Panos wrote:I don't care what the roster is. A coach should be able to make in game adjustments, know when to call a time out, draw up a last play, etc. 'Antoni can't even do those things right.
He should delegate out the in-game coaching to someone else and stick to being an offensive coordinator.

When you have 10 rings like Phil Jackson does, you can let your players play though an opposing team's 8-0 run.

But please, Mike. Call a timeout. You letting your players play through a run only creates a larger deficit on the scoreboard.

martin wrote:

Knicksfan wrote:Martin, do you think D'Antoni is still the right choice for us as a coach? I don't have any agenda pro or con to him, but this does seem like a team that isn't well suited for his offense and the questions on defense seem to never die. I believe he can make this offense run efficiently with our main guys Melo, Amar'e and Billups, but it really seems defense is secondary and like it or not, defense wins championships in the NBA.

Personally I don't believe the Knicks, now with Melo and Billups, should keep D'Antoni. This team seems to be moving towards a more traditional contending team, one that will be moved by its stars and by the defensive play of each in the rotation. But what do you think?

I have no idea if MDA is the right coach, but I do know that he has had 2 or more distinct sets of players each and every year he has been in NY. How can anyone be fairly judged on that type of lack-of-continuity?

If Riley had first coached the 90's Knicks would everyone have said that he was a defensive-only coach and probably should never be on a 80's Lakers-like team with Worthy, Magic, Kareem? I mean, those Knicks were INEPT at getting baskets when they needed them; was that Riley's fault or did the Knicks just not have talent within the offense?

I don't understand the argument that MDA can't coach defense. He has never had players that doubled as defensive players, and so to maximize his teams' output with the Suns, he maximized the offense, which kind of makes sense to me. On his PHO teams, he never had a big, defensive, intimidating C; he had Amare at PF and we all know his lack of defensive skills and even effort on that end of the court; and he had Nash, who for all of his wonders on offense is a major league SIV on defense (and when he either goes under a pick, which he does more than Duhon, or when his guy blows past him, it makes the C/PF do double duty and they weren't strong to begin with).

It's like giving Jeff Gordon a Civic Hatchback and asking him to win a NASCAR event. Does it make him a bad NASCAR driver or did he really ever have a chance?

To me the bottom line with MDA is the same its been with Chaney, Lenny, Larry and even Isiah. I will judge the coach when its clear he's failed to produce wins worthy of the roster.

MDA said himself his MO for the first couple of years was to pump the value of the players while winning as many games as possible.

NBA coaches are really overrated in their impact to the game. Look around the league... 2-3 coaches are getting their teams to overachieve. 6-8 coaches have players who have mailed in the season. The rest are getting what their talent translates too.

Are the players in position to do what they do best? Are we losing because we are not utilizing our roster? I would say Yes and NO. We need rebounding and defense, and the guys who do that play. The big scorers are getting shots. What else is the beef?

martin wrote:He has never had players that doubled as defensive players

Shawn Marrion, Raja Bell and Steven Hunter were all excellent defender.

AMARE says "no one ever tought me how to play defense"

Well I wonder who were his NBA coaches who committed such an atrocity? Kevin Garnett did not go to college and someone taught him how to play defense.

BRIGGS wrote:If you honestly believe that MDA or Walsh were in favor of this trade--you are absolutely kidding yourself.

I think they were interested but maybe not with Mozgov.

Knicksfan wrote:This may be a players' league, but you still need a playbook to win in the NBA. Stars have all the talent and role players help the cause, but they won't do anything right if they aren't on the same page as a team and that is the coach's responsability. In our case, D'Antoni has it against himself that the new players are still adjusting to the system. Billups was just coming back from injury. But there is no excuse to the terrible defense we keep seeing from them. That is a problem we've had for a while and it seems we can't get a consistent effort from the team. The switching, for example, is a terrible idea that seems to be our main defensive strategy.

Switching is ok at times just not every single time..most players don't call out switch (no communication on d) because it means you can't hold your man..that's why they were so hell bent on signing JJ...he's the best at it..but you suffer big time on the offensive end.

