[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Interesting/Sobering analysis by Steve Kerr during the Orlando/Knick game on MDA...
Author Thread
CrushAlot
Posts: 59764
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/25/2003
Member: #452
USA
1/1/2011  11:47 PM
TMS wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
TMS wrote:
rvwink wrote:So what is the interesting/sobering analysis? Steve Kerr tried to tell MDA how to coach, and MDA hit the road instead. The coach that Steve Kerr replaced MDA with, did worse, not better. Steve Kerr thought he was smarter than MDA and the statistics said otherwise. Steve Kerr doesn't have an objective opinion about MDA. So what is the "sobering" message you are sharing?

MDA has the Knick's moving in a highly positive direction. Only problem is that it appears that the majority of this forum haven't a clue as to MDA being largely responsible for the Knicks successful turnaround.

i think anything Steve Kerr says about MDA has to be taken w/a grain of salt because of the past history, & i agree that MDA deserves part of the credit for the turn around this team has shown this year... it's also pretty obvious that the turn around doesn't happen w/o Amare & Ray Felton coming into the picture... DW & the players have to get equal parts of the credit here.

I agree. Kerr and D'Antoni did not part on the best of terms and Kerr's vision for how he wanted the Suns to play was different from D'Antoni's. However, D'Antoni had a formula in Phoenix and he has continued to use it in NY. Everything that Kerr said about D'Antoni and that Holfresh pointed out I have heard before and read about. His former players, most notably Grant Hill, have talked about the lack of practice time. I have said on this forum many times that D'Antoni is extremely rigid. He has a GM that has his back and a group of assistants that I don't believe will ever question him. For a guy with a limited focus on what makes a team successful I don't think that is good. That being said, D'Antoni is having more success than any NY coach in a long time. I haven't been this excited about the Knicks since Van Gundy was in NY. However, despite the tremendous heart Amare and this team displays I don't think they have significant success until D'Antoni moves on. He is not going to change.

i still have my doubts just like u do about MDA's system, especially when it comes to winning championships... i think it's really fun to watch & makes for some very entertaining basketball, but when it comes to beating teams that play suffocating defense & can take away what we're trying to do on offense, we really struggle in that aspect... right now we're relying so heavily on Amare to put up 30+ every night to even have a real shot at winning games against the better teams in the league... we're lacking the necessary firepower to beat the elite teams in the NBA, especially if we're going to rely on this high octane offensive system to win.

in many ways i liken this approach to the run & gun Knicks that played under Rick Pitino... those teams were very entertaining to watch, but it wasn't until Pat Riley came in & put together a tough, hard nosed roster playing a tough, hard nosed style of basketball that this team was able to take the next step towards becoming a viable championship contender... i guess i have a built in bias because i'm so used to seeing the Knicks be great when they played that style of basketball.


I think I have the same bias. Riley's Knicks were just so tough and worked so hard they were always in every game. When JVG replaced Nelson and brought that back and just lived and breathed Knick basketball and worked so hard to have his team prepared it just made that style of play and that work ethic from the coach what I think the KNicks should have.

I love the heart of this team and the heart of Amare. I never thought that his will and leadership could transform a franchise like it has.

I'm tired,I'm tired, I'm so tired right now......Kristaps Porzingis 1/3/18
AUTOADVERT
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
1/1/2011  11:51 PM
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
TMS wrote:
orangeblobman wrote:
Killa4luv wrote:
orangeblobman wrote:People are afraid of what they don't know. MDA's approach to the game takes many fans out of their comfort zone of '90s style hoops they're used to and still hungover from. And you can't blame them, it was a great decade for Knicks basketball.

A little trust from the fans will go a long way. Certainly the club's drastic turnaround from only a couple of seasons ago should be encouraging. Continued improvement will go a long way to promote this trust.


Thats not entirely true. Fans who've studied the game know that MDA's system has never yielded a championship. Never. Never been to the finals.
That style of play is not a championship style imho. I give him credit for helping to turn things around, but I never felt like he was a coach we could win a championship longterm with. Small ball doesn't win chips. Period.

I cringe when i look at all of these stretches where we are hoisting up 3's. We should trade for Crawford back, he'd love it here. But thats no way to win a championship.

There's no such thing as a 'championship style'. You go out to win games, there's no preset framework that a team has to follow in order to win the league.

If there are less teams attempting to win with a given approach then naturally the chances of a team with a more standard approach winning the league will be higher, because there are more of them.

Certainly MDA's Phoenix teams were in the hunt for the ring, this is evidenced by them coming within a C-hair of the Finals the year of the Horry hip check.

Once you're in the Finals, anything goes. If you're in a game 7 and 2 points away from being there, then your approach is working, it's a valid approach to the game that yields concrete, positive results.

which game 7 are you referring to? the farthest the MDA Suns ever got to making the Finals was a game 6 vs. the Mavs in '06... they lost by 9 pts... the Spurs beat the Suns in 5 games the year prior.

Despite that inaccuracy, it's also true that he had his teams in position in the toughest conference and really he didn't ahve the best team in any of those seasons. He got unlucky one year with the freak injury to Johnson. He got jobbed the hip check year. He was VERY close to being able to get over the hump. Our biggest issue is to have Donnie finish this team and put TITLE winning talent on the roster.


I think his 04=05 team was the best that year. He started Nash, Amare, Marion, Johnson and and they were all healthy and put up great numbers. I don't think most coaches have 3-4 hofs in their prime very often.

Amar'e and Johnson were still kids at that point with very little Playoff experience. Marion is not a HOF player. Joe Johnson is good, but let's not overstate how good he really is. Nash and Amar'e had the most talent on that team and really the style of play MAXED OUT the talents of everyone involved.

That team was gonna be good, but they exceeded most peoples predictions. Joe Johnson got hurt and missed the 1st 2 games of that Spurs series. Mind you they were playing the FREAKIN SPURS! I mean this whole argument gets tired cuz you have to be fare at some point and acknowledge that Mike did some really great things and we really can do some great things here with just the right move to improve the roster.

Amare averaged 26pts, 9 rebs and 1.6 blocks. He was in his third season and averaged 15 and 20 the previous two years. Johnson was in his fourth season and averaged 17ppg that year and 15 ppg the previous season. These guys were very good players. Amare was already a star and Johnson was well on his way. You add Nash, Marion and Q to that starting five and I don't think there was anyone better that year. I think being fair, you can say that Johnson and Amare achieved their potential under D'Antoni very quickly. The Spurs started Duncan, Bowen, Nesterovic, Manu, and Parker. I think the Suns had more talent and I love Manu and Tim.

You're using revisionist history. Those players weren't battle tested like the Spurs. Tim Duncan was an NBA Champion 2x already. Johnson was on the rise, but I wouldn't say he was at his peak yet as a player. The Spurs went on the win the Title and if Joe Johnson hadn't missed the 1st 2 games, who knows how things might have turned out. All in all it was still a very good coaching job to bring that all together and get that far.

CrushAlot
Posts: 59764
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/25/2003
Member: #452
USA
1/2/2011  12:01 AM
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
TMS wrote:
orangeblobman wrote:
Killa4luv wrote:
orangeblobman wrote:People are afraid of what they don't know. MDA's approach to the game takes many fans out of their comfort zone of '90s style hoops they're used to and still hungover from. And you can't blame them, it was a great decade for Knicks basketball.

