nixluva wrote:

TMS wrote:what horses do u think he needs to win us a title? just curious... he had plenty of horses in '05 that was easily championship winning calibre & he didn't get the job done.

You really think that his team was better than the Spurs at that point without Joe Johnson? Yeah that's easy. Take a Suns team that was a flat broken shell the year before and then in one season expect that team to beat a Spurs team with World Championship caliber Big and experience, and beat them with your top SG out the 1st 2 games.

i do... Amare was absolutely dominant at that point in time, there wasn't a better bigman playing in the NBA... dude was beasting bigtime that year in the playoffs averaging 30 & 11 with 54% shooting... he also had the League MVP playing alongside him along with another Allstar in Marion & a very talented supporting cast, much deeper team than the Spurs had.

TMS wrote:

s3231 wrote:I feel like even if you do think that the Suns should have beaten the Spurs in 2005 (with an injured Joe Johnson), you still have to admit that Mike can coach based on that 2006 season.

I mean, he didn't have Amare and lost Joe Johnson to free agency and still took that team to within 2 games of the Finals. What a lot of people forget is how big of a role D'Antoni had in developing Diaw too. Boris Diaw went from being a filler to the Most Improved Player in the NBA. To me, that 2006 year cemented Mike's status as one of the better coaches in the NBA. I mean people keep saying Skiles is a great coach because of what he has done with the Bucks and he certainly deserves the praise but come on, he also has players that fit the style of play he wants to see. D'Antoni had that in 2006 too and he got his team to overachieve just like Skiles is doing this season. If you give D'Antoni players that will succeed in his system, he will deliver. I think he has demonstrated that much...people have short-term memories unfortunately.

i don't question his ability to coach a great roster... i question whether his style of play will ever translate into championships regardless of the roster he's coaching... i haven't forgotten the job he did in Phoenix, i remember it quite well.

It's tough because I don't like people that make excuses for their performance but in D'Antoni's case, the guy got screwed countless times in his attempts to win a championship while with the Suns.

At the end of the day though, I keep coming back to that 2006 season because he didn't have a ton of talent that season but everyone fit his system pretty well and he still got them awfully close to the Finals. I'm convinced that his 2007 team represented the best shot at a title but unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to see whether or not the Suns truly could have got the job done because of suspensions along with a bizarre game 1 incident that forced Nash to sit out at the end because he couldn't stop bleeding...(I mean D'Antoni had really ****ty luck).

If people want to believe that D'Antoni's system won't win a title, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Looking at the numbers though, Dean Oliver (the Nuggets analytics guy) had demonstrated in his book that the best offensive team has won the title in NBA history just as many times as the best defensive team. Personally, I don't see a reason why you can't win with offense and the numbers seem to support that. I'm not saying that you can be terrible on defense (which D'Antoni's Suns teams were not) but I don't see any reason why the best offense in the league and a decent defense can't produce a title.

knicks1248 wrote:In the Ewing/pat Riley/JVG era, we were one of the top defensive teams in the league, yet in 94 we couldn't buy a bucket down the stretch in that game 7, countless time's we lost in the playoffs cause we didn't have enough scorers.

knicks1248 wrote:In the Ewing/pat Riley/JVG era, we were one of the top defensive teams in the league, yet in 94 we couldn't buy a bucket down the stretch in that game 7, countless time's we lost in the playoffs cause we didn't have enough scorers.

the argument isn't that every good defensive team can win a championship... obviously u need talent & offensive scoring ability to win, that goes for any sport... but even with a great roster of players, u won't win unless u place a premium on playing team defense, that is the point... funny that you mention the '94 team, we had Ewing, Oakley & Starks who were Allstars that season & the rest were all role playing supporting cast guys... not 1 of them were the top player at their position that year & yet they got to within 1 game of winning a championship... do u think MDA could have gotten that team that far if he had been our coach running SSOL instead of Pat Riley? hell, i bet MDA would have had Ewing floating around on the perimeter launching up 20 footers all game long instead of playing him in the post for that matter.

Riley had 0 All-NBA players on his team in '94... he got them to 1 game of winning a championship where they got edged by an equally defensively strong team with better overall talent.

MDA's system wins alot of games & pumps up statlines, but doesn't win rings... personally i'd like to focus on bringing a championship to NYC, i could care less about flashy basketball & flashy statlines.

s3231 wrote:Riley's Knicks are consistently ranked among the best defensive teams of all time but they still came short. D'Antoni's Suns are among the best offensive teams of all time and they too came short. What's the difference? Both teams were elite in one area and not great in the other. Yet, had things gone a certain way for either team, they might have a ring to show for it.

