CrushAlot wrote:

nixluva wrote:I just find it funny how facts get overlooked when it comes to Mike and some fans. The guy took over a team full of kids and he played them while still trying to win. IF our young players do exactly what he says they'll be successful here too. AR needs to listen to what his coaches are trying to teach him and not be worried about truthful postgame comments.

Come on man you know what you are writing is bs. The Suns had Amare, Marion, Joe Johnson and Steve Nash that year. The only guy to play under 2900 minutes of that group was Nash. All of the other guys on the roster were not playing. The other starter was Q who played 2800+ minutes. Here is the link to look at stats from that year:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/2005.html
It is pretty convenient to exclude the first year he was in Phoenix with Marion, Johnson, Stoudamire (55 games)and Marbury for part of that year when he was 21-40. D'Antoni was also the coach in Denver in the shortened season of 98 when he won 28% of his games. If your point is that D'Antoni can win with young superstars if he adds an MVP point guard to the team then I think you made it. But praising a coaching job for a roster that had the Matrix, Stat, JJ and Nash is like praising Erik Spolestra this year.

So what's your point? Amar'e was 22, JJ was 23, Barbosa was 22, Hunter was 23, Q was 24 and Jcobsen was 23. Aren't those guys young or do they have to be 18-20 to count?

Amar'e and Joe Johnson were good young players and then adding Nash was a great move by the Suns. I really don't see what you're point is in all of this except that you think somehow that coaches make bad players great. ALL the great coaches needed great players. There are some coaches that are better than others in getting more done with less, but no coach wins with a team full of scrubs or a team that is seriously flawed. I think you're making yourself look bad by using lame reasoning to try and make Mike look like a bad coach. To be sure the 62 wins and a WCF was more than expected of that team so don't try to make it seem like this was a team that expected to be that impressive. They knew they'd be good, but Mike did a great job getting the most out of his team.

nixluva wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

nixluva wrote:I just find it funny how facts get overlooked when it comes to Mike and some fans. The guy took over a team full of kids and he played them while still trying to win. IF our young players do exactly what he says they'll be successful here too. AR needs to listen to what his coaches are trying to teach him and not be worried about truthful postgame comments.

Come on man you know what you are writing is bs. The Suns had Amare, Marion, Joe Johnson and Steve Nash that year. The only guy to play under 2900 minutes of that group was Nash. All of the other guys on the roster were not playing. The other starter was Q who played 2800+ minutes. Here is the link to look at stats from that year:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/2005.html
It is pretty convenient to exclude the first year he was in Phoenix with Marion, Johnson, Stoudamire (55 games)and Marbury for part of that year when he was 21-40. D'Antoni was also the coach in Denver in the shortened season of 98 when he won 28% of his games. If your point is that D'Antoni can win with young superstars if he adds an MVP point guard to the team then I think you made it. But praising a coaching job for a roster that had the Matrix, Stat, JJ and Nash is like praising Erik Spolestra this year.

So what's your point? Amar'e was 22, JJ was 23, Barbosa was 22, Hunter was 23, Q was 24 and Jcobsen was 23. Aren't those guys young or do they have to be 18-20 to count?

Amar'e and Joe Johnson were good young players and then adding Nash was a great move by the Suns. I really don't see what you're point is in all of this except that you think somehow that coaches make bad players great. ALL the great coaches needed great players. There are some coaches that are better than others in getting more done with less, but no coach wins with a team full of scrubs or a team that is seriously flawed. I think you're making yourself look bad by using lame reasoning to try and make Mike look like a bad coach. To be sure the 62 wins and a WCF was more than expected of that team so don't try to make it seem like this was a team that expected to be that impressive. They knew they'd be good, but Mike did a great job getting the most out of his team.

My point is if you add an mvp point guard to Amare who averaged 20 and 9 the previous season, Marion who averaged 19 and 9 plus 1.5 blocks and 2 steals, Joe Johnson who averaged 17, 5 rebs and 4 assists the previous season,Q who averaged 17 and 6 the previous season it is pretty hard not to win. If you play those guys almost 3000 minutes you should win despite any faults that you have as coach. These are all statistical facts not patterns or trends. D'Antoni was in an incredible situation in Phoenix with the talent and leadership he had. Having a point guard that could run a system like he wants to employ may have been a once in a lifetime thing. He needs to adapt and stop waiting for the perfect roster and leader to fall into his lap. How many coaches are there that would not have been successful with his 62 win team? My guess is there are some that could have gotten them farther and possibly to a championship but that is my opinion.