Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by SeatsBlue:

No Kidd, Carter, Webber, Dalembert and all these fans are giddy over the sample-sized results.

And its up to you to save the day and bring them back to earth right. Good job.

And it's up to you to tell SeatsBlue not to say such things?

I didn't tell him not to say such things. I congradulated him on a good job of bringing those guys who are getting giddy over 2 meaningless preseason games back to earth.

But if you want to keep playing the game

And its up to you to comment me on telling Seatsblue not to say such things right. Great job

Woah, guess I somehow hit a nerve with that comment? I was only commenting on what you said because someone could have easily said the same thing to you about making snide comments directed at Seats. Didn't realize it was that time of the month, sorry.

Posted by bigbeast:

Posted by SeatsBlue:

Posted by crzymdups:

the bottom line is Larry is a traditionally horrible offensive coach. he's a defense first guy and has never coached good offensive teams. that's one of the reasons I thought he would be such a horrible fit here.

So Zeke acquired one dimensional players is that what you are saying? Are you saying there is only 1 coach who could coach this team? Weren't the Pistons better offensively under Flip but failed in terms of overall success vs Larry. If Larry is so bad offesnively why did he win on every level? Is Pop, Carlisle, Skiles, Dunleavy, Van Gundy, Riley bad coaches because they are cut from a defensive cloth?

The difference between Riles and Brown is that Riles is willing and able to adjust to his roster. He totatly changed his style from run and gun to brutish/boarderline thuggish bball when he took over the knick roster. He adaptd to a style of play he hated when he coached the Lake-show anw ent up againt the BadBoys and even those celtic teams.

The problem with Brown is he can't or is too stubbonr to adjust. In fact. I remember after the Heat slaughter us int the Garden, after the game Riley said of the Knicks "The cubbard aint bare" There is no way the Knicks would have had only 23 wins if Riles was on the bench.

Posted by bigbeast:

Posted by SeatsBlue:

Posted by crzymdups:

the bottom line is Larry is a traditionally horrible offensive coach. he's a defense first guy and has never coached good offensive teams. that's one of the reasons I thought he would be such a horrible fit here.

So Zeke acquired one dimensional players is that what you are saying? Are you saying there is only 1 coach who could coach this team? Weren't the Pistons better offensively under Flip but failed in terms of overall success vs Larry. If Larry is so bad offesnively why did he win on every level? Is Pop, Carlisle, Skiles, Dunleavy, Van Gundy, Riley bad coaches because they are cut from a defensive cloth?

The difference between Riles and Brown is that Riles is willing and able to adjust to his roster. He totatly changed his style from run and gun to brutish/boarderline thuggish bball when he took over the knick roster. He adaptd to a style of play he hated when he coached the Lake-show and went up againt the BadBoys and even those celtic teams.

The problem with Brown is he can't or is too stubbonr to adjust. In fact. I remember after the Heat slaughter us int the Garden, after the game Riley said of the Knicks "The cubbard aint bare" There is no way the Knicks would have had only 23 wins if Riles was on the bench.


[Edited by - bigbeast on 10-15-2006 9:38 PM]

Posted by nyk4ever:

My whole problem with all this crap about the new offense is that scoring a million points never wins in the playoffs. This is my main problem, Offense notoriously wins in the regular season but in the postseason, the game slows and defense wins, it happens every year. Even Miami, last years champs, scored 100ppg and gave up 96ppg managed to bring down the opponents PPG to 92, that makes a big difference. I just worry that this team really does NOT have defenders on it to do so, of course Jeffries and Balkman are two guys you can look at who DO defend but thats not saying a whole lot in terms of the TEAM defense, especially since they play the same position. Marbury and Francis consistently let their men blow past them on defense and the Knicks don't have any player that is a reliable help defender.

I admit it, watching the preseason game against the Nets was fun, it was fun to see the Knicks score a bunch of points and have a good time out there, but I'm not so sure thats the way to go about it. What really bothers me is that that it looked to me like breakdown of offense and defense was about 80/20 for the Knicks. Expend 80% energy on offense and expend the remaining 20% on defese, now thats not meant to be taken literal but you get what I mean. The Nets scored 97 points on the the Knicks while having both Kidd AND Carter on the bench. This is what really worries me, because the Nets backups are nothing to be scared of and the Knicks regulars couldn't even stop them, thats a BAD sign.

I know alot of people just want to watch the Knicks play well again but I want to watch a team that is built for a championship and I don't think this is the way to go about it with this offensive mentality that they will just outscore opponents. The Suns have the talent level to play this style, I just don't think the Knicks do.

You seem to be a product of the modern era. You assume that defense is the only way, but that's a NEW development.

You are right about scoring in recent history, but if you look back to the 80's and previous to that you will find that many of the great championship team were offensive powerhouses.

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by wsdm:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by wsdm:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by tomverve:

Posted by BlueSeats:

Ironically, this is not so far from what Brown was trying to do with a quickly initiated offense with the PG being but one distributor, without a reliance on the pick and roll and penetrate and dish, and with movement off the ball. Isiah is obviously more likable, but what he's asking of his guys probably isn't all that fundamentally different than Brown.

This is perhaps true in a broad sense, but the devil seems to be in the details. If there were not significant differences between Isiah's and Larry's offensive systems, I don't think we'd be hearing as many "night and day" quotes as we already have. In an analogy, maybe they're both socialist systems, but Larry was a dictator and it seems Isiah is running more of a democracy.

Maybe, we just don't know from where we stand, so I shorthanded it into Isiah (and/or his approach) being more likable.

But we all know, and it's all too redundant by now, that in the past Brown was initially perceived as unlikable, but the players did their jobs regardless and learned to love his teachings after they "got it." Our guys never got it. Hopefully now they will. And, hopefully, if Isiah departs they'll get it from the next guy. It's my continued hope they will evolve or get sent elsewhere.

So it's like two professors who are both geniuses: One can't teach his students and goes through complicated stuff no one understands (Brown), whereas the other knows how to connect with the students on their level (Isiah). I'm glad the students are taking classes with the latter now.

And where do all the other coaches of the likes of Marbury, Francis, Curry, Jalen, et al, fit in?

...as better "professors" than Brown was, no doubt.

*Note to self: some day research Steph's past coaches, like: Flip, Lenny, Scott, Skiles, Calipari, Brown, etc, and check their records with vs without Marbury to judge the quality of the professors vs the student.*

This thread's not about Marbury. It's about the fifteen man Knicks roster coached improperly last year.

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by wsdm:

This thread's not about Marbury. It's about the fifteen man Knicks roster coached improperly last year.

I thought it was about the new Knicks "formula". Hard to talk about formulas without talking about formula killers.

it is about the formula. this year this is one. last year there wasn't. hard to kill something that doesn't exist.

Posted by oohah:

My whole problem with all this crap about the new offense is that scoring a million points never wins in the playoffs. This is my main problem, Offense notoriously wins in the regular season but in the postseason, the game slows and defense wins, it happens every year. Even Miami, last years champs, scored 100ppg and gave up 96ppg managed to bring down the opponents PPG to 92, that makes a big difference.

You are right about scoring in recent history, but if you look back to the 80's and previous to that you will find that many of the great championship team were offensive powerhouses.

I think a lot of what has changed has been the whole game. The NBA keeps trying year after year to get the scoring up like it was in the past, with all kinds of rule changes.

I have solution: Stop letting the defnsive players mug the offensive players (Unless your name is D Wade etc.). Make them play the defense thaqt is defined in the rulebook. They won't stop the offense as much but when they do it will be because of real defense.

Also, make the offensive players play by the rule book. I would love to see that.

oohah