A little trust from the fans will go a long way. Certainly the club's drastic turnaround from only a couple of seasons ago should be encouraging. Continued improvement will go a long way to promote this trust.


Thats not entirely true. Fans who've studied the game know that MDA's system has never yielded a championship. Never. Never been to the finals.
That style of play is not a championship style imho. I give him credit for helping to turn things around, but I never felt like he was a coach we could win a championship longterm with. Small ball doesn't win chips. Period.

I cringe when i look at all of these stretches where we are hoisting up 3's. We should trade for Crawford back, he'd love it here. But thats no way to win a championship.

There's no such thing as a 'championship style'. You go out to win games, there's no preset framework that a team has to follow in order to win the league.

If there are less teams attempting to win with a given approach then naturally the chances of a team with a more standard approach winning the league will be higher, because there are more of them.

Certainly MDA's Phoenix teams were in the hunt for the ring, this is evidenced by them coming within a C-hair of the Finals the year of the Horry hip check.

Once you're in the Finals, anything goes. If you're in a game 7 and 2 points away from being there, then your approach is working, it's a valid approach to the game that yields concrete, positive results.

which game 7 are you referring to? the farthest the MDA Suns ever got to making the Finals was a game 6 vs. the Mavs in '06... they lost by 9 pts... the Spurs beat the Suns in 5 games the year prior.

Despite that inaccuracy, it's also true that he had his teams in position in the toughest conference and really he didn't ahve the best team in any of those seasons. He got unlucky one year with the freak injury to Johnson. He got jobbed the hip check year. He was VERY close to being able to get over the hump. Our biggest issue is to have Donnie finish this team and put TITLE winning talent on the roster.


I think his 04=05 team was the best that year. He started Nash, Amare, Marion, Johnson and and they were all healthy and put up great numbers. I don't think most coaches have 3-4 hofs in their prime very often.

Amar'e and Johnson were still kids at that point with very little Playoff experience. Marion is not a HOF player. Joe Johnson is good, but let's not overstate how good he really is. Nash and Amar'e had the most talent on that team and really the style of play MAXED OUT the talents of everyone involved.

That team was gonna be good, but they exceeded most peoples predictions. Joe Johnson got hurt and missed the 1st 2 games of that Spurs series. Mind you they were playing the FREAKIN SPURS! I mean this whole argument gets tired cuz you have to be fare at some point and acknowledge that Mike did some really great things and we really can do some great things here with just the right move to improve the roster.

Amare averaged 26pts, 9 rebs and 1.6 blocks. He was in his third season and averaged 15 and 20 the previous two years. Johnson was in his fourth season and averaged 17ppg that year and 15 ppg the previous season. These guys were very good players. Amare was already a star and Johnson was well on his way. You add Nash, Marion and Q to that starting five and I don't think there was anyone better that year. I think being fair, you can say that Johnson and Amare achieved their potential under D'Antoni very quickly. The Spurs started Duncan, Bowen, Nesterovic, Manu, and Parker. I think the Suns had more talent and I love Manu and Tim.

You're using revisionist history. Those players weren't battle tested like the Spurs. Tim Duncan was an NBA Champion 2x already. Johnson was on the rise, but I wouldn't say he was at his peak yet as a player. The Spurs went on the win the Title and if Joe Johnson hadn't missed the 1st 2 games, who knows how things might have turned out. All in all it was still a very good coaching job to bring that all together and get that far.

Manu and Parker had not been in the league that long either. I think if you asked D'Antoni what year he thought his team could have gone all the way he would have said that year. Also, I don't think you can make an argument that guys that put up great numbers on a 62 win team were too young and then talk about Duncan. Duncan won a championship in his rookie year.
I'm tired,I'm tired, I'm so tired right now......Kristaps Porzingis 1/3/18
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
1/2/2011  12:09 AM
CrushAlot wrote:
TMS wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
TMS wrote:
rvwink wrote:So what is the interesting/sobering analysis? Steve Kerr tried to tell MDA how to coach, and MDA hit the road instead. The coach that Steve Kerr replaced MDA with, did worse, not better. Steve Kerr thought he was smarter than MDA and the statistics said otherwise. Steve Kerr doesn't have an objective opinion about MDA. So what is the "sobering" message you are sharing?

MDA has the Knick's moving in a highly positive direction. Only problem is that it appears that the majority of this forum haven't a clue as to MDA being largely responsible for the Knicks successful turnaround.

i think anything Steve Kerr says about MDA has to be taken w/a grain of salt because of the past history, & i agree that MDA deserves part of the credit for the turn around this team has shown this year... it's also pretty obvious that the turn around doesn't happen w/o Amare & Ray Felton coming into the picture... DW & the players have to get equal parts of the credit here.

I agree. Kerr and D'Antoni did not part on the best of terms and Kerr's vision for how he wanted the Suns to play was different from D'Antoni's. However, D'Antoni had a formula in Phoenix and he has continued to use it in NY. Everything that Kerr said about D'Antoni and that Holfresh pointed out I have heard before and read about. His former players, most notably Grant Hill, have talked about the lack of practice time. I have said on this forum many times that D'Antoni is extremely rigid. He has a GM that has his back and a group of assistants that I don't believe will ever question him. For a guy with a limited focus on what makes a team successful I don't think that is good. That being said, D'Antoni is having more success than any NY coach in a long time. I haven't been this excited about the Knicks since Van Gundy was in NY. However, despite the tremendous heart Amare and this team displays I don't think they have significant success until D'Antoni moves on. He is not going to change.

i still have my doubts just like u do about MDA's system, especially when it comes to winning championships... i think it's really fun to watch & makes for some very entertaining basketball, but when it comes to beating teams that play suffocating defense & can take away what we're trying to do on offense, we really struggle in that aspect... right now we're relying so heavily on Amare to put up 30+ every night to even have a real shot at winning games against the better teams in the league... we're lacking the necessary firepower to beat the elite teams in the NBA, especially if we're going to rely on this high octane offensive system to win.

in many ways i liken this approach to the run & gun Knicks that played under Rick Pitino... those teams were very entertaining to watch, but it wasn't until Pat Riley came in & put together a tough, hard nosed roster playing a tough, hard nosed style of basketball that this team was able to take the next step towards becoming a viable championship contender... i guess i have a built in bias because i'm so used to seeing the Knicks be great when they played that style of basketball.


I think I have the same bias. Riley's Knicks were just so tough and worked so hard they were always in every game. When JVG replaced Nelson and brought that back and just lived and breathed Knick basketball and worked so hard to have his team prepared it just made that style of play and that work ethic from the coach what I think the KNicks should have.

I love the heart of this team and the heart of Amare. I never thought that his will and leadership could transform a franchise like it has.

i agree w/u 100%... i loved the grittyness of those teams... that's the style of ball i grew to love as a Knicks fan... i'm still getting used to this SSOL system, & i do think it's entertaining, but when the playoffs come around u know as well as i do, the game completely changes... the level of intensity goes up about 50 notches on every single possession, & when that time comes i would really like to know this team is capable of clamping down on defense & not just rely on volume of possessions & hitting a high % of 3 pt shots to win those games... we already know that tough, hard nosed teams that play great defense can win championships in this game... the Bad Boy Pistons set the standard playing that style of ball in back to back years, & the Riley Knicks almost got there if not for a nightmare game 7 performance by John Starks.

