nixluva wrote:Come on guys you really are being totally unreasonable. That's to be expected with some fans in NY. Being unreasonable is almost expected from NY fans. Like wanting a winning team and then being impatient as that team rebuilds to become a winner. This team is finally going in a great direction and that's not enough for some people.

In answer to your questions, the other teams are pretty good. They were able to survive the loss of a talent because they actually had more talent on the team. We pretty much spent 2 years tearing our team down so that we could get STAT, we threw a bunch of new guys together and had to blend those players together and then you also had the big trade. In addition all those coaches you mentioned did a great job. You put those 2 things together and you can have a good year. The Knicks had a totally different situation going on here, but let's forget all the major change we had coming into the season, the stress of the fear leading up to the trade deadline, then all the adjusting after the trade and then the injuries in the playoffs. Just ignore all of that tho.

Bulls new players for 2010-2011 season....Boozer/Watson/Korver/Brewer/Bogans/Thomas/Asik/Scalabrine/Butler<-------huh? Noah/Boozer/Brewer missed several games...... where is there evident talent outside of Rose and Deng? A team you stated you weren't impressed with

franco12 wrote:I've been meaning to ask in a post if it means anything that we got swept.

I mean, pretty amazing that the knicks were the only team swept.

It doesn''t matter. We haven't been in the playoffs in years. Two all stars for that kind of improvement is great. If you want to advance to the 2nd round we'll need 2 more. But the system works and we proved it!

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

Juice wrote:

nixluva wrote:Come on guys you really are being totally unreasonable. That's to be expected with some fans in NY. Being unreasonable is almost expected from NY fans. Like wanting a winning team and then being impatient as that team rebuilds to become a winner. This team is finally going in a great direction and that's not enough for some people.

In answer to your questions, the other teams are pretty good. They were able to survive the loss of a talent because they actually had more talent on the team. We pretty much spent 2 years tearing our team down so that we could get STAT, we threw a bunch of new guys together and had to blend those players together and then you also had the big trade. In addition all those coaches you mentioned did a great job. You put those 2 things together and you can have a good year. The Knicks had a totally different situation going on here, but let's forget all the major change we had coming into the season, the stress of the fear leading up to the trade deadline, then all the adjusting after the trade and then the injuries in the playoffs. Just ignore all of that tho.

Bulls new players for 2011 season....Boozer/Watson/Korver/Brewer/Bogans/Thomas/Asik/Scalabrine/Butler<-------huh? Noah/Boozer/Brewer missed several games where is there evident talent outside of Rose and Deng. A team you stated you weren't impressed with

JrZyHuStLa wrote:No, I rather waste another year of Amare and Carmelo's career.

Once we get eliminated in the first round next year again, then I'll be advocating a change.

this is exactly what's going to happen.

martin wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:I've been meaning to ask in a post if it means anything that we got swept.

I mean, pretty amazing that the knicks were the only team swept.

at full health, for sure. No Billups and almost no Amare? meaningless for me.

As Knicks fans I'm sure we'd both agree that Stat and Melo > Paul and West.

With that said, we lost Amare and they lost West. But they played a better team and still managed to win 2 games and we won 0.

Why is that excusable to you?

Where is Billups in that equation? Pretty sure I mentioned him as part of the reason why I thought losing 4 was meaningless to me.

Did you not also pay attention to the Melo trade? Where it decimated any depth that the team had and left us with what should be considered a Dleague team?

Dude, are you even trying?

martin, losing game 2 is on MDA. do you agree or disagree?

how do you draw up a play that leaves jeffries as the pick guy -- of course they're going to double of him. the coach drew up a play when he knew a double was coming where our worst finisher and worst guy with the ball in his hands sets the pick and presumably gets the ball. inexcusable in my book and on MDA. we tossed away an epic playoff performance and could've had some momentum going back to MSG. would he have won the series? no, but a win would've been nice and regardless, i think that one is on MDA.

were the odds heavily against the knicks without stat or billups (even with them)? yes. so i'm not pinning the entire series loss on MDA. did the knicks decimate their team in the middle of the season and still make the playoffs? once again, yes. but MDA still hasn't proven me anything. i have yet to see any semblance of an emphasis on D and the one situation really where a coach can not win you the game but definitely lose the game (drawing up the play with 8 seconds left down 1) he makes a completely boneheaded decision to have jeffries basically get the ball.

to the anticipated excuse of "but jeffries had just made a layup!" yes, that is true. that play was also a complete miracle and going BACK TO that as your "go to" bread and butter play out of the timeout is bizarre and we should've lost the game b/c of such a gaffe. we needed a better play out of a timeout than that and MDA failed to deliver.

