LivingLegend wrote:

fishmike wrote:

EwingsGlass wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Philc1 wrote:Ever wonder why Thibs and neither of the Van Gundy bros have never won a championship as a head coach? They are all very limited at calling offense. Thibs did a great job here but our offense had zero creativity literally Thibs idea of ball movement when he wasn’t calling ISO was players dribbling behind the 3 point line then someone running to the dribbling player to do an exchange not even a pass.

Overly simplistic take that does not factor so many variables.
JVG did not win finals because SAS were simply much better team.

Because they had an offense.

how did OKC's offense look vs. the Pacers? Like during the whole 4th qtr vs the Pacers? How did it look?

I said this after game 1 and saying it again....

Pacers absolutely look like they belong on the floor with OKC and while OKC ran roughshod over most teams this year the Pacers have stood toe-toe with them on both sides of the court. Really impressed with Pacers thus far and how much their younger guys like Nembhart, Nesmith, Mathurin and yes Hali have played.

Pacers ability to get up floor quickly, continue to move the ball and their own bodies has negated a great OKC strength where they can overload the floor against great iso players -- the movement, the quickness of the offense and Hali's ability to create passing angles have really made OKC look normal thus far.

Another huge edge for Indy has been that Turner (and Pascal to a degree) have seemed to totally negate I-Hart --- similar to how I-Hart shrunk as playoffs progressed with Knicks last year.

I think given so much of the issues were communication and that KAT didn't truly have an offseason with the team, you could have made a pretty strong argument to give Thibs another full offseason with this roster to try and get it in order. Enough positive signs were there.

Offense was another story- offense looked ugly all year, yet finished in the top 10 ALL time in offensive rating. So it was ugly, but possibly effective enough? I think the defensive issues were much worse. That said, turnovers killed us vs. Indy - which is largely b/c Thibs ugly ball control offense relies on low turnovers. We never handled the press effectively. He didn't fix that.

My point is I don't think this is a major makeover. There must have been chemsistry issues in the locker room or between the coaching staff and front office that may have been a large cause. Think in the absence of that, there was enough evidence in the results over the year and most recently to stay patient.

VDesai wrote:I think you can safely say for about half to 60% of the playoffs the Knicks looked championship quality on D and not so much the other games. Regular season was a slog defensively for most of the year. It seemed like we were getting closer.

I think given so much of the issues were communication and that KAT didn't truly have an offseason with the team, you could have made a pretty strong argument to give Thibs another full offseason with this roster to try and get it in order. Enough positive signs were there.

Offense was another story- offense looked ugly all year, yet finished in the top 10 ALL time in offensive rating. So it was ugly, but possibly effective enough? I think the defensive issues were much worse. That said, turnovers killed us vs. Indy - which is largely b/c Thibs ugly ball control offense relies on low turnovers. We never handled the press effectively. He didn't fix that.

My point is I don't think this is a major makeover. There must have been chemsistry issues in the locker room or between the coaching staff and front office that may have been a large cause. Think in the absence of that, there was enough evidence in the results over the year and most recently to stay patient.

Knicks are pretty darn close. Having Mitch in the mix really helped the defense, and it was tested against Boston and Indiana. Wonder how it would have been with a full season of available reps.

I'm trying to recall how the Knicks offense was over the course of the season, I dont think it was ugly all year. It certainly was not polished all year by any means. Purely by stats, for Oct-Dec, Knicks were rated top 3 and clearly in the top tier with Boston and Cleveland; I don't know if early on the offense was ugly but that's eye of beerholder.

Team stats: https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/advanced?DateTo=12/31/2024&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&dir=A&sort=OFF_RATING
Player stats: https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional?DateTo=12/31/2024&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612752&dir=A&sort=GP

January is when things fall apart. It's where guys start to miss games, starting with Deuce in Jan (sprinkled in with a few KAT injury games too) and then OG in Feb, Brunson in March. Mitch started back up in March. As a team, Jan to end of regular season in mid April, that **** was ugly.

Knicks could not solve 2-3 problems well enough: secondary ball handling and play-making when teams pressure Brunson. PF/wing on KAT. On court communications, probably mostly on the defensive side of things.

I'm still trying to figure out when Thibs needed to maximize the 5-out offense with KAT. Was it during the Oct-Dec phase when **** was working and the Knicks were a top ~4 team record wise while boasting a stout top 2 offensive rating and only a game behind Boston? It's unfortunate that Deuce was a bit up and down during the first couple months of the season. Perhaps change could have happened in Jan when Deuce was out and not playing well or in Feb when OG was out or in March when Brunson was out? The ask and expectation don't really align with reality.

martin wrote:

VDesai wrote:I think you can safely say for about half to 60% of the playoffs the Knicks looked championship quality on D and not so much the other games. Regular season was a slog defensively for most of the year. It seemed like we were getting closer.