After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
1/2/2011  12:10 AM
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
TMS wrote:
orangeblobman wrote:
Killa4luv wrote:
orangeblobman wrote:People are afraid of what they don't know. MDA's approach to the game takes many fans out of their comfort zone of '90s style hoops they're used to and still hungover from. And you can't blame them, it was a great decade for Knicks basketball.

A little trust from the fans will go a long way. Certainly the club's drastic turnaround from only a couple of seasons ago should be encouraging. Continued improvement will go a long way to promote this trust.


Thats not entirely true. Fans who've studied the game know that MDA's system has never yielded a championship. Never. Never been to the finals.
That style of play is not a championship style imho. I give him credit for helping to turn things around, but I never felt like he was a coach we could win a championship longterm with. Small ball doesn't win chips. Period.

I cringe when i look at all of these stretches where we are hoisting up 3's. We should trade for Crawford back, he'd love it here. But thats no way to win a championship.

There's no such thing as a 'championship style'. You go out to win games, there's no preset framework that a team has to follow in order to win the league.

If there are less teams attempting to win with a given approach then naturally the chances of a team with a more standard approach winning the league will be higher, because there are more of them.

Certainly MDA's Phoenix teams were in the hunt for the ring, this is evidenced by them coming within a C-hair of the Finals the year of the Horry hip check.

Once you're in the Finals, anything goes. If you're in a game 7 and 2 points away from being there, then your approach is working, it's a valid approach to the game that yields concrete, positive results.

which game 7 are you referring to? the farthest the MDA Suns ever got to making the Finals was a game 6 vs. the Mavs in '06... they lost by 9 pts... the Spurs beat the Suns in 5 games the year prior.

Despite that inaccuracy, it's also true that he had his teams in position in the toughest conference and really he didn't ahve the best team in any of those seasons. He got unlucky one year with the freak injury to Johnson. He got jobbed the hip check year. He was VERY close to being able to get over the hump. Our biggest issue is to have Donnie finish this team and put TITLE winning talent on the roster.


I think his 04=05 team was the best that year. He started Nash, Amare, Marion, Johnson and and they were all healthy and put up great numbers. I don't think most coaches have 3-4 hofs in their prime very often.

Amar'e and Johnson were still kids at that point with very little Playoff experience. Marion is not a HOF player. Joe Johnson is good, but let's not overstate how good he really is. Nash and Amar'e had the most talent on that team and really the style of play MAXED OUT the talents of everyone involved.

That team was gonna be good, but they exceeded most peoples predictions. Joe Johnson got hurt and missed the 1st 2 games of that Spurs series. Mind you they were playing the FREAKIN SPURS! I mean this whole argument gets tired cuz you have to be fare at some point and acknowledge that Mike did some really great things and we really can do some great things here with just the right move to improve the roster.

Amare averaged 26pts, 9 rebs and 1.6 blocks. He was in his third season and averaged 15 and 20 the previous two years. Johnson was in his fourth season and averaged 17ppg that year and 15 ppg the previous season. These guys were very good players. Amare was already a star and Johnson was well on his way. You add Nash, Marion and Q to that starting five and I don't think there was anyone better that year. I think being fair, you can say that Johnson and Amare achieved their potential under D'Antoni very quickly. The Spurs started Duncan, Bowen, Nesterovic, Manu, and Parker. I think the Suns had more talent and I love Manu and Tim.

You're using revisionist history. Those players weren't battle tested like the Spurs. Tim Duncan was an NBA Champion 2x already. Johnson was on the rise, but I wouldn't say he was at his peak yet as a player. The Spurs went on the win the Title and if Joe Johnson hadn't missed the 1st 2 games, who knows how things might have turned out. All in all it was still a very good coaching job to bring that all together and get that far.

Manu and Parker had not been in the league that long either. I think if you asked D'Antoni what year he thought his team could have gone all the way he would have said that year. Also, I don't think you can make an argument that guys that put up great numbers on a 62 win team were too young and then talk about Duncan. Duncan won a championship in his rookie year.

You're talking about Tim Duncan! I mean come on! Manu and Parker were on the 02-3 Championship team. By the time 04-05 came around I'd say they were pretty solid. Also you didn't address the fact that Joe was hurt and missed the 1st 2 games. It's all in the details man.

TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
1/2/2011  12:18 AM
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
TMS wrote:
orangeblobman wrote:
Killa4luv wrote:
orangeblobman wrote:People are afraid of what they don't know. MDA's approach to the game takes many fans out of their comfort zone of '90s style hoops they're used to and still hungover from. And you can't blame them, it was a great decade for Knicks basketball.

A little trust from the fans will go a long way. Certainly the club's drastic turnaround from only a couple of seasons ago should be encouraging. Continued improvement will go a long way to promote this trust.


Thats not entirely true. Fans who've studied the game know that MDA's system has never yielded a championship. Never. Never been to the finals.
That style of play is not a championship style imho. I give him credit for helping to turn things around, but I never felt like he was a coach we could win a championship longterm with. Small ball doesn't win chips. Period.

I cringe when i look at all of these stretches where we are hoisting up 3's. We should trade for Crawford back, he'd love it here. But thats no way to win a championship.

There's no such thing as a 'championship style'. You go out to win games, there's no preset framework that a team has to follow in order to win the league.

If there are less teams attempting to win with a given approach then naturally the chances of a team with a more standard approach winning the league will be higher, because there are more of them.

Certainly MDA's Phoenix teams were in the hunt for the ring, this is evidenced by them coming within a C-hair of the Finals the year of the Horry hip check.

Once you're in the Finals, anything goes. If you're in a game 7 and 2 points away from being there, then your approach is working, it's a valid approach to the game that yields concrete, positive results.

which game 7 are you referring to? the farthest the MDA Suns ever got to making the Finals was a game 6 vs. the Mavs in '06... they lost by 9 pts... the Spurs beat the Suns in 5 games the year prior.

Despite that inaccuracy, it's also true that he had his teams in position in the toughest conference and really he didn't ahve the best team in any of those seasons. He got unlucky one year with the freak injury to Johnson. He got jobbed the hip check year. He was VERY close to being able to get over the hump. Our biggest issue is to have Donnie finish this team and put TITLE winning talent on the roster.


I think his 04=05 team was the best that year. He started Nash, Amare, Marion, Johnson and and they were all healthy and put up great numbers. I don't think most coaches have 3-4 hofs in their prime very often.

Amar'e and Johnson were still kids at that point with very little Playoff experience. Marion is not a HOF player. Joe Johnson is good, but let's not overstate how good he really is. Nash and Amar'e had the most talent on that team and really the style of play MAXED OUT the talents of everyone involved.

That team was gonna be good, but they exceeded most peoples predictions. Joe Johnson got hurt and missed the 1st 2 games of that Spurs series. Mind you they were playing the FREAKIN SPURS! I mean this whole argument gets tired cuz you have to be fare at some point and acknowledge that Mike did some really great things and we really can do some great things here with just the right move to improve the roster.

