Pro: If it ain't broke don't fix it. Luke doesn't mess with success. If something is working, he's not going to change it.

Con: Inexperienced. Yes he is a championship winning pro whose father is an NBA legend and he coached an incredible 43 games for the dubs. But he's still only head coached 43 games. That's not a lot.

Pro: He isn't Steve Kerr Jr. He didn't repeat whatever Kerr believed, he has his own unique ideas. Luke was the one that told Draymond to shoot more, this gave Draymond more confidence and made him an all around better playmaker.

Con: He's not going to be coaching the Warriors anymore. The warriors are a championship team that at any point in a game, have 3 amazing ball handlers on the court, with multiple sharpshooters on the perimeter. They are a team who play unselfishly, and are extremely confident. The Lakers are not the Warriors. They can't give Luke that. The assistant coach of the Warriors prior to Luke was Alvin Gentry. He did amazing things with Kerr. But then he took a HC position with the Pelicans. And with the Pelicans getting non-stop injuries, Gentry struggled to succeed.

Pro: The Warriors did very well under Luke's leadership. They scored 114.5 points per game with Luke and only allowed on avg. 102.4 points per game. This is a +12.1 point differential. With Kerr as HC, the Warriors only had a +8.2 point differential. There are many reasons as to why they performed greater with Luke but the bottom line is they did very well.

Con: He hasn't shown he can win with an imperfect team. This is just a common sense con. He was given the perfect team and he proved well, now we need to see what he can do with LA.