I think given so much of the issues were communication and that KAT didn't truly have an offseason with the team, you could have made a pretty strong argument to give Thibs another full offseason with this roster to try and get it in order. Enough positive signs were there.

Offense was another story- offense looked ugly all year, yet finished in the top 10 ALL time in offensive rating. So it was ugly, but possibly effective enough? I think the defensive issues were much worse. That said, turnovers killed us vs. Indy - which is largely b/c Thibs ugly ball control offense relies on low turnovers. We never handled the press effectively. He didn't fix that.

My point is I don't think this is a major makeover. There must have been chemsistry issues in the locker room or between the coaching staff and front office that may have been a large cause. Think in the absence of that, there was enough evidence in the results over the year and most recently to stay patient.

Knicks are pretty darn close. Having Mitch in the mix really helped the defense, and it was tested against Boston and Indiana. Wonder how it would have been with a full season of available reps.

I'm trying to recall how the Knicks offense was over the course of the season, I dont think it was ugly all year. It certainly was not polished all year by any means. Purely by stats, for Oct-Dec, Knicks were rated top 3 and clearly in the top tier with Boston and Cleveland; I don't know if early on the offense was ugly but that's eye of beerholder.

Team stats: https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/advanced?DateTo=12/31/2024&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&dir=A&sort=OFF_RATING
Player stats: https://www.nba.com/stats/players/traditional?DateTo=12/31/2024&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&TeamID=1610612752&dir=A&sort=GP

January is when things fall apart. It's where guys start to miss games, starting with Deuce in Jan (sprinkled in with a few KAT injury games too) and then OG in Feb, Brunson in March. Mitch started back up in March. As a team, Jan to end of regular season in mid April, that **** was ugly.

Knicks could not solve 2-3 problems well enough: secondary ball handling and play-making when teams pressure Brunson. PF/wing on KAT. On court communications, probably mostly on the defensive side of things.

I'm still trying to figure out when Thibs needed to maximize the 5-out offense with KAT. Was it during the Oct-Dec phase when **** was working and the Knicks were a top ~4 team record wise while boasting a stout top 2 offensive rating and only a game behind Boston? It's unfortunate that Deuce was a bit up and down during the first couple months of the season. Perhaps change could have happened in Jan when Deuce was out and not playing well or in Feb when OG was out or in March when Brunson was out? The ask and expectation don't really align with reality.

KAT is an interesting offensive player. We only played Minnesota 2x per year, so not like I saw dozens and dozens of KAT games before this year. KAT doesn't play anything like a normal big. I've never seen a player his size that loved to drive the ball like a guard from behind the 3 point line as much as he does. He is pretty damn good at it. But so much of his scoring is his ability to blow by or take a center off the dribble from the perimeter.

There aren't many teams that play 5 out, but if you take Boston and Indy as examples, Turner, KP, Horford don't really put the ball on the floor much. They are also likely to take the 3 without hesitating. If KAT thinks the drive is a better option he will pass on the 3 to drive.

What I'm saying in so many words is that I think people are defaulting to the assumption that the Knicks should have played more 5 out, but is KAT really someone who wants to play that way? Obviously people point the finger to Josh - Josh not shooting allows bigs to sag off him and kill spacing. But if KAT shot more 3's over smaller wings, would you be able to get away with throwing a roaming big on Josh? People keep pointing to Thibs not giving KAT enough looks at 3 and Thibs keeping Josh out as killing the 5 out. My point is I don't think its just a Josh thing, even though that's the way it's been painted. KAT needs to let fly more. KAT needs to be better screening for Jalen to get more pick and pop. When those things are working, the offense was working, even with Josh on the floor.

fishmike wrote:

MaTT4281 wrote:The Soul speaks

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://www.twitter.com/joshhart/status/1933283706464026681

+100

Firing Thibs with zero backup plan is wild and a turning into a terrible look

The back up plan is due diligence process that is not include keeping Thibs around while they consider the options to create a better public image. When it happens. Its not fair to the Thibs or the organization to operate in secret. Kind of a proper consideration is coaches don’t usually interview if thre is a current coach. At least not in this era. Phil Jax sat with dolan at a game when JVG was coaching and there was a public outcry. Phil I believe never publically negotiated or did organizations say anything. JVG went to finals and Phil took laker job.

What about Johnny Bryant with Mike Brown as assistant? Fact is mike brown was only 31 games into a 3 yr. 30mil contract. Is associate head caoch a harder job then head coach? Im not clairvoyant like PHilC but I can assume he not coming for the money? Maybe assistant is still a great gig rather than the noise and accountability of a head coach.