Amare averaged 26pts, 9 rebs and 1.6 blocks. He was in his third season and averaged 15 and 20 the previous two years. Johnson was in his fourth season and averaged 17ppg that year and 15 ppg the previous season. These guys were very good players. Amare was already a star and Johnson was well on his way. You add Nash, Marion and Q to that starting five and I don't think there was anyone better that year. I think being fair, you can say that Johnson and Amare achieved their potential under D'Antoni very quickly. The Spurs started Duncan, Bowen, Nesterovic, Manu, and Parker. I think the Suns had more talent and I love Manu and Tim.

You're using revisionist history. Those players weren't battle tested like the Spurs. Tim Duncan was an NBA Champion 2x already. Johnson was on the rise, but I wouldn't say he was at his peak yet as a player. The Spurs went on the win the Title and if Joe Johnson hadn't missed the 1st 2 games, who knows how things might have turned out. All in all it was still a very good coaching job to bring that all together and get that far.

Manu and Parker had not been in the league that long either. I think if you asked D'Antoni what year he thought his team could have gone all the way he would have said that year. Also, I don't think you can make an argument that guys that put up great numbers on a 62 win team were too young and then talk about Duncan. Duncan won a championship in his rookie year.

You're talking about Tim Duncan! I mean come on! Manu and Parker were on the 02-3 Championship team. By the time 04-05 came around I'd say they were pretty solid. Also you didn't address the fact that Joe was hurt and missed the 1st 2 games. It's all in the details man.

nixluva, Amare outplayed Tim Duncan in that series & they still couldn't take more than 1 game from the Spurs... even after Joe Johnson got back into the series, they still lost 2 of 3 games... while it's true that the Spurs had more playoff experience, i don't think there's any way you can deny that MDA had the more talented roster in that matchup.

After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
1/2/2011  1:11 AM
TMS wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
TMS wrote:
orangeblobman wrote:
Killa4luv wrote:
orangeblobman wrote:People are afraid of what they don't know. MDA's approach to the game takes many fans out of their comfort zone of '90s style hoops they're used to and still hungover from. And you can't blame them, it was a great decade for Knicks basketball.

A little trust from the fans will go a long way. Certainly the club's drastic turnaround from only a couple of seasons ago should be encouraging. Continued improvement will go a long way to promote this trust.


Thats not entirely true. Fans who've studied the game know that MDA's system has never yielded a championship. Never. Never been to the finals.
That style of play is not a championship style imho. I give him credit for helping to turn things around, but I never felt like he was a coach we could win a championship longterm with. Small ball doesn't win chips. Period.

I cringe when i look at all of these stretches where we are hoisting up 3's. We should trade for Crawford back, he'd love it here. But thats no way to win a championship.

There's no such thing as a 'championship style'. You go out to win games, there's no preset framework that a team has to follow in order to win the league.

If there are less teams attempting to win with a given approach then naturally the chances of a team with a more standard approach winning the league will be higher, because there are more of them.

Certainly MDA's Phoenix teams were in the hunt for the ring, this is evidenced by them coming within a C-hair of the Finals the year of the Horry hip check.

Once you're in the Finals, anything goes. If you're in a game 7 and 2 points away from being there, then your approach is working, it's a valid approach to the game that yields concrete, positive results.

which game 7 are you referring to? the farthest the MDA Suns ever got to making the Finals was a game 6 vs. the Mavs in '06... they lost by 9 pts... the Spurs beat the Suns in 5 games the year prior.

Despite that inaccuracy, it's also true that he had his teams in position in the toughest conference and really he didn't ahve the best team in any of those seasons. He got unlucky one year with the freak injury to Johnson. He got jobbed the hip check year. He was VERY close to being able to get over the hump. Our biggest issue is to have Donnie finish this team and put TITLE winning talent on the roster.


I think his 04=05 team was the best that year. He started Nash, Amare, Marion, Johnson and and they were all healthy and put up great numbers. I don't think most coaches have 3-4 hofs in their prime very often.

Amar'e and Johnson were still kids at that point with very little Playoff experience. Marion is not a HOF player. Joe Johnson is good, but let's not overstate how good he really is. Nash and Amar'e had the most talent on that team and really the style of play MAXED OUT the talents of everyone involved.

That team was gonna be good, but they exceeded most peoples predictions. Joe Johnson got hurt and missed the 1st 2 games of that Spurs series. Mind you they were playing the FREAKIN SPURS! I mean this whole argument gets tired cuz you have to be fare at some point and acknowledge that Mike did some really great things and we really can do some great things here with just the right move to improve the roster.

Amare averaged 26pts, 9 rebs and 1.6 blocks. He was in his third season and averaged 15 and 20 the previous two years. Johnson was in his fourth season and averaged 17ppg that year and 15 ppg the previous season. These guys were very good players. Amare was already a star and Johnson was well on his way. You add Nash, Marion and Q to that starting five and I don't think there was anyone better that year. I think being fair, you can say that Johnson and Amare achieved their potential under D'Antoni very quickly. The Spurs started Duncan, Bowen, Nesterovic, Manu, and Parker. I think the Suns had more talent and I love Manu and Tim.

You're using revisionist history. Those players weren't battle tested like the Spurs. Tim Duncan was an NBA Champion 2x already. Johnson was on the rise, but I wouldn't say he was at his peak yet as a player. The Spurs went on the win the Title and if Joe Johnson hadn't missed the 1st 2 games, who knows how things might have turned out. All in all it was still a very good coaching job to bring that all together and get that far.

Manu and Parker had not been in the league that long either. I think if you asked D'Antoni what year he thought his team could have gone all the way he would have said that year. Also, I don't think you can make an argument that guys that put up great numbers on a 62 win team were too young and then talk about Duncan. Duncan won a championship in his rookie year.

You're talking about Tim Duncan! I mean come on! Manu and Parker were on the 02-3 Championship team. By the time 04-05 came around I'd say they were pretty solid. Also you didn't address the fact that Joe was hurt and missed the 1st 2 games. It's all in the details man.

nixluva, Amare outplayed Tim Duncan in that series & they still couldn't take more than 1 game from the Spurs... even after Joe Johnson got back into the series, they still lost 2 of 3 games... while it's true that the Spurs had more playoff experience, i don't think there's any way you can deny that MDA had the more talented roster in that matchup.


Since when does an upstart team outweigh an NBA Championship winning and playoff tested team. Then add in that one of the top players was hurt and you think that it was still supposed to be a win for the Suns? That was an amazing ride, but you've got to have everything go right in a finals series against a team that has won it all before. Can we at least try to be fare here? Not to mention that it was also Mike's 1st full season as an NBA headcoach and 1st WCF's as well. That Suns team came together that summer when Nash came in and I still think that a team like the Spurs has the advantage in that situation.

So let's go to the next season when he lost Joe and Amar'e was out. He still won 54 with no real C or superstar bigman to rely on. AND HE STILL GOT TO ThE WCF's. Did he have the best team then?

Papabear
Posts: 24373
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 3/31/2007
Member: #1414

1/2/2011  1:23 AM
CrushAlot wrote:
TMS wrote:
rvwink wrote:So what is the interesting/sobering analysis? Steve Kerr tried to tell MDA how to coach, and MDA hit the road instead. The coach that Steve Kerr replaced MDA with, did worse, not better. Steve Kerr thought he was smarter than MDA and the statistics said otherwise. Steve Kerr doesn't have an objective opinion about MDA. So what is the "sobering" message you are sharing?