Its funny how we give up a 100+ points to a indi team who had not reach that mark in a long time..and you come back with offensive issues as the reason why....thats mind boggling

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

martin wrote:

Knicksfan wrote:Martin, do you think D'Antoni is still the right choice for us as a coach? I don't have any agenda pro or con to him, but this does seem like a team that isn't well suited for his offense and the questions on defense seem to never die. I believe he can make this offense run efficiently with our main guys Melo, Amar'e and Billups, but it really seems defense is secondary and like it or not, defense wins championships in the NBA.

Personally I don't believe the Knicks, now with Melo and Billups, should keep D'Antoni. This team seems to be moving towards a more traditional contending team, one that will be moved by its stars and by the defensive play of each in the rotation. But what do you think?

I have no idea if MDA is the right coach, but I do know that he has had 2 or more distinct sets of players each and every year he has been in NY. How can anyone be fairly judged on that type of lack-of-continuity?

If Riley had first coached the 90's Knicks would everyone have said that he was a defensive-only coach and probably should never be on a 80's Lakers-like team with Worthy, Magic, Kareem? I mean, those Knicks were INEPT at getting baskets when they needed them; was that Riley's fault or did the Knicks just not have talent within the offense?

I don't understand the argument that MDA can't coach defense. He has never had players that doubled as defensive players, and so to maximize his teams' output with the Suns, he maximized the offense, which kind of makes sense to me. On his PHO teams, he never had a big, defensive, intimidating C; he had Amare at PF and we all know his lack of defensive skills and even effort on that end of the court; and he had Nash, who for all of his wonders on offense is a major league SIV on defense (and when he either goes under a pick, which he does more than Duhon, or when his guy blows past him, it makes the C/PF do double duty and they weren't strong to begin with).

It's like giving Jeff Gordon a Civic Hatchback and asking him to win a NASCAR event. Does it make him a bad NASCAR driver or did he really ever have a chance?

Hardly anyone minded D'antoni's ineptitude for the first few years because of the lack of talent on this roster. There were no all stars, the young guys needed time to mature, and the team just wasn't playoff ready. He needed the right guys to run his offensive system. Now that he has two perennial all star caliber players, his weaknesses are clearly beginning to show. The team can produce offensively, which is what he wanted. However, the defense still remains a glaring issue, just like it was in his earlier Knicks days. The excuses are beginning to fade by the day with this coach. He advocated the Melo trade, which is why I don't even know why some D'antoni supporters are blaming the trade for this team's lack of defensive commitment. D'antoni got a free pass when the team was filled with bottom feeders. Now its his job to get his all star caliber roster to commit to a defensive philosophy, but we have still yet to see results.

i read this as such: 10 games in you expect results without taking into consideration anything. Just wins. All of them. Now.

martin wrote:

Knicksfan wrote:Martin, do you think D'Antoni is still the right choice for us as a coach? I don't have any agenda pro or con to him, but this does seem like a team that isn't well suited for his offense and the questions on defense seem to never die. I believe he can make this offense run efficiently with our main guys Melo, Amar'e and Billups, but it really seems defense is secondary and like it or not, defense wins championships in the NBA.

Personally I don't believe the Knicks, now with Melo and Billups, should keep D'Antoni. This team seems to be moving towards a more traditional contending team, one that will be moved by its stars and by the defensive play of each in the rotation. But what do you think?

I have no idea if MDA is the right coach, but I do know that he has had 2 or more distinct sets of players each and every year he has been in NY. How can anyone be fairly judged on that type of lack-of-continuity?

If Riley had first coached the 90's Knicks would everyone have said that he was a defensive-only coach and probably should never be on a 80's Lakers-like team with Worthy, Magic, Kareem? I mean, those Knicks were INEPT at getting baskets when they needed them; was that Riley's fault or did the Knicks just not have talent within the offense?

I don't understand the argument that MDA can't coach defense. He has never had players that doubled as defensive players, and so to maximize his teams' output with the Suns, he maximized the offense, which kind of makes sense to me. On his PHO teams, he never had a big, defensive, intimidating C; he had Amare at PF and we all know his lack of defensive skills and even effort on that end of the court; and he had Nash, who for all of his wonders on offense is a major league SIV on defense (and when he either goes under a pick, which he does more than Duhon, or when his guy blows past him, it makes the C/PF do double duty and they weren't strong to begin with).

