Knicks1969 wrote:Jackson is to be blamed for hiring the wrong guy with zero experience to coach a NewYork ball club. The idea was crazy then, and it is still crazy now. Do you think Mark Jackson would look this bad? After all, the team that won last year was assembled and coached by Mark for the previous three years

agreed , we need a coach with some energy and a better offense

blkexec wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:

crzymdups wrote:They need a major upgrade of talent in the back court. I like Afflalo, but probably more as a sixth man to anchor the scoring off the bench.

We desperately need a starting caliber PG and a knock down shooter / defender at SG.

But, really, I worry this issue is about the system. I hate the spacing on this team. I hate that the system asks Lopez and Seraphin to make passing decisions. I hate that the shots it get us are weird jumpers for Lance Thomas and bad shots for Melo. KP is thriving, but he'd probably look even better in a spread offense.

I don't know. We lack talent, but I think a lot of this is the system we play.

We need a PG. A real penetrator a la Rose. But there is not a trade we can do that can better this team if we don't have someone on the sideline that can use the talents

The system didn't originate on the sideline, with Fish. The system is Phil's. He will go down in flames before he abandons the Triangle. He got us KP, but I feel his obsession with trying to prove the Triangle right will be his undoing here.

Is the system the problem or the instructor?

The system is outdated - it was created before there was a three point shot. It was created in a different era when harder fouls happened and players were less athletic and didn't have video of every player and every play handed to them by the coaching staff to review before a game.

The system is outdated. It makes it hard to judge Fisher. I don't hate Fisher, but it is hard to judge him. The talent on this roster was widely predicted to win 30 games. They are running a system from another era that has only succeeded in modern times with two in their prime hall of famers. If we had Kobe in his prime and Melo in his prime, I'm sure we'd all think Fisher was a genius.

I beg to differ. The system is not the problem at all. GS, Spurs, and many other teams are using certain version of it. It takes a great instructor to tutor/mold guys to be great. The system is not the problem

I agree and disagree.

I agree the system is not the problem.
I disagree that the problem is the instructor (Fisher).

You've already said look at GS as an example.....If they had our roster, do you think they would be undefeated?

The problem is the talent on the roster. Melo is not the normal NBA star with multiple talents. He has one top talent, which is scoring.....After that, everything else is average or below.....including his leadership on and off the court. He tried this summer, and he will continue to try and improve, but right now, thats what he is.

KP is the other young talent, but he's a rookie....And if a rookie is your second best player....(right now best player)....Then we have major roster problems.
My thing is, we won 17 games last year, because of the roster. We are not going to just be a 50 win team the next year, with a new roster of backups.

If you create an allstar team right now, Melo would be the 6th man off the bench.....coming in firing. Thats what he likes to do, and thats the role he prefers. He doesn't want to lead, doesn't want to pass....just make buckets. Thats fine with me. But outside of Melo, we really don't have starter quality players. Most good teams not only have legit NBA starters....but they also have starters coming off the bench. We have bench players starting....and D league players coming off the bench.

The roster is the problem....not the system or coach! And GS as you mentioned, is a great example of that.

As per Merryam-Webster, a coach is a person who teaches and trains the members of a sports team and makes decisions about how the team plays during games. Can you honestly say that the person we have on the sideline currently is capable of doing the aforementioned?

It is not a coincidence why GS is such a great team; they are well coached. The Spurs are well coached. The Knicks are terrible, because they are terribly coached. Hire Marc Jackson or Walton to guide this current roster and the result will be different. They know how to manage talents.

I still think OQuinn and Affalo were good value signings. Bringing in Sasha made little to no sense, unless he really is helping KP transition easier.

Centers get overpaid, that's just the way it goes. We can still find a way for Lopez to be valuable. Fisher just needs to find a way to use his rotations better.

That is probably his biggest mistake. Giving a coach with no expierenxe a 5 year deal at elite coach salary.

LOok how many teams are lining up to hire him in the aftermath of his dismissal? Blaming the coach is always the easiest way to vent.

Knicks1969 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Mark Jax was not the reason Warrior became contenders. He was the reason they did not do better.

LOok how many teams are lining up to hire him in the aftermath of his dismissal? Blaming the coach is always the easiest way to vent.

What was the Warriors record before the arrival of Jackson?? Steph curry became a markey name under Mark's tutelage. Give credit where credit is due. This league is very funny, it is directed and led by owners

New owner and change from the top to the bottom. Jax did ok but you do a young team can also have progressed with someone else. Im not saying he did a bad job but its not like he was handed a good team either. They built thru good trades and draft. Overall the culture had changed with new owner.

Then Jax left. Team went from 55 wins to world champs. Kerr did a very good job of BUILDING on what Jax did. Of course, Interm coach Walton is undefeated. Given this, one might say its a team effort and the warriors are cultural.