MDA has the Knick's moving in a highly positive direction. Only problem is that it appears that the majority of this forum haven't a clue as to MDA being largely responsible for the Knicks successful turnaround.

i think anything Steve Kerr says about MDA has to be taken w/a grain of salt because of the past history, & i agree that MDA deserves part of the credit for the turn around this team has shown this year... it's also pretty obvious that the turn around doesn't happen w/o Amare & Ray Felton coming into the picture... DW & the players have to get equal parts of the credit here.

I agree. Kerr and D'Antoni did not part on the best of terms and Kerr's vision for how he wanted the Suns to play was different from D'Antoni's. However, D'Antoni had a formula in Phoenix and he has continued to use it in NY. Everything that Kerr said about D'Antoni and that Holfresh pointed out I have heard before and read about. His former players, most notably Grant Hill, have talked about the lack of practice time. I have said on this forum many times that D'Antoni is extremely rigid. He has a GM that has his back and a group of assistants that I don't believe will ever question him. For a guy with a limited focus on what makes a team successful I don't think that is good. That being said, D'Antoni is having more success than any NY coach in a long time. I haven't been this excited about the Knicks since Van Gundy was in NY. However, despite the tremendous heart Amare and this team displays I don't think they have significant success until D'Antoni moves on. He is not going to change.

Papabear Says

I Totally agree.

Papabear
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
1/2/2011  1:28 AM
Papabear wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
TMS wrote:
rvwink wrote:So what is the interesting/sobering analysis? Steve Kerr tried to tell MDA how to coach, and MDA hit the road instead. The coach that Steve Kerr replaced MDA with, did worse, not better. Steve Kerr thought he was smarter than MDA and the statistics said otherwise. Steve Kerr doesn't have an objective opinion about MDA. So what is the "sobering" message you are sharing?

MDA has the Knick's moving in a highly positive direction. Only problem is that it appears that the majority of this forum haven't a clue as to MDA being largely responsible for the Knicks successful turnaround.

i think anything Steve Kerr says about MDA has to be taken w/a grain of salt because of the past history, & i agree that MDA deserves part of the credit for the turn around this team has shown this year... it's also pretty obvious that the turn around doesn't happen w/o Amare & Ray Felton coming into the picture... DW & the players have to get equal parts of the credit here.

I agree. Kerr and D'Antoni did not part on the best of terms and Kerr's vision for how he wanted the Suns to play was different from D'Antoni's. However, D'Antoni had a formula in Phoenix and he has continued to use it in NY. Everything that Kerr said about D'Antoni and that Holfresh pointed out I have heard before and read about. His former players, most notably Grant Hill, have talked about the lack of practice time. I have said on this forum many times that D'Antoni is extremely rigid. He has a GM that has his back and a group of assistants that I don't believe will ever question him. For a guy with a limited focus on what makes a team successful I don't think that is good. That being said, D'Antoni is having more success than any NY coach in a long time. I haven't been this excited about the Knicks since Van Gundy was in NY. However, despite the tremendous heart Amare and this team displays I don't think they have significant success until D'Antoni moves on. He is not going to change.

Papabear Says

I Totally agree.

I disagree. This team has holes and originally Mike tried to fill those holes using guys we have on the bench. Now guys here are saying he didn't give those guys enough of a chance to succeed. My thing is that Fields and Williams have managed to raise their level of play enough to gain his confidence. If AR does the same i'm sure he'll get his shot. We still are a flawed team in some areas and we need improvement in order to go further. So far Mike has gotten a good amount out of what we have, despite AR and Timo not working out and Turiaf being hurt. The more talent you give MIke the greater our chances for success.

Papabear
Posts: 24373
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 3/31/2007
Member: #1414

1/2/2011  1:31 AM    LAST EDITED: 1/2/2011  1:32 AM
nixluva wrote:
TMS wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
TMS wrote:
orangeblobman wrote:
Killa4luv wrote:
orangeblobman wrote:People are afraid of what they don't know. MDA's approach to the game takes many fans out of their comfort zone of '90s style hoops they're used to and still hungover from. And you can't blame them, it was a great decade for Knicks basketball.

A little trust from the fans will go a long way. Certainly the club's drastic turnaround from only a couple of seasons ago should be encouraging. Continued improvement will go a long way to promote this trust.


Thats not entirely true. Fans who've studied the game know that MDA's system has never yielded a championship. Never. Never been to the finals.
That style of play is not a championship style imho. I give him credit for helping to turn things around, but I never felt like he was a coach we could win a championship longterm with. Small ball doesn't win chips. Period.

I cringe when i look at all of these stretches where we are hoisting up 3's. We should trade for Crawford back, he'd love it here. But thats no way to win a championship.

There's no such thing as a 'championship style'. You go out to win games, there's no preset framework that a team has to follow in order to win the league.

If there are less teams attempting to win with a given approach then naturally the chances of a team with a more standard approach winning the league will be higher, because there are more of them.

Certainly MDA's Phoenix teams were in the hunt for the ring, this is evidenced by them coming within a C-hair of the Finals the year of the Horry hip check.

Once you're in the Finals, anything goes. If you're in a game 7 and 2 points away from being there, then your approach is working, it's a valid approach to the game that yields concrete, positive results.

which game 7 are you referring to? the farthest the MDA Suns ever got to making the Finals was a game 6 vs. the Mavs in '06... they lost by 9 pts... the Spurs beat the Suns in 5 games the year prior.

Despite that inaccuracy, it's also true that he had his teams in position in the toughest conference and really he didn't ahve the best team in any of those seasons. He got unlucky one year with the freak injury to Johnson. He got jobbed the hip check year. He was VERY close to being able to get over the hump. Our biggest issue is to have Donnie finish this team and put TITLE winning talent on the roster.


I think his 04=05 team was the best that year. He started Nash, Amare, Marion, Johnson and and they were all healthy and put up great numbers. I don't think most coaches have 3-4 hofs in their prime very often.

Amar'e and Johnson were still kids at that point with very little Playoff experience. Marion is not a HOF player. Joe Johnson is good, but let's not overstate how good he really is. Nash and Amar'e had the most talent on that team and really the style of play MAXED OUT the talents of everyone involved.

That team was gonna be good, but they exceeded most peoples predictions. Joe Johnson got hurt and missed the 1st 2 games of that Spurs series. Mind you they were playing the FREAKIN SPURS! I mean this whole argument gets tired cuz you have to be fare at some point and acknowledge that Mike did some really great things and we really can do some great things here with just the right move to improve the roster.

Amare averaged 26pts, 9 rebs and 1.6 blocks. He was in his third season and averaged 15 and 20 the previous two years. Johnson was in his fourth season and averaged 17ppg that year and 15 ppg the previous season. These guys were very good players. Amare was already a star and Johnson was well on his way. You add Nash, Marion and Q to that starting five and I don't think there was anyone better that year. I think being fair, you can say that Johnson and Amare achieved their potential under D'Antoni very quickly. The Spurs started Duncan, Bowen, Nesterovic, Manu, and Parker. I think the Suns had more talent and I love Manu and Tim.

