CrushAlot wrote:nixluva wrote:CrushAlot wrote:nixluva wrote:CrushAlot wrote:TeamBall wrote:CrushAlot wrote:TeamBall wrote:CrushAlot wrote:Man if Walsh hired Mjax this franchise would be totally different.
It depends on whether or not we'd work with him afterwards. I don't Woodson and D'antoni but this franchise has a bad habit of not working with it's coaches. Woodson needs his vets and D'antoni needed his PG for his system and we got them their guys for like 1 season (in d'antoni's case like half a season).
I think they go center in the gallo draft, point in the hill draft and then are set for 10 years at center, point, power forward if they keep lee, small forward with chandler, and they still have cap space and the pick Walsh traded with hill for mc Grady. That is an attractive team for a free agent to consider.
Well the thing is that no matter who was coaching at the time we were still going all in on trying to get Lebron. Some of those trades still may have happened regardless. We definitely don't draft gallinari with D'anotni not here though.
Also, Walsh totally backed dantoni. If he supports mark like that then he would have success.
Mark would NEVER have lasted those 1st 2 years. Lets not forget that. Mark had a much easier road with the GS. Less expectations and better core talent. Could you imagine Mark coaching Duhon? The real issue wasn't Walsh wanting MDA. It was the dumb decisions to not give MDA a PG to work with knowing his system required at the very least a decent PG. Any time we got decent PG play the Knicks played much better, but honestly there was very little time during MDA's tenure that we had a good PG, much less started a season with one. Dude never had a chance to start a season with a good PG in training camp and finish the season with that PG.
I disagree. I also thought mark might be able to get something out of Marbury. I also think mark has a more traditional approach to basketball and would have wanted a center in one of the best center drafts ever. I think mark would have liked Wilson at the three and gotten Walsh to go big. And yeah I think things would be different.
We'll never know, but I just disagree about how successful we'd have been with just a different coach at that point. The real issue is that they NEVER fully committed to what MDA does best. They didn't actually try to build a team that fit the coach as you seem to be suggesting. As if we went for Passing PG's in the draft as opposed to taking forwards like we did. Walsh wasn't doing MDA any favors IMO. If a GM is building a team in MDA's mold he goes for Passing and Penetrating PG, Pure SG and shooters and finishers in general. MDA likes smart and skilled players so again I don't see how Walsh went heavy in that direction IMO.
There were point guards available after Rubio and curry. There was a lot of talk at the time about how younger guys, guys with maturity and/or attitudes were eliminated from consideration because dantoni struggled with those types ( Jennings, Stephenson). But Lawson , holiday ... Etc would have changed the Knicks fortunes.
Who the HELL wants a PG that has attitude problems? What you want is a PG who has the mentality of a Leader. I still contend that the Knicks made almost ZERO effort to really build a team fitted to MDA. If they did there's no doubt it would've been successful. You seem to think he can't coach and would fail if we actually built a team that fit his concepts! We had that opportunity given that we didn't have anything standing in the way of building a team in whatever fashion we deemed necessary to win. There's NOTHING wrong with a system if you're building a team practically from scratch. It's not that hard to target players that fit this description. Smart, Highly skilled, team oriented players. Those aren't obscure traits.
2/28/2014 10:30 PM