How could you justify firing a coach that improved his teams winning percentage every single year over the course of his first five seasons in the league? Coming off a finals appearance in 2012, Presti traded away budding star James Harden after failed contract negotiations and all the critics condemned the Thunder organization on the move claiming they would be unable to replicate their success without the sixth man of the year. How did Brooks and the Thunder respond? By improving their win percentage yet again in the 2013 season, even without Harden.

The team was primed for another title run when Westbrook went down in the opening round of the playoffs and the rest is history. With all the back-story out of the way, what does this have to do with Scott Brooks' job?

Well, by looking at the numbers alone, it would appear he's done a fantastic job. That is, until you really begin to look deep and see beyond the numbers on the surface.

Here's the deal, Brooks has the reigning MVP as well as a consensus top 10 player running the point. Has Brooks really done a great job of coaching or have Durant and Westbrook simply been good enough to overcome his coaching deficiencies and win games despite his errors? It's hard to say for certain, but I've tended to lean towards the latter in recent weeks.

One of my biggest complaints is Brooks lack of any sort of semblance of a structured offense. He has simply given to the keys to KD and Westbrook and allowed their brilliant basketball IQ and creativity to flourish into whatever they come up with on the fly. And you know what? The majority of the time it works. The all-star duo play as if they are running the courts during a summer Goodman League game and that's not all as bad as it sounds, but the deficiencies of this game plan really come to the surface during crunch time. With the game on the line and coming out of a time out, you'd expect Brooks to have drawn up his best play. What happens more times than not? You know the drill by now. A forced pass in to Durant, no matter how many defenders draped on him, and a 30-foot prayer heaved up. That's excusable once or twice, but when it happens time and time again, you begin to question if Scott Brooks is really anything more than a cheerleader in a suit walking the sideline.

Durant's freakish athletic talents allow him to take those absurd shots and make them at a higher frequency than most, but that only covers up the real underlying problems. There is no ball movement in the offense. There is no motion. There are very few set plays. Role players jog down the court then sit and watch from the three-point line. They've gotten away with it for so long with increasing levels of success that it's too far gone now for Brooks to change even if he wanted to. Brooks lost the keys to the team and he can't just take them back. He gambled on Durant and Westbrook being able to create their own offense and trust it would be enough. Again, looking at the levels of increased success each season, it's hard to argue with Brooks' train of thought. The problem is, that's not really coaching. That is simply stumbling into the good fortune of having one of the most talented rosters in the league and hoping they can figure it out on their own.

I don't think Brooks is the worst coach in the league by any means. Heck, Erik Spoelstra has won back to back NBA titles and I don't think anyone really believes he does much more than sit back and let LeBron be LeBron. The problem is, the Thunder have the potential to be so much better. With the talent OKC has, you'd have to imagine that coaches would be lining up to interview for the job if it were to come open. Brooks stumbled into a gold-mine as a rookie coach and done the best he's known how, but I just can't ignore the feeling that they are still under-performing with him at the helm. Call me a spoiled fan or whatever you'd like, but with the talent and youth at Brooks' disposal, the Thunder should be piling up the rings.

Would it be fair to can Brooks at this point with his body of work? No, I don't think it would be fair. But life's not fair and the National Basketball Association is a cruel business. I wonder how long Presti will allow Brooks to remain the head coach when I think it's clear he's taken them as far as he can. Brooks reminds me of a young Doug Collins in the late '80s coaching the Chicago Bulls during his first run as an NBA head coach. Collins had a young Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen that dominated the regular season during his three-year run, but never could seem to overcome the Pistons once the playoffs rolled around. A roster loaded with talent, but in need of an elite coach to truly get them over the hump. If only Presti could deliver one final magic trick and find the next Phil Jackson. Who knows how those Bulls teams of the '90s would've done under the leadership of Doug Collins. Would Jordan and Pippen's prime years have been spent dominating the regular season, but continuing to come up just short in the playoffs?

I hope I'm wrong about Scott Brooks, but I can't shake that Doug Collins feeling. Michael Jordan deserved better. Kevin Durant deserves better.