You're using revisionist history. Those players weren't battle tested like the Spurs. Tim Duncan was an NBA Champion 2x already. Johnson was on the rise, but I wouldn't say he was at his peak yet as a player. The Spurs went on the win the Title and if Joe Johnson hadn't missed the 1st 2 games, who knows how things might have turned out. All in all it was still a very good coaching job to bring that all together and get that far.

Manu and Parker had not been in the league that long either. I think if you asked D'Antoni what year he thought his team could have gone all the way he would have said that year. Also, I don't think you can make an argument that guys that put up great numbers on a 62 win team were too young and then talk about Duncan. Duncan won a championship in his rookie year.

You're talking about Tim Duncan! I mean come on! Manu and Parker were on the 02-3 Championship team. By the time 04-05 came around I'd say they were pretty solid. Also you didn't address the fact that Joe was hurt and missed the 1st 2 games. It's all in the details man.

nixluva, Amare outplayed Tim Duncan in that series & they still couldn't take more than 1 game from the Spurs... even after Joe Johnson got back into the series, they still lost 2 of 3 games... while it's true that the Spurs had more playoff experience, i don't think there's any way you can deny that MDA had the more talented roster in that matchup.


Since when does an upstart team outweigh an NBA Championship winning and playoff tested team. Then add in that one of the top players was hurt and you think that it was still supposed to be a win for the Suns? That was an amazing ride, but you've got to have everything go right in a finals series against a team that has won it all before. Can we at least try to be fare here? Not to mention that it was also Mike's 1st full season as an NBA headcoach and 1st WCF's as well. That Suns team came together that summer when Nash came in and I still think that a team like the Spurs has the advantage in that situation.

So let's go to the next season when he lost Joe and Amar'e was out. He still won 54 with no real C or superstar bigman to rely on. AND HE STILL GOT TO ThE WCF's. Did he have the best team then?

Papabear Says

It goes to show you that great defense wins championships. Mike D believes that shooting 3s all night wins championships. You can't continue to trade baskets and think that you can win all the time.

Papabear
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
1/2/2011  1:42 AM
Papabear wrote:Papabear Says

It goes to show you that great defense wins championships. Mike D believes that shooting 3s all night wins championships. You can't continue to trade baskets and think that you can win all the time.


This kind of post is getting old. Mike is slanted towards O, but he does coach D. You know that's true if you've ever watched a Knick game and saw how he gets on his players for missed assignments or heard the other coaches at the half talk about the Defensive effort. This is not a great defensive team but they're getting better. It's also not helping that we can't get more out of Turiaf, Timo and AR. This is an ongoing process for this young and newly put together team.

I see a team that's giving effort on D. They still make mistakes, but they're trying to defend. Not having a real rebounder on the roster is the biggest issue. Not one of our PF/C's is known for being a strong interior rebounder where we need it most. We stop teams initially, but then we can't secure the defensive rebound. That's the thing we're missing and we knew we'd miss that once Lee left and we didn't replace that rebounding.

TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
1/2/2011  1:53 AM
dude, how am i not being fair?... MDA had the most talented roster in that playoff series, how can u possibly dispute this?... u wanna bring in other factors into the equation about playoff experience (which btw i already acknowledged played a factor in that defeat) but really that does nothing to disprove the fact that MDA had the best players to work with during that series... experience is an intangible factor, stats are not... Amare outperformed the Spurs' best player in that series & during the regular season & had an MVP calibre season himself that year putting up 26 & 9... they also had the NBA MVP Nash averaging 16 & 11 & leading the NBA in assists along w/another Allstar in Marion who averaged 19 & 11, better stats than Tony Parker & Manu G put up that year respectfully... the Spurs also had no one on their team that even came close to what Joe Johnson was already doing that early in his career either... Popovich utilized role players like Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Robert Horry & Rasho Nesterovic to their maximum potential & it showed in their ability to beat the Suns at their own game during that series... that's all fair & real, not some imagined stuff i'm cooking up in my head.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
1/2/2011  2:09 AM
TMS wrote:dude, how am i not being fair?... MDA had the most talented roster in that playoff series, how can u possibly dispute this?... u wanna bring in other factors into the equation about playoff experience (which btw i already acknowledged played a factor in that defeat) but really that does nothing to disprove the fact that MDA had the best players to work with during that series... experience is an intangible factor, stats are not... Amare outperformed the Spurs' best player in that series & during the regular season & had an MVP calibre season himself that year putting up 26 & 9... they also had the NBA MVP Nash averaging 16 & 11 & leading the NBA in assists along w/another Allstar in Marion who averaged 19 & 11, better stats than Tony Parker & Manu G put up that year respectfully... the Spurs also had no one on their team that even came close to what Joe Johnson was already doing that early in his career either... Popovich utilized role players like Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Robert Horry & Rasho Nesterovic to their maximum potential & it showed in their ability to beat the Suns at their own game during that series... that's all fair & real, not some imagined stuff i'm cooking up in my head.

DID THE SPURS NOT WIN A TITLE IN 02-03? What exactly had PHX done in the years prior to 04-05 that could've prepared them for that kind of series, especially when they lost Joe the 1st 2 home games and it threw them off? The Spurs were FAR more battle tested and in terms of the stats you bring up for Mike's players, that is all a function of how he had them playing. That was an unheard of pace and of course they had great stats that year. Those individual stats have nothing to do with how one team compares to another in a 7 game series. Mike did what he always does and that is maximize what he has but that doesn't mean those players as a team are gonna be better than another team.

The Spurs as champs could pace themselves. They weren't trying to prove anything in the regular season, whereas an upstart team like the Suns did need to win and give it their all. So it makes it seem like they're so much better than a team like the SPurs but that's just window dressing. Teams like the Celts and Lakers have done this too after winning a title. It's not uncommon. The Suns were new and untested and the Spurs were champions and more experienced that does a lot to even out the so called talent gap. It was still a great campaign for the Suns and as I said that doesn't explain the GREAT job MIke did the next year in getting back to the WCF's with a much weaker team.

Juice
Posts: 21742
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2009
Member: #2968

1/2/2011  2:40 AM    LAST EDITED: 1/2/2011  2:41 AM
nixluva wrote:
TMS wrote:dude, how am i not being fair?... MDA had the most talented roster in that playoff series, how can u possibly dispute this?... u wanna bring in other factors into the equation about playoff experience (which btw i already acknowledged played a factor in that defeat) but really that does nothing to disprove the fact that MDA had the best players to work with during that series... experience is an intangible factor, stats are not... Amare outperformed the Spurs' best player in that series & during the regular season & had an MVP calibre season himself that year putting up 26 & 9... they also had the NBA MVP Nash averaging 16 & 11 & leading the NBA in assists along w/another Allstar in Marion who averaged 19 & 11, better stats than Tony Parker & Manu G put up that year respectfully... the Spurs also had no one on their team that even came close to what Joe Johnson was already doing that early in his career either... Popovich utilized role players like Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Robert Horry & Rasho Nesterovic to their maximum potential & it showed in their ability to beat the Suns at their own game during that series... that's all fair & real, not some imagined stuff i'm cooking up in my head.

DID THE SPURS NOT WIN A TITLE IN 02-03? What exactly had PHX done in the years prior to 04-05 that could've prepared them for that kind of series, especially when they lost Joe the 1st 2 home games and it threw them off?