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:I've been meaning to ask in a post if it means anything that we got swept.

I mean, pretty amazing that the knicks were the only team swept.

at full health, for sure. No Billups and almost no Amare? meaningless for me.

I think you could make a pretty strong argument that having Jeffries in the game coming out of a timeout for the most important offensive sequence in the last 7 years when the opposing team was doubling your star was a pretty meaningful f-up. I think that possession lost the game. I think the end of game coaching in both games 1 and 2 contributed or caused the Knicks to lose. I also think there has been a three year tenure here and while there has been some adversity with the roster there also has been some mistakes, drama, poor coaching, and rigidity on display that I think indicate this guy is not the right coach.

Crush, it is beyond strange to me that in almost any of your posts regarding the history of MDA with the team that you try to put a lot of meaning into what went on with the first 2 years of when he coached. I am not trying to suggest that MDA was making all the right moves and played the right players for every second of meaningful minutes, he certainly did not, but to put the amount of weight you do it really takes away from your arguments. I have seen you put out posts where you site the record MDA has had with the Knicks as very much a losing one and so should be fired, or something to that intent.

Let me try to put it into a perspective that perhaps you can appreciate; I know that you have revealed that you work within a school district, or at least that's what I gather. Let me assume that you have a position as a teacher (for practical purposes, even if you don't I think you can relate). Let us say that the superintendent was going to hold each teacher accountable for his/her students scores as a part of the year end test - some sort of generic Leave No Child Behind test. All the students are evenly distributed to all teachers so that each one has a fair share, except for your class, you are given below average students. And each teacher has the full year to prepare their students for the test, expect you, you get a new group of below average students every 2nd month with only the last group getting test (and only getting the 2 months you have with them for prep).

Would you be happy with that scenario or would you suggest to us that you were at a hint of a disadvantage? And when you came up for a review for your tenure and the superintendent showed you the below average scores of your students compared to the other teachers... would you make a peep about the fact that you didn't have the same kids for more than 2 months, trying to put the situation in perspective for your review, or would you just sit there and suggest to superintendent that you should be let go?

Let me know your thoughts on that.

to just defend MDA with no apologies however isn't the "correct" approach. maybe it isn't right to fire him so soon, as he did just underatke a massive change in roster.

however, what did MDA show me? did he adapt his system at all to accomodate melo and billups? not really. can his system even be adapted? it looks unlikely -- all he coaches is to push the ball and take the first open shot, which has met with great success (albeit no finals appearances) with steve nash as point guard and sub-500 results everywhere else. did the new players struggle initially to adapt to a system that did not mix with their skills? yes. were there grumblings from the new guys that this isn't the way to win? yes. does MDA have a track record of not coaching D and insisting "if you score more, you win" throughout his career? yes. has that theory ever worked? no. did he completely botch the a HUGE chance and an absolutely epic performance from melo by designing a play for arguably the most inept offensive player in the NBA? yes.

give MDA another year, fine. i don't think we're gonna learn anything new and odds are we have a new coach in 12 months. but if you want to be "fair" OR if you just don't think there are any better coaches out there, give MDA another year.

to relate to your scenario, sure, you give the teacher another opportunity. but, what if the superintendent thinks the teacher just plain sucks. it would take balls to just fire him without giving him another year to prove himself so as to not waste the potential of the students.

martin wrote:

BigSm00th wrote:

martin wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:I've been meaning to ask in a post if it means anything that we got swept.

I mean, pretty amazing that the knicks were the only team swept.

at full health, for sure. No Billups and almost no Amare? meaningless for me.

As Knicks fans I'm sure we'd both agree that Stat and Melo > Paul and West.

With that said, we lost Amare and they lost West. But they played a better team and still managed to win 2 games and we won 0.

Why is that excusable to you?

Where is Billups in that equation? Pretty sure I mentioned him as part of the reason why I thought losing 4 was meaningless to me.

Did you not also pay attention to the Melo trade? Where it decimated any depth that the team had and left us with what should be considered a Dleague team?