Question #2: Which organization has the better front office?

Micah: It's well known that Thunder GM Sam Presti got his start in the Spurs' front office (and is widely credited with encouraging the Spurs to draft Tony Parker). There's no questioning the job he's done in Oklahoma City since accepting the general manager position back in 2007. He reeled off a ridiculous streak of homerun draft picks in three straight drafts starting with Kevin Durant in 2007 followed by Russell Westbrook and Serge Ibaka in 2008 and then James Harden in 2009. However, there's a reason why ESPN ranked the Spurs as the #1 front office in the entire NBA (OKC ranked eighth). The trio of head coach/president Gregg Popovich, general manager R.C. Buford, and owner Peter Holt have already won three championships over the last 12 years. The Spurs have remained title contenders for the past decade and a half with the front office consistently surrounding Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili with a top notch supporting cast. The Thunder are well on their way to being one of the best front offices, but the Spurs are the unquestioned gold standard today.

Caleb: This one at first glance may seem like a toss-up to the untrained eye, and all credit due to the Thunder, but this is a slam dunk in favor of the Spurs. Yes, OKC has come on strong as of late and their front office has done a great job building a team through the draft, but just look at the body of work the Spurs have put together over the last 15 years. 4 NBA Championships, haven't missed the playoffs since 1998, and in Tim Duncan's 17 year career they've only fallen below 50 wins once (the shortened 1999 lock out season). Yeah, I'd say the Spurs take this one. Not to mention ESPN ranks the Spurs front office as #1 in the entire league.

Question #3: Which player on the opposing team worries you the most?

Micah: Tony Parker has been a constant thorn in the Thunder's side over the years. He almost single-handedly took down the Thunder back in January with a 37-point performance. Luckily for the Thunder, Durant was right in the middle of one of the greatest months of basketball ever played and matched Parker for 36 points of his own to give the Thunder a narrow victory. Parker is the x-factor to the Spurs entire offense. If he gets going early, it could be a long night for OKC.

Caleb: The easy answer here is Kevin Durant, but just as Batman needs Robin, Hans Solo needs Chewbacca, and Michael Scott needs Dwight Schrute, KD needs Russell Westbrook. Sure, KD is going to get his whether you like it or not, and no doubt the Thunder can be very dangerous with just Durant, but what makes the Thunder a really scary team is when Westbrook is on fire too. If you can contain Westbrook and make the Thunder one dimensional, then you have a chance at beating OKC.

Question #4: More impressive: Spurs 19-game win streak or Durant's 38-game streak of 25+ points?

Micah: Durant is only two games away from the 40-game streak of 25+ points Michael Jordan accomplished during the 1986-87 season (the most in the last 50 years). Just last season the Miami Heat rattled off 27 straight wins, so from that perspective it becomes pretty clear which is more impressive. The scary part? Durant could easily be scoring 30+ every single night if he wanted to. Remember back in January when Durant voluntarily ended his 12-game streak of 30+ points by taking a seat in the fourth quarter? Yeah, that's not the first time he's sat an entire fourth quarter of a game either. Durant takes this one with ease.

Caleb: Honestly, as much as I want to say the Spurs winning streak is more impressive because of the team work involved, the momentum it creates or the quality teams beat in the streak… but come on! 38 games of more than 25 points?! That's nuts! I'm sure Micah will point out how only Michael Jordan has had more in the last 50 years (Editor's note: he did). Think of all the prolific scorers in the last 50 years, only MJ has had a better streak. Not Kobe, not LeBron, not Dirk or even Allen Iverson can say that. Yeah, KD takes this one.

Question #5: What's the over/under number of words Gregg Popovich will utter during his sideline reporter interview?

Micah: Two *walks away from interview*

Caleb: Ahhh Pop and his beloved sideline reports. You'd think with as much success and as long as Pop has been in the league he'd learn how to deal with the interviews. No way, Jose. Pop ain't having it! As a Spurs fan, though, I love it. Popovich is a pure genius and I trust anything he does, even his obvious disdain for reporters. My over under is 20 words. If you get more than 20 words from Pop then you deserve an award.