to Don, that’s why you not coaching. Let’s put it that way.”

That seemed to touch a nerve with MacLean, who went on The Petros and Money Show and ripped Scott to shreds.

Here are the highlights of segment:



MacLean on what point he was trying to make on Friday night: “The fact that the gist of what I said during the third quarter of the Clippers/Lakers game completely went over his head is not completely surprising to me. I still don’t think he understands that they’re 9-41 and setting records for losing within the Lakers franchise. But the gist of it was, you’re 9-41, you have the second pick in the draft, you’re not going anywhere, why not just roll it out for him and let him get confident?”

MacLean said he is “pretty sure” Scott doesn’t know that he trained Russell leading up to the draft and questioned what kind of relationship the Lakers coach has cultivated with the No. 2 pick: “From everything I’ve read, Byron and D’Angelo never talk, there’s never any communication between them, or at least not a lot. And I would say this: D’Angelo, 50 games in doesn’t look any different than in game one. So all the development and the protecting that Byron’s talking about doing, really hasn’t done him any good.”

On Scott’s coaching remark and whether he could coach: “For him, he could have answered that question differently and you guys both know it. But the fact that he said that’s why I’m not coaching, I’m not coaching because I chose to not coach. So we’ll never know if I could have been a good coach or not. But I will say this, I played for a couple of guys in the league, they chose to coach. They had no business coaching and their record showed it. And so we don’t know if I could have coached or not, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t know the game.”

On the Lakers in general: “Is that roster supposed to be 9-41? No. The Sixers are supposed to be 7-41 with that roster. So, when I watch the Lakers, am I watching a team that’s playing their (butts) off? That’s playing with spirit and enthusiasm, but they just don’t have enough to win? No. I’m watching an undermanned team that has no clue. That’s what I’m watching and I saw it Friday night. And I haven’t seen one person go on record, either in the media or in print, whatever, and say that Byron’s doing a fantastic job (and) they just don’t have the players to win.”

On what he sees in the Lakers: “A team that plays with no enthusiasm, no spirit. … When you watch the Lakers play, first of all I’m watching archaic schemes, and it looks like a team that’s playing in 1998, walking it up, isos (isolation plays), no imagination, no creativity on the offensive end. The only thing the Lakers have is athleticism, and they walk it up every single time.”

On mismanaging Nick Young: “Byron’s gone on record saying he’s a defensive minded coach, that’s where they hang their hat. They’re last in the league in defensive efficiency and he’s trying to get Nick Young, who is one of the premier isolation players in the game, he really is … but you’re really not playing him because you expect him to be Kawhi Leonard on the defensive end? It’s absurd. Coaching is coaching to your personnel. Nick Young is never going to play a lick of defensive, but I’ll tell you what Nick Young can do, he can get you 20 in a hurry. So why not evaluate that and say to yourself, ‘OK, we know Nick’s a liability defensively but we’re not great offensively so we need Nick to go out there and score.”

More on Russell: “You’re going to have to live with some mistakes with a rookie, especially a point guard. But to me, the more you just let him go, the more he develop. Instead of Byron, later on in his comments saying how he needs to protect him because he could self-destruct. No no no. D’Angelo’s a big boy. He’s making five million bucks a year to play basketball. He’s going to be fine. If he has a nine-turnover game he’s not going to be on the psychiatrist’s couch the next morning. He’ll be fine, he’ll come back and play.”

On his thoughts on the Lakers going forward: “I get it, that everyone’s frustrated in Lakerland, but he could have answered that question differently and he chose not to. So now we’re going to start being honest. Whereas with you guys, and Matt (host Matt Smith), you’ve asked me some questions, and I’ve kind of taken the high road some times. Now we’re not, we’re not taking the high road anymore.”

On perception of the Lakers: “To me the proof is in the wins and losses. I remember somebody, and I forget who it was in the Laker front office when they hired him that he bleeds purple and gold. Again watching them play, and I’ve had conversations about the Lakers with other people around the league, and everyone’s kind of in agreement that we’re watching a team that looks like a team form the early 90s early 200s in terms of schemes and how they do things.”

Parting shot: “Just because you’re not a coach doesn’t mean you don’t know the game. And that’s what kind of set me off. That’s why I’m not coaching? No, I chose not to coach, and again, just because you choose to coach doesn’t mean you’re a good coach.”