Likewise knicks are very early in this process and after DECADES just drafted a player to build with. The roster outside of Melo and now KP is not overly talented and thus expectation to execute might be tempered.
Had Kerr taken over instead of fish one cannot imagine the outcomes being that much different and at 3 games under .500 one quarter of the season in I cannot call for his head as you have done with Rainman like consistency and redundancy.

My faith in Fish is not so much him but the team that now runs KNick basketball that has either been successful individually or as part of an organization in the past. Thus not all of it should be on Fish.
At the same time when in full rainman mode you seem to lack a detailed alternative to the culture that by all practical corporate standards is in its infancy. I believe our 15 year history has had about 7 coaching changes and 5 or 6 Gm's. That tells me a lot.

As a fan you can rant and rave about change but that in itself is not the conduit for improvement. Sure the Warriors upgraded Jax after he took the team about as far as he could. He was Lacobs first coaching hire and in time the organization around him evolved to the point Jax could not exist for many reasons and internally was a problem.

Jax and Fish have similar backgrounds as both had long NBA careers. Jax lacked championship experience but spend time in the broadcast booth which fish did not. Both had some marital problems early in coaching career and both got young teams to build with. IN Fish's case Phil and his band of Bling is the prevailing culture while the Warrior evolved. Eventually they did hire the Suns president (openly gay) and which he had a good relationship with Kerr. Jax team eventually underperformed in the playoffs, his extramarital affairs, traveling, and weird thing with an assistant coach showed he was not consistant for the culture that became the Warriors. It happens.

Did you watch all warrior games early on and pick on his coaching mistakes? Both he and fish had experienced staff around them for buffering. Are the situations parallel?

Im not happy with all fish has done but im not sure any magic man could have done much better and we have to give him props for KP. I'd even say its all on the coaching STAFF as much as him.

You don't like him. WE get it. If the guy is a disaster I would hope he would be replaced and you'll get kudo's for the early call.

Knicks1969 wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:

crzymdups wrote:They need a major upgrade of talent in the back court. I like Afflalo, but probably more as a sixth man to anchor the scoring off the bench.

We desperately need a starting caliber PG and a knock down shooter / defender at SG.

But, really, I worry this issue is about the system. I hate the spacing on this team. I hate that the system asks Lopez and Seraphin to make passing decisions. I hate that the shots it get us are weird jumpers for Lance Thomas and bad shots for Melo. KP is thriving, but he'd probably look even better in a spread offense.

I don't know. We lack talent, but I think a lot of this is the system we play.

We need a PG. A real penetrator a la Rose. But there is not a trade we can do that can better this team if we don't have someone on the sideline that can use the talents

The system didn't originate on the sideline, with Fish. The system is Phil's. He will go down in flames before he abandons the Triangle. He got us KP, but I feel his obsession with trying to prove the Triangle right will be his undoing here.

Is the system the problem or the instructor?

Stop already. It's just blathering at this point. Everyone knows about your disdain for the coach.

Nalod wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:Jackson was always known to be a pure PG/maestro on the court. Fisher was known as Mr. Big shot, and nothing else. He does not have eyes for the game like Kidd or Jackson. In my opinion, he can't coach.

Fish was seen as leader. Had really impressed leading the players association and got great reviews as a clubhouse leader and motivator where ever he played.

In your opinion he can't coach. In my opinion your redundant without bringing new views to support your theory other than the obvious after a loss. NObody is saying he is a good coach yet.
PHil was an awkward professional bench player. He has more rings as a head coach than any other human. He did not have on court maestro vision. Kidd and Jax were really really good HOF type PG's.
Fish is not a HOF talent. Not many of the better coach's have that either. What about Kerr?

This.

Knicks1969, you got anything more to add than the robotic posts?

Knicks1969 wrote:

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:Jackson was always known to be a pure PG/maestro on the court. Fisher was known as Mr. Big shot, and nothing else. He does not have eyes for the game like Kidd or Jackson. In my opinion, he can't coach.

Fish was seen as leader. Had really impressed leading the players association and got great reviews as a clubhouse leader and motivator where ever he played.

In your opinion he can't coach. In my opinion your redundant without bringing new views to support your theory other than the obvious after a loss. NObody is saying he is a good coach yet.
PHil was an awkward professional bench player. He has more rings as a head coach than any other human. He did not have on court maestro vision. Kidd and Jax were really really good HOF type PG's.
Fish is not a HOF talent. Not many of the better coach's have that either. What about Kerr?

This.

Knicks1969, you got anything more to add than the robotic posts?

Kerr's front office stint; as well as, being an analyst for many years prepared him for the success that he has exuded thus far. I just hate when you all decide to compare fisher to Kidd. Those two have seen and played the game at a different prism.

You will need to help us understand how a front office stint and/or analyst prepares a person for coaching over say the president of the players union.

