sidsanders wrote:

TMS wrote:

sidsanders wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:D'Antoni is 84-150 when Nash isn't his point guard. I think 204 games is a significant body of work.

mike d without talent hasnt been fun. makes me wonder what pjack woulda been like if he didnt first get jordan/bulls... for sure he isnt the only coach who we have never really seen with a bare bones team.

Larry Brown w/o talent wasn't much fun to watch either... to fairly judge the coach we need to get him some better talent, but that doesn't mean we can't at least expect the guys we have to play with some heart, something this team has not really done for the most part this season... i think it's fair to be disappointed in what we've seen this year from this team & this head coach.

i expected 30 wins this year, not great play and i didnt think it would be fun to watch. i did expect hill to play a gazillion times more than he has. thats is mike ds biggest fail for me. i think it may have been fun to see the young guys play more though.

i agree w/everything u said... i fully expected this team to suck, only i thought they would suck while giving their rooks full burn, which has not happened... the very least i wanted to see was our young guys being developed this season

TMS wrote:

nixluva wrote:

TMS wrote:D'Antoni needs a PG to be successful... a PG named Steve Nash.

I know you must be partly kidding, but i'd say MDA can win with ANY GOOD PG running his team. Some guys would utterly fail to win with a team that didn't have good defenders. His PHX team was such a team and even when they tried to rebadge the team with more of a focus on Defense, it didn't work cuz they aren't loaded with enough defensive players, starting with the MVP himself Nash! Many coaches tried to squeeze D out of this team and failed. MDA actually has a scheme that didn't require major D

Even here he would be able to win if we had a decent PG option. We wouldn't be a good team no matter what with this roster, so saying he could win really only means somewhere near 40 wins. That's about the most anyone could expect out of this team if everything went right. It's such a fine line when you don't have a great team. A lot has to go right, especially if you don't have guys willing to grind on D.

Steve Nash wasn't just any good PG, guy was playing at a HOF clip... sure u could argue that the system made him into what he became, but u can also argue that he made the system a successful one also... bottomline is that PG's like him don't grow on trees & we can't delude ourselves into thinking MDA will just automatically be successful w/this team if he has any good PG to run this ship.

Are we talking about running this CURRENT team or what? If you add a good PG to this team it would indeed make a difference and would've added enough wins for a playoff birth. I don't see how anyone could take any credit from MDA for how Nash developed when Nash himself said that MDA taught him a lot and was responsible for much of his MVP level success. It's not often that guys as late in their career as Nash was make such a huge leap. No one saw that level of play coming from Nash before he and MDA got together and he's playing MDA's system so why take away some of the credit from MDA? He gave MDA credit and I believe it's credit he deserves.

This team lacks a star so there's only so much we could expect, but I believe that our young guys would be much better with a good PG that could do much more of what MDA teaches his PG's to do. We haven't seen much of any of that with Duhon and the other guys we have that don't have the PG skills to really run this system right.

nixluva wrote:

TMS wrote:

nixluva wrote:

TMS wrote:D'Antoni needs a PG to be successful... a PG named Steve Nash.

I know you must be partly kidding, but i'd say MDA can win with ANY GOOD PG running his team. Some guys would utterly fail to win with a team that didn't have good defenders. His PHX team was such a team and even when they tried to rebadge the team with more of a focus on Defense, it didn't work cuz they aren't loaded with enough defensive players, starting with the MVP himself Nash! Many coaches tried to squeeze D out of this team and failed. MDA actually has a scheme that didn't require major D

Even here he would be able to win if we had a decent PG option. We wouldn't be a good team no matter what with this roster, so saying he could win really only means somewhere near 40 wins. That's about the most anyone could expect out of this team if everything went right. It's such a fine line when you don't have a great team. A lot has to go right, especially if you don't have guys willing to grind on D.

Steve Nash wasn't just any good PG, guy was playing at a HOF clip... sure u could argue that the system made him into what he became, but u can also argue that he made the system a successful one also... bottomline is that PG's like him don't grow on trees & we can't delude ourselves into thinking MDA will just automatically be successful w/this team if he has any good PG to run this ship.

Are we talking about running this CURRENT team or what? If you add a good PG to this team it would indeed make a difference and would've added enough wins for a playoff birth. I don't see how anyone could take any credit from MDA for how Nash developed when Nash himself said that MDA taught him a lot and was responsible for much of his MVP level success. It's not often that guys as late in their career as Nash was make such a huge leap. No one saw that level of play coming from Nash before he and MDA got together and he's playing MDA's system so why take away some of the credit from MDA? He gave MDA credit and I believe it's credit he deserves.

This team lacks a star so there's only so much we could expect, but I believe that our young guys would be much better with a good PG that could do much more of what MDA teaches his PG's to do. We haven't seen much of any of that with Duhon and the other guys we have that don't have the PG skills to really run this system right.