Dude, are you even trying?

martin, losing game 2 is on MDA. do you agree or disagree?

how do you draw up a play that leaves jeffries as the pick guy -- of course they're going to double of him. the coach drew up a play when he knew a double was coming where our worst finisher and worst guy with the ball in his hands sets the pick and presumably gets the ball. inexcusable in my book and on MDA. we tossed away an epic playoff performance and could've had some momentum going back to MSG. would he have won the series? no, but a win would've been nice and regardless, i think that one is on MDA.

were the odds heavily against the knicks without stat or billups (even with them)? yes. so i'm not pinning the entire series loss on MDA. did the knicks decimate their team in the middle of the season and still make the playoffs? once again, yes. but MDA still hasn't proven me anything. i have yet to see any semblance of an emphasis on D and the one situation really where a coach can not win you the game but definitely lose the game (drawing up the play with 8 seconds left down 1) he makes a completely boneheaded decision to have jeffries basically get the ball.

to the anticipated excuse of "but jeffries had just made a layup!" yes, that is true. that play was also a complete miracle and going BACK TO that as your "go to" bread and butter play out of the timeout is bizarre and we should've lost the game b/c of such a gaffe. we needed a better play out of a timeout than that and MDA failed to deliver.

In retrospect I bet MDA would not have JJ out on the court. But let us put this into perspective: If you think that the game came down to just the very last play, you will have to agree with me that MDA out-coached Doc Rivers by a country mile in Games 2 if you look at it in its entirety. There is no way the Knicks should have even been within 15 points at the end of the game 2.

The only other guy I can think that would have been more appropriate at the end of the game would have been Shawne Williams, but that also means you have zero rebounders in. All small guys, and if a shot is missed, no second chance. I would have to say that even when teams are down 3 points, coaches (all coaches) always have 1 big guy on the court.

I guess if you want to single out the last play, one can blame the coach. Or you can look at it as both Melo and MDA played/coached the entire game brilliantly and both came up short. Lest we forget that Melo is the one with the ball in his hands, double or no double. He also has Roger Mason wide open at the top of the key, no one mentions this; it was Melo who both decided to 1) not take the shot himself 2) not pass to a wide open Mason 3) pass to JJ even though he is open.

Losing is on MDA for last play? I guess. So is being within a shot of beating Boston down Amare and Billups, which is minor miracle.

are you serious? or maybe it was because melo scored 42 and 17 and absolutely carried us in the 2nd half. LOL if you think MDA is the reason the knicks were in that game then what happened in games 3 and 4?

melo had an ALL-TIME playoff performance. thats why we were even sniffing a W (and never came close again). MDA matched wits with doc's play (no double on KG, easy bucket over jeffries with their worst FT shooter rondo well away from the ball) by designing a play for the worst offensive player in the league. awful execution. that loss is on him its not debatable.

it doesn't mean you have no rebounders in, either! it just means you don't run a pick with jared jeffries as the pick man! put jeffries well away from the ball and have him crash the weak side. draw something up where melo doesn't need a pick (maybe have melo SET the pick and then get it in a catch and pop situation).

there are other plays there than doing a pick and roll with melo and jared jeffries with boston FOR SURE doubling. jeffries is obviously gonna get the ball. come on.

martin wrote:

BigSm00th wrote:

martin wrote:

BigSm00th wrote:

martin wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:I've been meaning to ask in a post if it means anything that we got swept.

I mean, pretty amazing that the knicks were the only team swept.

at full health, for sure. No Billups and almost no Amare? meaningless for me.

As Knicks fans I'm sure we'd both agree that Stat and Melo > Paul and West.

With that said, we lost Amare and they lost West. But they played a better team and still managed to win 2 games and we won 0.

Why is that excusable to you?

Where is Billups in that equation? Pretty sure I mentioned him as part of the reason why I thought losing 4 was meaningless to me.

Did you not also pay attention to the Melo trade? Where it decimated any depth that the team had and left us with what should be considered a Dleague team?

Dude, are you even trying?

martin, losing game 2 is on MDA. do you agree or disagree?

how do you draw up a play that leaves jeffries as the pick guy -- of course they're going to double of him. the coach drew up a play when he knew a double was coming where our worst finisher and worst guy with the ball in his hands sets the pick and presumably gets the ball. inexcusable in my book and on MDA. we tossed away an epic playoff performance and could've had some momentum going back to MSG. would he have won the series? no, but a win would've been nice and regardless, i think that one is on MDA.

were the odds heavily against the knicks without stat or billups (even with them)? yes. so i'm not pinning the entire series loss on MDA. did the knicks decimate their team in the middle of the season and still make the playoffs? once again, yes. but MDA still hasn't proven me anything. i have yet to see any semblance of an emphasis on D and the one situation really where a coach can not win you the game but definitely lose the game (drawing up the play with 8 seconds left down 1) he makes a completely boneheaded decision to have jeffries basically get the ball.

to the anticipated excuse of "but jeffries had just made a layup!" yes, that is true. that play was also a complete miracle and going BACK TO that as your "go to" bread and butter play out of the timeout is bizarre and we should've lost the game b/c of such a gaffe. we needed a better play out of a timeout than that and MDA failed to deliver.