VDesai wrote:I think you can safely say for about half to 60% of the playoffs the Knicks looked championship quality on D and not so much the other games. Regular season was a slog defensively for most of the year. It seemed like we were getting closer.

I think given so much of the issues were communication and that KAT didn't truly have an offseason with the team, you could have made a pretty strong argument to give Thibs another full offseason with this roster to try and get it in order. Enough positive signs were there.

Offense was another story- offense looked ugly all year, yet finished in the top 10 ALL time in offensive rating. So it was ugly, but possibly effective enough? I think the defensive issues were much worse. That said, turnovers killed us vs. Indy - which is largely b/c Thibs ugly ball control offense relies on low turnovers. We never handled the press effectively. He didn't fix that.

My point is I don't think this is a major makeover. There must have been chemsistry issues in the locker room or between the coaching staff and front office that may have been a large cause. Think in the absence of that, there was enough evidence in the results over the year and most recently to stay patient.

I don't think we ever looked championship level on D -- not even close. How could we with Jalen/Kat/Josh playing close to 40 a night.

I hope he’s coaching again next season. It’s obviously what he loves to do.

LivingLegend wrote:

Nalod wrote:Brown has been assistan on 4 championship teams. I assume he learned quite a lot over the years.
Woodson is now assistant at SAC after tough IU stint in college. He there to mentor Christie.

What about Johnny Bryant with Mike Brown as assistant? Fact is mike brown was only 31 games into a 3 yr. 30mil contract. Is associate head caoch a harder job then head coach? Im not clairvoyant like PHilC but I can assume he not coming for the money? Maybe assistant is still a great gig rather than the noise and accountability of a head coach.

I am the anti Johnny Bryant poster on this board - I don't see the allure to be honest.

If we did go for an unproven and I don't know much about most assistants I'd bet on the guy coming from Riley/Spoelstra/Heat culture and Chis Quinn.

Me personally I think we need a guy with head coach experience with a solid (not necessarily great record).

Think Kidd would be 1 and Jenkins 2. I think Kidd could still be in play and I'm excluding a guy like Udoka.

I would add though Nalod that if it is an assistant being promoted to HC like a Bryant - than yes a guy like Brown as asst. head coach would be the play.

VDesai wrote:

LivingLegend wrote:

VDesai wrote:I think you can safely say for about half to 60% of the playoffs the Knicks looked championship quality on D and not so much the other games. Regular season was a slog defensively for most of the year. It seemed like we were getting closer.

I think given so much of the issues were communication and that KAT didn't truly have an offseason with the team, you could have made a pretty strong argument to give Thibs another full offseason with this roster to try and get it in order. Enough positive signs were there.

Offense was another story- offense looked ugly all year, yet finished in the top 10 ALL time in offensive rating. So it was ugly, but possibly effective enough? I think the defensive issues were much worse. That said, turnovers killed us vs. Indy - which is largely b/c Thibs ugly ball control offense relies on low turnovers. We never handled the press effectively. He didn't fix that.

My point is I don't think this is a major makeover. There must have been chemsistry issues in the locker room or between the coaching staff and front office that may have been a large cause. Think in the absence of that, there was enough evidence in the results over the year and most recently to stay patient.

I don't think we ever looked championship level on D -- not even close. How could we with Jalen/Kat/Josh playing close to 40 a night.

Then how did we beat Boston? We shut down Boston for long stretches and several games.

Not having KP chip in on both ends like he did last year was a factor.

LivingLegend wrote:

VDesai wrote:I think you can safely say for about half to 60% of the playoffs the Knicks looked championship quality on D and not so much the other games. Regular season was a slog defensively for most of the year. It seemed like we were getting closer.

I think given so much of the issues were communication and that KAT didn't truly have an offseason with the team, you could have made a pretty strong argument to give Thibs another full offseason with this roster to try and get it in order. Enough positive signs were there.

Offense was another story- offense looked ugly all year, yet finished in the top 10 ALL time in offensive rating. So it was ugly, but possibly effective enough? I think the defensive issues were much worse. That said, turnovers killed us vs. Indy - which is largely b/c Thibs ugly ball control offense relies on low turnovers. We never handled the press effectively. He didn't fix that.

My point is I don't think this is a major makeover. There must have been chemsistry issues in the locker room or between the coaching staff and front office that may have been a large cause. Think in the absence of that, there was enough evidence in the results over the year and most recently to stay patient.

I don't think we ever looked championship level on D -- not even close. How could we with Jalen/Kat/Josh playing close to 40 a night.

When Mitch was in the floor in the playoffs with OG and Mikal we had an excellent defensive lineup just ask Tatum.