CrushAlot wrote:

s3231 wrote:I think it's tough to say that D'Antoni wasn't coaching to win when he seemed to be pulling any/every trick out of the hat that he could (e.g. the zone defense anchored by Jeffries that won us some games, slowing down SSOL to a more traditional half-court game that fit our team and convinced some fans that we were going to the playoffs). I just think that Knicks fans in general (not singling out anyone here) are impatient and fail to realize how severely depleted (in talent, chemistry, and character) our roster has been in the past several seasons. This is truly the first season in awhile that we have the parts to be competitive. And of course, in typical Knicks fan fashion, fans now expect this team to win 50 games because of that.

CrushAlot, you say that D'Antoni showed a lack of leadership and teaching and yet, you seem to bash him because he did not play troublemakers that went against him. To me, a coach benching certain guys until they learn to play in a team concept is the epitome of leadership and teaching. If D'Antoni played immature players that weren't professional, then how would they learn that they are not acting properly? Moreover, would the rest of the roster respect the coach if he continued to let behavior like that slide? While it may seem like the easy way out (i.e. not playing certain guys), sometimes that is a good teaching method to let a player know that he needs to change his ways if he wants to make it in the league or at the very least, if he wants to get minutes on that team.

For example, D'Antoni was sour on Nate but he certainly gave him second chances and when Nate finally seemed to somewhat behave, he got minutes.

I don't think D'Antoni tries to piss players off, I think he truly wants to win and is as competitive as any other coach out there. For us fans, it may be difficult to see that at times since we don't have any true inside access. However, I don't think that gives us reason to simply bash the coach when the results aren't pretty and we don't know the full story.

I guess we disagree on a lot of things. The first would be the defensive adjustment that you mention with Jeffries. I agree that an adjustment was made but it wasn't for a particular opponent or matchup. It was tried and he stuck with it. We have had coaches here that make adjustments for every opponent. That hasn't been the case with this coach. I also think when you look at last year you have to remember that D'Antoni went into training camp with his core from the previous season and then his team came out and went 1-9. Sure he looked like he was agonizing about every loss on the sideline but he had just worked with these guys in training camp. He didn't have extra practices or change shoot around on game day to a practice like JVG did on several occassions. If you don't like to change and you don't like to practice and what your doing doesn't work you either change or you lose and have a miserable year. I think that was the case last year.

In regards to the 'troublemakers' I think every NBA roster has some guys that might need more from the coach in leadership, structure, flexibility, teaching and communication skills. I think in D'Antoni's case you would have to include the rookies in the troublemakers group because they required their coach to possess some of the same qualities of the guys you are calling troublemakers. I don't think D'Antoni handled any of these guys or situations well last year and the team lost assets or assets were devalued because of his treatment of these guys. If you are teaching someone a lesson you have to communicate with them what your expectations are and why they are in the situation they are in. I believe all of the 'troublemakers' reported back that communication with the coach did not happen. There were some on this forum that defended this approach saying that he did not need to communicate with these guys, he owed them nothing. I have never agreed with that argument. I think part of a coach's job is to integrate the personalities on a team and get them to work towards a common goal. I don't think good coaches banish guys and don't tell them why and that is what I have seen D'Antoni do in his time in NY.

The last time the Knicks went to the finals they had Camby, Childs and Spree on their team. Do you think they would become troublemakers for D'Antoni? After two years of working with D'Antoni I don't think Walsh brings any of these guys in.

I guess we just agree to disagree. I do think that D'Antoni made adjustments for specific match-ups though as I believe he would use Jeffries on Rondo for example, to disrupt his rhythm (actually worked too).

As far as the 1-9 start, I thought it spoke more to our roster than D'Antoni but again, we may just have different opinions on that. When I watched those games, I saw guys that were poor defenders and guys that just couldn't make shots. Those were two problem areas I felt were present even before the season started so I wasn't surprised to see the Knicks struggle early on. I thought D'Antoni actually did a good job adjusting after that stretch as he made them slow the pace down and that's where we saw more of the zone defense that won us some games.

I think guys like Camby and Spree would have loved playing for D'Antoni and I think Mike would have really liked coaching them. I mean if we want to call Camby a troublemaker, then didn't D'Antoni deal with someone similar in Raja Bell in Phoenix? I don't think D'Antoni has a problem with guys that want to win and give effort when they are on the floor. I think D'Antoni has problems with guys that are either lazy and/or don't play within a team concept (or being selfish basically) or are just bad teammmates. I mean how do we know that D'Antoni didn't try to help some of these veterans break their habits? And if these same guys kept making the same mistakes and/or didn't want to learn, then I don't blame D'Antoni for wanting to get rid of these types of players.