There is more than one way to win in this league.

I think Starks going 2-18 had a lot to do with it myself. smh.

D'Antoni never got there with a more talented cast.

TMS wrote:ur right, there's more than 1 way to win... still no one has been able to provide me with an example of a team that's won a championship playing MDA's style of ball... i can run through a list of any number of teams that have won championships by playing tough team defense tho... even the Showtime Lakers had defensive studs on their teams like Kareem & Michael Cooper, along w/probably the most talent ridden team in basketball history with 3 members of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History Team on that roster!

so are we to come to the conclusion that in order for MDA to win with his system, we need to provide him with the greatest collection of talent any basketball team has ever had since the days of the Showtime Lakers? if that's the case, i think we need to figure out a different plan here bro.

------------

pretty ridiculous comparison article i just came across:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/jack_mccallum/01/30/suns.vs.showtime/

Suns vs. Showtime Lakers
How close is Phoenix to those dominant L.A. teams?
Posted: Wednesday January 31, 2007 1:28PM; Updated: Tuesday April 24, 2007 6:17PM

I can hear the protests right now. How can you compare the two teams? One of them is immortal; the other one has never even been in the Finals. You must be nuts.

I hear you. Hey, I agree with you. (Well, not on that last thing -- studies show that I'm only half-nuts.) But simply for argument's sake, let's take a look at how the Phoenix Suns, today's version of Showtime, stack up against the real Showtime, the 1980s Los Angeles Lakers, whose run-and-gun quality can be measured by Magic Johnson's tenure from the 1979-80 season until 1990-91, the season after which he first retired from the NBA after announcing he had the HIV virus.

The comparison makes some sense. (Except for, you know, that championship thing.) The Suns, like the Lakers, are far and away the most entertaining team to watch in their era. The "Showtime" Suns have led the league in scoring the last two seasons (since Steve Nash arrived as a free agent and Mike D'Antoni took over full-time as coach) and are atop most offensive categories right now. They are clearly the best in a league that doesn't score much.

The Lakers were the best in a league that did score a lot. In fact, though the Lakers averaged 114.1 points per game in that 12-year Magic era, they led the league in scoring only once, in 1986, one of the years they didn't make the Finals. Still, any observer with half a brain knew that they were the best and most efficient offensive team in the league. And even as the Showtime Lakers earned five titles (1980, '82, '85, '87 and '88) and lost in four other Finals (to the Philadelphia 76ers in '83, the Boston Celtics in '84, the Detroit Pistons in '89 and the Chicago Bulls in '91), they were criticized, believe it or not, for being too offensive-oriented and not tough enough, the two negatives attached to the Suns.

So, for what's it worth, here's how the teams stack up, based on a 10-point must system for the superior player.
Showtime Lakers Analysis Current
Suns

James Worthy
Small Forward
I always considered Worthy, who played on the last three Showtime championship teams, the most underrated Laker starter. He was a great finisher (important when you're getting dished by Magic Johnson), had decent perimeter range (though he was not a three-point shooter), made big shots and was a more than adequate passer when double-teamed. Marion is nowhere near as polished an offensive player as Worthy, but he has three-point range, which is important in the Suns' everybody-can-shoot-it offense. He is a much better rebounder than Worthy and more versatile on defense (though Worthy was not bad). Worthy is in the Hall of Fame, but this one is closer than you might think.
Points: Lakers 10, Suns 9.
Shawn Marion

Kurt Rambis
Bob McAdoo
A.C. Green
Maurice Lucas
M. Thompson
Power Forward
As you can see, this position underwent some transition in the Magic years. The point is, the Lakers always got something out of it -- points from McAdoo, toughness from Rambis and Lucas, rebounding and shot-blocking from Mychal Thompson, and a little of everything from Green, the most famous self-professed virgin in Los Angeles. (Maybe the only self-professed virgin in Los Angeles.) Diaw hasn't been around long enough to put himself in esteemed power-forward company, but his obvious potential makes this a virtual dead heat. He has become a good defender, and his passing ability from the four-spot gives the Suns two legit unselfish see-the-floor distributors. That is a huge advantage that the Lakers never really had.
Points: Lakers 10, Suns 10.
Boris Diaw