It's like giving Jeff Gordon a Civic Hatchback and asking him to win a NASCAR event. Does it make him a bad NASCAR driver or did he really ever have a chance?

some what flawed analogy here. More like giving him a hemi engine in pieces and a Ford Nascar body and asking them to put them all together and tune them up to run and compete and the race starts in about an hour and a half

Juice wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:D'Antoni is going get fired this summer so it doesn't even matter.

To use his own words from the article...."Maybe It's Inevitable"....<------This is staring nail in the coffin in the face

He was on board for the trade right?

Don't know. Before the trade he did not sound like he was for it.

After the trade he has no choice.

martin wrote:

Juice wrote:I don't understand why there's such a strong desire to defend D'AnToni's coaching abilities and credentials. Matter of fact when he had Marion he was trying to trade him to Seattle for Rashard Lewis. He may know how to coach defense back against the wall he just doesn't value coaching or implementing it much. He also tends to sway towards defense coming from certain players and not collectively they stay connected as a defensive unit. He's the kind of coach that doesn't want to endure a stretch of 5-6gms say within a 10gm span where defense gets you those wins. He wants an 80/20 or 70/30 split at worst, offense first defense second. He'll also take a player who's strength is defense and drown it out by using him primarily in an offensive way. You saw Raja Bell go from a strong defensive guard to a spot up knock down 3pt specialist, we see it in Douglas, he tried with Jeffries. It's just not his thing and well that's okay but we don't have to put up with nor accept his style of coaching.

it's not so much defending MDA as showing the flaws in your arguments, big difference.

What holes? That he can't coach defense or doesn't value it as much as he should?

This issues I brought up in this thread whether you agree or disagree had nothing to do with his coaching abilities or lack thereof

Juice wrote:Oh and for whoever was making excuses for Billups needing time to learn his new digs......coach thinks otherwise

He also noted thought that neither Billups nor Douglas looked comfortable in their respective roles now that the 34-year-old veteran is back in the fold.

When asked how long he expected it to take Douglas and Billups to get acclimated again, D'Anonti said "it should be done. We can't afford [to wait]."

It should be done doesn't mean it has been done. The artcile is simply MDA stating the Knicks need to get it done now. What's wrong with that?

martin wrote:

Knicksfan wrote:Martin, do you think D'Antoni is still the right choice for us as a coach? I don't have any agenda pro or con to him, but this does seem like a team that isn't well suited for his offense and the questions on defense seem to never die. I believe he can make this offense run efficiently with our main guys Melo, Amar'e and Billups, but it really seems defense is secondary and like it or not, defense wins championships in the NBA.

Personally I don't believe the Knicks, now with Melo and Billups, should keep D'Antoni. This team seems to be moving towards a more traditional contending team, one that will be moved by its stars and by the defensive play of each in the rotation. But what do you think?

I have no idea if MDA is the right coach, but I do know that he has had 2 or more distinct sets of players each and every year he has been in NY. How can anyone be fairly judged on that type of lack-of-continuity?

If Riley had first coached the 90's Knicks would everyone have said that he was a defensive-only coach and probably should never be on a 80's Lakers-like team with Worthy, Magic, Kareem? I mean, those Knicks were INEPT at getting baskets when they needed them; was that Riley's fault or did the Knicks just not have talent within the offense?

I don't understand the argument that MDA can't coach defense. He has never had players that doubled as defensive players, and so to maximize his teams' output with the Suns, he maximized the offense, which kind of makes sense to me. On his PHO teams, he never had a big, defensive, intimidating C; he had Amare at PF and we all know his lack of defensive skills and even effort on that end of the court; and he had Nash, who for all of his wonders on offense is a major league SIV on defense (and when he either goes under a pick, which he does more than Duhon, or when his guy blows past him, it makes the C/PF do double duty and they weren't strong to begin with).

It's like giving Jeff Gordon a Civic Hatchback and asking him to win a NASCAR event. Does it make him a bad NASCAR driver or did he really ever have a chance?