In retrospect I bet MDA would not have JJ out on the court. But let us put this into perspective: If you think that the game came down to just the very last play, you will have to agree with me that MDA out-coached Doc Rivers by a country mile in Games 2 if you look at it in its entirety. There is no way the Knicks should have even been within 15 points at the end of the game 2.

The only other guy I can think that would have been more appropriate at the end of the game would have been Shawne Williams, but that also means you have zero rebounders in. All small guys, and if a shot is missed, no second chance. I would have to say that even when teams are down 3 points, coaches (all coaches) always have 1 big guy on the court.

I guess if you want to single out the last play, one can blame the coach. Or you can look at it as both Melo and MDA played/coached the entire game brilliantly and both came up short. Lest we forget that Melo is the one with the ball in his hands, double or no double. He also has Roger Mason wide open at the top of the key, no one mentions this; it was Melo who both decided to 1) not take the shot himself 2) not pass to a wide open Mason 3) pass to JJ even though he is open.

Losing is on MDA for last play? I guess. So is being within a shot of beating Boston down Amare and Billups, which is minor miracle.

are you serious? or maybe it was because melo scored 42 and 17 and absolutely carried us in the 2nd half. LOL if you think MDA is the reason the knicks were in that game then what happened in games 3 and 4?

melo had an ALL-TIME playoff performance. thats why we were even sniffing a W (and never came close again). MDA matched wits with doc's play (no double on KG, easy bucket over jeffries with their worst FT shooter rondo well away from the ball) by designing a play for the worst offensive player in the league. awful execution. that loss is on him its not debatable.

if you are going to only give credit to Melo for carrying team, then why not blame him for passing ball to JJ? he was the one that made the wrong decision.

OMG martin you are better than this!

MDA designed a play where jeffries sets a pick and melo gets the ball on the inbound. melo is immediately doubled by his man and jeffries man. jeffries rolls to the hoop wide open (as predicted since he is the pick guy OF COURSE they are gonna double off him). the night before melo forced the shot and was roasted for it, here he made the right play.

how is that play drawn up? if you're gonna have jeffries in, put him on the other side of the court to cut to the hoop on a rebound opportunity.

are you SERIOUSLY saying that the knicks being in game 2 was becuase of mike d'antoni and not because of carmelo scoring 42 (of the team's 93 points) and getting 17 boards? come on dude.

BigSm00th wrote:OMG martin you are better than this!

MDA designed a play where jeffries sets a pick and melo gets the ball on the inbound. melo is immediately doubled by his man and jeffries man. jeffries rolls to the hoop wide open (as predicted since he is the pick guy OF COURSE they are gonna double off him). the night before melo forced the shot and was roasted for it, here he made the right play.

how is that play drawn up? if you're gonna have jeffries in, put him on the other side of the court to cut to the hoop on a rebound opportunity.

are you SERIOUSLY saying that the knicks being in game 2 was becuase of mike d'antoni and not because of carmelo scoring 42 (of the team's 93 points) and getting 17 boards? come on dude.

Perhaps you can re-read what I wrote, because it is not as you have suggested.

Also, if Melo is so hot scoring 42 of the team's 93, then was it a bad idea by Melo to pass the ball at all? Should he have shot?

This entire argument is crazy given all the change this team has had. This is detrimental to any team trying to build chemistry. There will be more change but hopefully that will slow down and we can have some continuity for a change. I expect this team to be a top 4 team next year. Makes no sense to change the coach. Let's see how things are with a full camp and hopefully some upgrades.

nixluva wrote:The player that mouthed off about plays is just not used to how Mike does things. His style is so different and it depends on the players to be able to make the right BB decision. With so little practice time it's impossible for new guys to absorb all of the concepts. The thing is that when his players spen enough time in the system and it becomes 2nd nature the results are usually very positive. Usually player perform at a higher level.

This entire argument is crazy given all the change this team has had. This is detrimental to any team trying to build chemistry. There will be more change but hopefully that will slow down and we can have some continuity for a change. I expect this team to be a top 4 team next year. Makes no sense to change the coach. Let's see how things are with a full camp and hopefully some upgrades.

In regards to another D'Antoni training camp, D'Antoni's teams have come out of camp the past two years and lost at a horrific rate for the first 10-15 games. I am not sure what goes on in camp but it doesn't appear that the team is ready or anything is set in regards to the rotation until 15-20 games in.