Kareem
Abdul-Jabbar
Center
Now how is Stoudemire supposed to win this one? A-J is the greatest scorer in NBA history and was still averaging 23.4 points per game when he was 39 years old. Further, his low-post presence was the perfect complement to a Showtime offense. The break wasn't there? Big deal. Throw it into the Big Fella with the shot clock going down and let him finish things off with a sky hook. But Stoudemire can do something Abdul-Jabbar never could: Join the break. He is part of Showtime, not a complement to it. But he has a long, long way to go to match Abdul-Jabbar, as smart a player as ever walked on the court, as a defender and all-around presence.
Points: Lakers 10, Suns 7.
Amare Stoudemire

Byron Scott
Norm Nixon
Shooting Guard
Nixon was already a fixture in L.A. when Magic came along; it took him a while to cede backcourt supremacy. Scott always knew what he was -- an outlet for Magic -- and I considered him underappreciated. He was a good leaper and an athletic alternative on the break. I was surprised to find that he had never made an All-Star team. Bell is an atypical shooting guard, frequently the last option in the up-tempo offense and a player who doesn't often create his own shot. But he has become a feared 3-point bomber, and his hard-nosed defense gives the Suns whatever nasty edge they have. (Sort of like what Rambis did for the Lakers.)
Points: Lakers 10, Suns 9.
Raja Bell

Magic Johnson
Point Guard
This harkens back to the Abdul-Jabbar-Stoudemire comparison. Magic is, in my opinion, the greatest point guard in NBA history, one whose size, brains, competitiveness and leadership abilities propelled the Lakers to the top. Nash, at least eight inches shorter, is not and never will be Magic, who won an NBA championship in his rookie season and was at the apex of his sport for well over a decade. Nash didn't make an All-Star team until his sixth season and was not added to the '04 squad. So, if the question is, does Steve Nash belong among history's greatest point guards, right there beside Magic, Bob Cousy, Oscar Robertson, John Stockton and Isiah Thomas, my reply is: Not if the standard is longevity. But right now -- right now -- Nash is performing as well as any point guard who ever played the game. His playmaking and leadership speaks for itself, but no lead guard has ever shot as well as he, both from inside and outside the three-point arc.
Points: Lakers 10, Suns 9.
Steve Nash

Michael Cooper
Sixth Man
With the exception of the '90-91 season, Cooper was a third guard throughout Magic's Showtime tenure in L.A. He was perfect for the role, able to generate energy on offense (he usually led the team in 3-point makes and attempts) and defense (he was aggressive, long-armed, and, like Bell, somewhat the smiling assassin.) Barbosa is just coming into his own but has been an important part of Phoenix's success this season. He's not as good a defender as Cooper, but he's a much better offensive player, even as a run-the-team quarterback. Still, Cooper did it for so much longer ...
Points: Lakers 10, Suns 9.
Leandro Barbosa

OK, so that gives the Lakers a clear advantage, 60-53 by this primitive scoring system. That is to be expected when comparing a multi-time champion to a team just trying to get out of its own conference. But I'll tell you this: Put these two teams on the court with their respective offenses functioning at max level, and it would be a helluva game.

this guy is obviously on crack if he thinks MDA's Suns would have a chance in hell of beating the Showtime Lakers in a 7 game series.

I agree but man I would've liked to have seen that series. Every game would've been in the 140s, maybe 150s.

MDA can win a championship, but not by himself, he needs a better staff, and better players. I think some said earlier that championships usually have the best player in the league (at the time) on the roster.

CrushAlot wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:I think like everything in life there has to be a balance, and there has to be a leader. I do think amare's IQ is getting higher, but he would be no match kareem mentally. The playoffs are when the mental part of the game thrives cause it's a 7 game series, by the time the finals come around most guys have already played 90+ games, hardly anyone is perfectly healthy, vibrant and refresh, There's more preparation and depth is the absolute key to success.

MDA can win a championship, but not by himself, he needs a better staff, and better players. I think some said earlier that championships usually have the best player in the league (at the time) on the roster.

I don't think the Pistons or Celts had the best player recently. It certainly increases a teams chances. If you follow that theory the Suns should have won a couple of championships with Nash.

KG and Pierce, are you kidding me, and Billups got is nick name (Mr Big shot) during there run.

If I recall didn't pierce go head up with LBJ and out played him down the strecth during there series then followed that up with a bout with Kobe.