Also, please detail for me how Kidd is doing this year. Seems like the end-all, team record in a vacuum, suggests that Kidd is doing worse that Fisher.

martin wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:Jackson was always known to be a pure PG/maestro on the court. Fisher was known as Mr. Big shot, and nothing else. He does not have eyes for the game like Kidd or Jackson. In my opinion, he can't coach.

Fish was seen as leader. Had really impressed leading the players association and got great reviews as a clubhouse leader and motivator where ever he played.

In your opinion he can't coach. In my opinion your redundant without bringing new views to support your theory other than the obvious after a loss. NObody is saying he is a good coach yet.
PHil was an awkward professional bench player. He has more rings as a head coach than any other human. He did not have on court maestro vision. Kidd and Jax were really really good HOF type PG's.
Fish is not a HOF talent. Not many of the better coach's have that either. What about Kerr?

This.

Knicks1969, you got anything more to add than the robotic posts?

Kerr's front office stint; as well as, being an analyst for many years prepared him for the success that he has exuded thus far. I just hate when you all decide to compare fisher to Kidd. Those two have seen and played the game at a different prism.

You will need to help us understand how a front office stint and/or analyst prepares a person for coaching over say the president of the players union.

Also, please detail for me how Kidd is doing this year. Seems like the end-all, team record in a vacuum, suggests that Kidd is doing worse that Fisher.

Front office experience helps a coach like Kerr to know what talent necessary to fit a certain system. In that position, he would often confer with coaches and finance guys to see through a perfect solution. As an analyst, he is surrounded by former great players and coaches. Which exposes him to an array of ideas.

As for Kidd's coaching career, you simply can't compare him with Fisher. The numbers simply don't lie. Try to compare fisher's first 100 games to Kidd's::::)))

Knicks1969 wrote:

martin wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:

martin wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:Jackson was always known to be a pure PG/maestro on the court. Fisher was known as Mr. Big shot, and nothing else. He does not have eyes for the game like Kidd or Jackson. In my opinion, he can't coach.

Fish was seen as leader. Had really impressed leading the players association and got great reviews as a clubhouse leader and motivator where ever he played.

In your opinion he can't coach. In my opinion your redundant without bringing new views to support your theory other than the obvious after a loss. NObody is saying he is a good coach yet.
PHil was an awkward professional bench player. He has more rings as a head coach than any other human. He did not have on court maestro vision. Kidd and Jax were really really good HOF type PG's.
Fish is not a HOF talent. Not many of the better coach's have that either. What about Kerr?

This.

Knicks1969, you got anything more to add than the robotic posts?

Kerr's front office stint; as well as, being an analyst for many years prepared him for the success that he has exuded thus far. I just hate when you all decide to compare fisher to Kidd. Those two have seen and played the game at a different prism.

You will need to help us understand how a front office stint and/or analyst prepares a person for coaching over say the president of the players union.

Also, please detail for me how Kidd is doing this year. Seems like the end-all, team record in a vacuum, suggests that Kidd is doing worse that Fisher.

Front office experience helps a coach like Kerr to know what talent necessary to fit a certain system. In that position, he would often confer with coaches and finance guys to see through a perfect solution. As an analyst, he is surrounded by former great players and coaches. Which exposes him to an array of ideas.

As for Kidd's coaching career, you simply can't compare him with Fisher. The numbers simply don't lie. Try to compare fisher's first 100 games to Kidd's::::)))

The only thing Kerr has over Fisher is Steph Curry......

The reason (in my opinion) why Mark Jackson wasn't as successful as Kerr......1)Mark Jackson is a control freak 2)Steph is a better player.

Enter Steve Kerr....It's a perfect storm. Kerr is hands off. He doesn't restrict Steph and allows him to play his game. Fisher / Phil and company doesn't allow their star to play free basketball. They force players into a system. Thats not a coaching issue.....thats a Phil's system issue. Nobody knows what Fisher brings to the table, but he is a proven leader of men. I know players wanted to play for him before he even coached one game. The same wasn't said about Kerr......

As Fisher moves from under Phil's wings, and thats when we will see the real Fish......right now, Phil is still his crutch. Again, if Kerr was the coach of this team, we might have 1 extra win......

BRIGGS wrote:Its pretty simple. I dont think he gets the game anymore--he might be a dinosaur. If you really dont think basketball has changed watch a Warriors game.
This is no longer 1991 where teams get into the halfcourt--a player like Robin Lopez is merely a back up on a good team now but we paid him like a featured starter.

I think Phil DID NOT want KP and he lucked into him or hed probably have quit by now.

to your first point - that may be true this year, but the cap jumps from $67 million this year to $89 million next year, and $108 million the following year. so in years 2-3-4 of Lopez's deal, for a big man, he'll be paid like a middle of the road center, which he is. to put that in perspective, this year Lopez is taking up 18% of our cap space. next year, that number falls to 15%, and the following year that falls to 13%.

to your second point - that obviously makes no sense. we drafted KP, he clearly "wanted" him LOL