CrushAlot wrote:I think the Knicks have some talent and they have rooks that need to play. I think Adelman is doing an amazing job with his roster and I wish he was coaching the Knicks.

WHY? This team isn't the one we'll be looking at next year. Adelman was always a good coach, but even he never got his team to the promised land and they had some really good teams. Is he any better than MDA based on what they've done with their best teams over the years? They're pretty even on that count. It seems like a bit of a wash choosing between them.

CrushAlot wrote:

nixluva wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:I think the Knicks have some talent and they have rooks that need to play. I think Adelman is doing an amazing job with his roster and I wish he was coaching the Knicks.

WHY? This team isn't the one we'll be looking at next year. Adelman was always a good coach, but even he never got his team to the promised land and they had some really good teams. Is he any better than MDA based on what they've done with their best teams over the years? They're pretty even on that count. It seems like a bit of a wash choosing between them.

The Rockets have overcome injuries and are winning without a star. They are overachieving and play hard at both ends of the court. They always are well prepared. They start Chuck Hayes at center because they have to. Adelman has gotten his guys to do what they need to to win. He is not waiting for next year when Yao is back and McGrady's contract is off the books, he is coaching and adapting now.

Yeah and he has players who have at least seen what it's like to win and they can show the rest of the guys what it takes. Who do we have? It's not like that Rocket team doesn't have any talent, plus they started with a solid core of really tough defensive minded players. We've never had that. This roster is full of mostly scorers. What rugged enforcers does this roster have? Adelman has more to work with in that regard. If Lee was as tough as Hayes we'd be a bit better too.

nixluva wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

nixluva wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:I think the Knicks have some talent and they have rooks that need to play. I think Adelman is doing an amazing job with his roster and I wish he was coaching the Knicks.

WHY? This team isn't the one we'll be looking at next year. Adelman was always a good coach, but even he never got his team to the promised land and they had some really good teams. Is he any better than MDA based on what they've done with their best teams over the years? They're pretty even on that count. It seems like a bit of a wash choosing between them.

The Rockets have overcome injuries and are winning without a star. They are overachieving and play hard at both ends of the court. They always are well prepared. They start Chuck Hayes at center because they have to. Adelman has gotten his guys to do what they need to to win. He is not waiting for next year when Yao is back and McGrady's contract is off the books, he is coaching and adapting now.

Yeah and he has players who have at least seen what it's like to win and they can show the rest of the guys what it takes. Who do we have? It's not like that Rocket team doesn't have any talent, plus they started with a solid core of really tough defensive minded players. We've never had that. This roster is full of mostly scorers. What rugged enforcers does this roster have? Adelman has more to work with in that regard. If Lee was as tough as Hayes we'd be a bit better too.

the Knicks have more talent than the Rockets do, i don't think it's even close... Adelman has his team overachieving in a much tougher Western Conference... u gotta give him his just due, he's done a fabulous job w/that team this year.

TMS wrote:

nixluva wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

nixluva wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:I think the Knicks have some talent and they have rooks that need to play. I think Adelman is doing an amazing job with his roster and I wish he was coaching the Knicks.

WHY? This team isn't the one we'll be looking at next year. Adelman was always a good coach, but even he never got his team to the promised land and they had some really good teams. Is he any better than MDA based on what they've done with their best teams over the years? They're pretty even on that count. It seems like a bit of a wash choosing between them.

The Rockets have overcome injuries and are winning without a star. They are overachieving and play hard at both ends of the court. They always are well prepared. They start Chuck Hayes at center because they have to. Adelman has gotten his guys to do what they need to to win. He is not waiting for next year when Yao is back and McGrady's contract is off the books, he is coaching and adapting now.

Yeah and he has players who have at least seen what it's like to win and they can show the rest of the guys what it takes. Who do we have? It's not like that Rocket team doesn't have any talent, plus they started with a solid core of really tough defensive minded players. We've never had that. This roster is full of mostly scorers. What rugged enforcers does this roster have? Adelman has more to work with in that regard. If Lee was as tough as Hayes we'd be a bit better too.

the Knicks have more talent than the Rockets do, i don't think it's even close... Adelman has his team overachieving in a much tougher Western Conference... u gotta give him his just due, he's done a fabulous job w/that team this year.

Come on you know it's about more than the collection of talent. It's also the nature of the talent you have and how it fits together. The mentality of the players. He for sure doesn't have as many prima donnas over there. They have FAR more tough defensive minded players and I don't agree that they are so bereft of talent. It's a solid group of tough vets that naturally play tough. You don't have to tell them to, that's just who they are. Hayes, Ariza, Landry, Scola, Battier... those are some tough guys leading that team. Then you have some decent young guys like Brooks, Buddinger, Lowry ... Adelman has some talent to work with, it's just not a lot of offensive talent like we have. They're slanted towards D.