They pushed that Spurs team to a 4-2 series with a rookie playing pf/center

If you consider the natural progression of players such as Amar'e/Marion/Johnson with the additions they brought in Nash/Barbosa/Q-Snitch uhhhh yeah you could argue they should have got to the Finals...I mean how did the Nets get there in 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 what had they done prior to those seasons?

Old veteran poster still going pollyanish never producing any kind of manly arguments

TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
1/2/2011  2:44 AM    LAST EDITED: 1/2/2011  2:46 AM
nixluva wrote:
TMS wrote:dude, how am i not being fair?... MDA had the most talented roster in that playoff series, how can u possibly dispute this?... u wanna bring in other factors into the equation about playoff experience (which btw i already acknowledged played a factor in that defeat) but really that does nothing to disprove the fact that MDA had the best players to work with during that series... experience is an intangible factor, stats are not... Amare outperformed the Spurs' best player in that series & during the regular season & had an MVP calibre season himself that year putting up 26 & 9... they also had the NBA MVP Nash averaging 16 & 11 & leading the NBA in assists along w/another Allstar in Marion who averaged 19 & 11, better stats than Tony Parker & Manu G put up that year respectfully... the Spurs also had no one on their team that even came close to what Joe Johnson was already doing that early in his career either... Popovich utilized role players like Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Robert Horry & Rasho Nesterovic to their maximum potential & it showed in their ability to beat the Suns at their own game during that series... that's all fair & real, not some imagined stuff i'm cooking up in my head.

DID THE SPURS NOT WIN A TITLE IN 02-03? What exactly had PHX done in the years prior to 04-05 that could've prepared them for that kind of series, especially when they lost Joe the 1st 2 home games and it threw them off? The Spurs were FAR more battle tested and in terms of the stats you bring up for Mike's players, that is all a function of how he had them playing. That was an unheard of pace and of course they had great stats that year. Those individual stats have nothing to do with how one team compares to another in a 7 game series. Mike did what he always does and that is maximize what he has but that doesn't mean those players as a team are gonna be better than another team.

The Spurs as champs could pace themselves. They weren't trying to prove anything in the regular season, whereas an upstart team like the Suns did need to win and give it their all. So it makes it seem like they're so much better than a team like the SPurs but that's just window dressing. Teams like the Celts and Lakers have done this too after winning a title. It's not uncommon. The Suns were new and untested and the Spurs were champions and more experienced that does a lot to even out the so called talent gap. It was still a great campaign for the Suns and as I said that doesn't explain the GREAT job MIke did the next year in getting back to the WCF's with a much weaker team.

are you seriously trying to tell me that the Spurs purposely lost games in the regular season, or at least didn't give it their all to win every single game they could, so they could pace themselves for postseason play? dude, the Suns only won 3 more regular season games than the Spurs did... & you're complaining that i'm not even attempting to be fair here?

i never once said it wasn't a great campaign for the Suns that year... only a fool would suggest otherwise... i also recognized the experience advantage the Spurs had going into that series... the point i made was that MDA had the most talented roster to work with... you do understand the difference between those 2 concepts, don't u? but you somehow seem to think MDA deserves 100% of the credit for getting his players to achieve over their heads by putting up tremendous numbers over the regular season, but 0% of the blame for them not being able to beat a team that they had the talent to beat... IMO he got outcoached in that series by Popovich... nothing to be ashamed of, he's outcoached plenty of good coaches on his way to multiple titles, but even suggesting someone could possibly outcoach MDA & beat him at his own game seems to offend you to the core.

regarding the '06 Suns that made it to the WCF w/an undermanned crew, MDA deserves a ton of credit for the job he did in that series... probably 1 of the best jobs of coaching in the past decade... he got beat by the better team no one's holding that loss against him.

After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
1/2/2011  2:52 AM
TMS wrote:
nixluva wrote:
TMS wrote:dude, how am i not being fair?... MDA had the most talented roster in that playoff series, how can u possibly dispute this?... u wanna bring in other factors into the equation about playoff experience (which btw i already acknowledged played a factor in that defeat) but really that does nothing to disprove the fact that MDA had the best players to work with during that series... experience is an intangible factor, stats are not... Amare outperformed the Spurs' best player in that series & during the regular season & had an MVP calibre season himself that year putting up 26 & 9... they also had the NBA MVP Nash averaging 16 & 11 & leading the NBA in assists along w/another Allstar in Marion who averaged 19 & 11, better stats than Tony Parker & Manu G put up that year respectfully... the Spurs also had no one on their team that even came close to what Joe Johnson was already doing that early in his career either... Popovich utilized role players like Bruce Bowen, Brent Barry, Robert Horry & Rasho Nesterovic to their maximum potential & it showed in their ability to beat the Suns at their own game during that series... that's all fair & real, not some imagined stuff i'm cooking up in my head.

DID THE SPURS NOT WIN A TITLE IN 02-03? What exactly had PHX done in the years prior to 04-05 that could've prepared them for that kind of series, especially when they lost Joe the 1st 2 home games and it threw them off? The Spurs were FAR more battle tested and in terms of the stats you bring up for Mike's players, that is all a function of how he had them playing. That was an unheard of pace and of course they had great stats that year. Those individual stats have nothing to do with how one team compares to another in a 7 game series. Mike did what he always does and that is maximize what he has but that doesn't mean those players as a team are gonna be better than another team.

The Spurs as champs could pace themselves. They weren't trying to prove anything in the regular season, whereas an upstart team like the Suns did need to win and give it their all. So it makes it seem like they're so much better than a team like the SPurs but that's just window dressing. Teams like the Celts and Lakers have done this too after winning a title. It's not uncommon. The Suns were new and untested and the Spurs were champions and more experienced that does a lot to even out the so called talent gap. It was still a great campaign for the Suns and as I said that doesn't explain the GREAT job MIke did the next year in getting back to the WCF's with a much weaker team.

are you seriously trying to tell me that the Spurs purposely lost games in the regular season, or at least didn't give it their all to win every single game they could, so they could pace themselves for postseason play? dude, the Suns only won 3 more regular season games than the Spurs did... & you're complaining that i'm not even attempting to be fair here?

i never once said it wasn't a great campaign for the Suns that year... only a fool would suggest otherwise... i also recognized the experience advantage the Spurs had going into that series... the point i made was that MDA had the most talented roster to work with... you do understand the difference between those 2 concepts, don't u? but you somehow seem to think MDA deserves 100% of the credit for getting his players to achieve over their heads by putting up tremendous numbers over the regular season, but 0% of the blame for them not being able to beat a team that they had the talent to beat... IMO he got outcoached in that series by Popovich... nothing to be ashamed of, he's outcoached plenty of good coaches on his way to multiple titles, but even suggesting someone could possibly outcoach MDA & beat him at his own game seems to offend you to the core.

regarding the '06 Suns that made it to the WCF w/an undermanned crew, MDA deserves a ton of credit for the job he did in that series... probably 1 of the best jobs of coaching in the past decade... he got beat by the better team no one's holding that loss against him.


I think that due to Mike's system his players individual numbers are going to look great but that has nothing to do with how effect a given unit is. So while it might appear by looking at the roster and what those players did, that the Suns had a better roster, I beg to differ in that it's not the individuals but the sum of the parts and how they work together. You can have some guys that are defensive studs who fit what you're doing as a team but when you look at the numbers it looks lopsided. The SPurs were a World Champion team and clearly that would make them the better team. Anytime you put a young up and coming team up against a team that has been to the top, it's hard to argue that the other team which as you noted was only a few wins better, is the better roster. When I said the Spurs paced themselves, I mean they didn't go all out in the same way that the Suns did. They didn't have to. They knew who and what they were. WORLD CHAMPIONS looking to win another one.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
1/2/2011  3:14 AM
nixluva wrote:I think that due to Mike's system his players individual numbers are going to look great but that has nothing to do with how effect a given unit is. So while it might appear by looking at the roster and what those players did, that the Suns had a better roster, I beg to differ in that it's not the individuals but the sum of the parts and how they work together. You can have some guys that are defensive studs who fit what you're doing as a team but when you look at the numbers it looks lopsided. The SPurs were a World Champion team and clearly that would make them the better team. Anytime you put a young up and coming team up against a team that has been to the top, it's hard to argue that the other team which as you noted was only a few wins better, is the better roster. When I said the Spurs paced themselves, I mean they didn't go all out in the same way that the Suns did. They didn't have to. They knew who and what they were. WORLD CHAMPIONS looking to win another one.

i think the system that MDA's teams play has everything to do w/this... going all out full throttle on offense is the core feature of the system he runs... a team like the Spurs places a heavy focus on team defense to win the majority of their games... that means they always know they can turn up the intensity in crunchtime & play the type of defense that suffocates their opposition & win a war of attrition by forcing their opponents into doing things they don't customarily do... MDA's system attempts to beat teams by sheer volume of shot opportunities & making a high percentage of 3 point shots, maximizing each possession to its full advantage... the problem w/that is that if they're not hitting a high percentage of their 3 point shots, then they're usually left very vulnerable to being beaten, especially if they're incapable of stopping the other team from scoring on the other end... this is why i have a hard time buying into this style of play... it's very gimmicky to me... it's fun to watch & very entertaining, but when it comes to beating real championship calibre teams that know how to clamp down on defense, i think we're gonna struggle bigtime, especially if we're not hitting a high percentage of our 3 pt shot attempts... i don't want to rely on making 3's to win a championship... i'd much rather rely on playing tough, hard nosed defense.

After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Juice
Posts: 21742
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2009
Member: #2968

1/2/2011  3:43 AM    LAST EDITED: 1/2/2011  12:23 PM
So no explanation as to how the Nets got to back-to-back Finals appearances with a new coach for the most part and adding a point guard after proving nothing prior to?
cheers
Posts: 21060
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/27/2010
Member: #3316

1/2/2011  9:03 AM    LAST EDITED: 1/2/2011  9:03 AM
i know nixluva yea im calling you out mang is like well if the knicks were winning you be..stop. i would still be questioning the coach as i did during the winning streak, where i first questioned the long minutes of amar'e and the lack of playing time for the bench. when i was called on it, i replied, things always smell like roses when you winning. imho. when you winning its the best time to give players like ar burn, it builds instant trust and infects them with that winning bug.
loweyecue
Posts: 27468
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 11/20/2005
Member: #1037

1/2/2011  10:56 AM
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
nixluva wrote:
TMS wrote:
orangeblobman wrote:
Killa4luv wrote:
orangeblobman wrote:People are afraid of what they don't know. MDA's approach to the game takes many fans out of their comfort zone of '90s style hoops they're used to and still hungover from. And you can't blame them, it was a great decade for Knicks basketball.

A little trust from the fans will go a long way. Certainly the club's drastic turnaround from only a couple of seasons ago should be encouraging. Continued improvement will go a long way to promote this trust.


Thats not entirely true. Fans who've studied the game know that MDA's system has never yielded a championship. Never. Never been to the finals.
That style of play is not a championship style imho. I give him credit for helping to turn things around, but I never felt like he was a coach we could win a championship longterm with. Small ball doesn't win chips. Period.

I cringe when i look at all of these stretches where we are hoisting up 3's. We should trade for Crawford back, he'd love it here. But thats no way to win a championship.

There's no such thing as a 'championship style'. You go out to win games, there's no preset framework that a team has to follow in order to win the league.

If there are less teams attempting to win with a given approach then naturally the chances of a team with a more standard approach winning the league will be higher, because there are more of them.

Certainly MDA's Phoenix teams were in the hunt for the ring, this is evidenced by them coming within a C-hair of the Finals the year of the Horry hip check.

Once you're in the Finals, anything goes. If you're in a game 7 and 2 points away from being there, then your approach is working, it's a valid approach to the game that yields concrete, positive results.

which game 7 are you referring to? the farthest the MDA Suns ever got to making the Finals was a game 6 vs. the Mavs in '06... they lost by 9 pts... the Spurs beat the Suns in 5 games the year prior.

Despite that inaccuracy, it's also true that he had his teams in position in the toughest conference and really he didn't ahve the best team in any of those seasons. He got unlucky one year with the freak injury to Johnson. He got jobbed the hip check year. He was VERY close to being able to get over the hump. Our biggest issue is to have Donnie finish this team and put TITLE winning talent on the roster.


I think his 04=05 team was the best that year. He started Nash, Amare, Marion, Johnson and and they were all healthy and put up great numbers. I don't think most coaches have 3-4 hofs in their prime very often.

Amar'e and Johnson were still kids at that point with very little Playoff experience. Marion is not a HOF player. Joe Johnson is good, but let's not overstate how good he really is. Nash and Amar'e had the most talent on that team and really the style of play MAXED OUT the talents of everyone involved.

That team was gonna be good, but they exceeded most peoples predictions. Joe Johnson got hurt and missed the 1st 2 games of that Spurs series. Mind you they were playing the FREAKIN SPURS! I mean this whole argument gets tired cuz you have to be fare at some point and acknowledge that Mike did some really great things and we really can do some great things here with just the right move to improve the roster.

Amare averaged 26pts, 9 rebs and 1.6 blocks. He was in his third season and averaged 15 and 20 the previous two years. Johnson was in his fourth season and averaged 17ppg that year and 15 ppg the previous season. These guys were very good players. Amare was already a star and Johnson was well on his way. You add Nash, Marion and Q to that starting five and I don't think there was anyone better that year. I think being fair, you can say that Johnson and Amare achieved their potential under D'Antoni very quickly. The Spurs started Duncan, Bowen, Nesterovic, Manu, and Parker. I think the Suns had more talent and I love Manu and Tim.

You're using revisionist history. Those players weren't battle tested like the Spurs. Tim Duncan was an NBA Champion 2x already. Johnson was on the rise, but I wouldn't say he was at his peak yet as a player. The Spurs went on the win the Title and if Joe Johnson hadn't missed the 1st 2 games, who knows how things might have turned out. All in all it was still a very good coaching job to bring that all together and get that far.

That my friend is the root of the problem. Revisionist history - Great post.

TKF on Melo ::....he is a punk, a jerk, a self absorbed out of shape, self aggrandizing, unprofessional, volume chucking coach killing playoff loser!!
Interesting/Sobering analysis by Steve Kerr during the Orlando/Knick game on MDA...

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy