nychamp wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:Personally I think basketball is a players game. I never give the coach too much credit or blame. We fire coaches way too much nowadays in my view. D'Antoni suffered the last two years because he had an awful roster and situation. Let's examine the roster

DAvid Lee-starter and 3rd/4th option for a 8-16 team.
Danilo Gallinari-4th option on current team
Wilson Chandler-2nd or 3rd option on current team
Al Harrington-Back up
Nate Robinson-bench player
Chris Duhon-bench player
Jordan Hill-Bench player
Eddie House-Bench player
Larry Hughes-Is he in the league?
Jared Jeffries-Bench player struggling to get minutes
Tracy McGrady-Bench player. Just can't give substantial minutes
Darko-Starter averaging under 10 points per game
Sergio Rodriguez-Out of league
Bill WAlker-Glued to bench

What rational fan would think that a coach could win with this roster? The question to me was never about whether this guy can coach. He's proven that he can coach. There should be absolutely no rational fan that should be questioning his coaching ability. The only question that remains to be seen is, IS HE A CHAMPIONSHIP COACH?

Much of the above is true for me, especially doubts about Dantoni's brand of bball being championship style, but nevertheless I would expect a very good/great coach to be capable of getting sigficantly more out of the last two years with respect to team building and winning more games. He is fortunate to have Amare as player leader this year which helps dantoni be much more effective. DAntoni showed that he alone didn't wield any magic, and was unable to whip up even a decent team from a mediocre roster.

There is no coach in this league wielding any magic. All the good teams have good players that are also leaders. Can't win without them.

Bippity10 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:Crush, here is something else to consider: Donnie and MDA wanted to keep Lee's value as high as they could because they knew they had to trade him. And perhaps they also wanted to keep the #'s for Chandler and Gallo VERY high to show the likes of LeBron, Amare, Wade, Bosh, JJohnson that those 2 were value pieces to play next to.

And considering that, and knowing that TD is not really a facilitator of a PG, does it really make sense to play him all the time?

What you are asking for is a black and white scenario or a formula for minutes played for TD that is impossible to pinpoint and not really worth spending time on. At this point, who cares.

I think he deserved some minutes in every game. I agree with your points in your earlier post to some extent and I actually said initially that D'Antoni deserves credit for how is team is playing this year. My point was that he also deserves blame for how he handled things last year and I think his handling of Hill and Douglas stand out the most. On last years team I don't think Toney should get 26 dnps in the first 63 games. He has been much less rigid in his distribution of minutes this year.

That's a different argument(and a more logical argument) then the "D'Antoni doesn't play rookies" tired and patently false argument. If you were coach you would have handled Hill and Douglas differently. That's fine, but remember it doesn't make you right and teh coach wrong especially not knowing the circumstance. Trust me I've had countless times where I've been criticized for a decision, called dumb etc. Then the person finds out what really happened behind closed doors and they come to the conclusion that they would have made the same decision if they were me. this is why I don't criticize for things I don't know.

I'll add this. We are looking at last season and knowing that the Knicks would end up at 29-53. If Donnie and Walsh knew they were not going to make playoffs and fall flat on their faces AND be forced to clear JJ off of the cap, there is no doubt in my mind that minutes would have been distributed differently, especially Hill's.

TMS wrote:seems to me that there are more people around here that never want to lay any blame at the coach's feet for past failures than there are people that want to refuse to give him any credit for the team's current success... personally i think MDA has done a good job w/the team this year & having Amare & Felton at his side to actually lead by example played a huge role in their success... but you'd be blind to deny that the past 2 years were horrible & you can't simply absolve MDA of any blame for the way the team played the past 2 years either.

Again, false and based on nothing. My only question is, how do you criticize a guy when you don't know the circumstances behind the choice that is chosen? Do you do this to your neighbors, friends, ethnic groups? Or do you just reserve it for coaches? Sports figures?

I wanted Hill to play. But he wasn't and I don't know why. I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that D'Antoni had an agenda against Hill any more then I'm going to jump to the conclusion that Hill told the Knicks to go f themselves and that he doesn't want to play here, or was a lazy asse that gave no effort. All I know is the guy didn't play and that there were rumors he wasn't working hard all the time. Rumors that have persisted in HOuston. I also know that if a rookie came into Pat Riley's or Popovich or Sloan's or Jackson's teams and didn't work hard they would be given similar treatment. So if that is the case I understand D'Antoni's decision. Again this is a rumor so I can't criticize Hill based on this rumor. He deserves the same benefit of the doubt as D'Antoni. But, If we find out that D'Antoni had a true agenda against Hill then I would 100% support your opinion that Hill was mistreated. Unfortunately we don't know what happened, so I will criticize neither and just focus on what I actually know. Hill is getting equal benefit of the doubt from me as D'Antoni. So this notion that I'm defending D'Antoni at all costs is false. I defend both of them. The situation wasn't right for the guy to get playing time, and that is what happens sometimes. The fan view of a team is a very shallow view we just refuse to admit it. We know less then 10% of what goes on. I know, I've been there.

I'm taking a similar approach with Randolph, Mason, Rautins etc.

but back to the original point. This notion that D'Antoni "doesn't play rookies"(and this was the basis of most people's arguments last year when discussing Hill and Douglas) is false and based on nothing. If you need more evidence besides the minutes/chances that Gallinari, Douglas, Fields and Mozgov let's look at Leandro Barbosa

21 games before D'Antoni was hired-0 starts and 4.38 minutes
61 games after D'Antoni was hired-45 starts and 23.1 minutes per game

In order for it to be a good argument it has to be based on more then guesses and rumors and feelings.

TMS wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:

TMS wrote:seems to me that there are more people around here that never want to lay any blame at the coach's feet for past failures than there are people that want to refuse to give him any credit for the team's current success... personally i think MDA has done a good job w/the team this year & having Amare & Felton at his side to actually lead by example played a huge role in their success... but you'd be blind to deny that the past 2 years were horrible & you can't simply absolve MDA of any blame for the way the team played the past 2 years either.

Again, false and based on nothing. My only question is, how do you criticize a guy when you don't know the circumstances behind the choice that is chosen? Do you do this to your neighbors, friends, ethnic groups? Or do you just reserve it for coaches? Sports figures?

I wanted Hill to play. But he wasn't and I don't know why. I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that D'Antoni had an agenda against Hill any more then I'm going to jump to the conclusion that Hill told the Knicks to go f themselves and that he doesn't want to play here, or was a lazy asse that gave no effort. All I know is the guy didn't play and that there were rumors he wasn't working hard all the time. Rumors that have persisted in HOuston. I also know that if a rookie came into Pat Riley's or Popovich or Sloan's or Jackson's teams and didn't work hard they would be given similar treatment. So if that is the case I understand D'Antoni's decision. Again this is a rumor so I can't criticize Hill based on this rumor. He deserves the same benefit of the doubt as D'Antoni. But, If we find out that D'Antoni had a true agenda against Hill then I would 100% support your opinion that Hill was mistreated. Unfortunately we don't know what happened, so I will criticize neither and just focus on what I actually know. Hill is getting equal benefit of the doubt from me as D'Antoni. So this notion that I'm defending D'Antoni at all costs is false. I defend both of them. The situation wasn't right for the guy to get playing time, and that is what happens sometimes. The fan view of a team is a very shallow view we just refuse to admit it. We know less then 10% of what goes on. I know, I've been there.

I'm taking a similar approach with Randolph, Mason, Rautins etc.

but back to the original point. This notion that D'Antoni "doesn't play rookies"(and this was the basis of most people's arguments last year when discussing Hill and Douglas) is false and based on nothing. If you need more evidence besides the minutes/chances that Gallinari, Douglas, Fields and Mozgov let's look at Leandro Barbosa

21 games before D'Antoni was hired-0 starts and 4.38 minutes
61 games after D'Antoni was hired-45 starts and 23.1 minutes per game

In order for it to be a good argument it has to be based on more then guesses and rumors and feelings.

i'm basing my comment on the record... u are what the record says you are, isn't that what you've been arguing for the past several years? so u wanna give MDA credit for the turn around in NY, but aren't willing to give him any share of the blame for its past failures because of the roster? is that fair? i don't think it is... i've already conceded that MDA's done a good job w/the team this year, but apparently you & the others aren't willing to concede any fault for the past 2.

the Hill & TD arguments are a completely separate issure here Bip... i didn't even bring up MDA's rotations in this discussion, you did... i'm referring to the PERFORMANCE of the team last year, not on the rotation choices MDA made over the course of the past 2 years... yes, i hold a coach accountable for the performance of his team, whether good or bad... i think that's completely fair... sorry if you disagree.

1.)

"I'm basing my comment on the record"-

2.)

so u wanna give MDA credit for the turn around in NY, but aren't willing to give him any share of the blame for its past failures because of the roster?

At no time did that ever happen in this thread or any other thread. Why do you guys just blatantly make stuff up? What I actually said was "Personally I think basketball is a players game. I never give the coach too much credit or blame. We fire coaches way too much nowadays in my view." This has been a consistent theme of mine through Chaney, Williams, Wilkens (with a break for Brown and Isiah) and now D'Antoni. How did you miss that over the years?

3.) Reality is(and please read carefully so we don't ahve to talk about this I don't "blame" D'Antoni nonsense)I think a lot of people are to blame for last years record. Some directly, some indirectly. They include: The entire roster, D'Antoni, the coaching staff, Walsh, Layden, Isiah, Dolan and some others. I thought we'd win 30-35 games. We won 29. I can't "blame" a coach for reaching my expectation. He didn't do a good job, because a good job would mean he won 35+ according to my expectations. But winning 29 to me does not mean he did a bad job. He simply met expectations. Now this year I thought we had 45 win talent but predicted 38-41 due to injuries and issues that may crop up. That means if he wins in the 38-45 range he met my expectations. So I'm not going to give him "credit" for anything. He did what any capable coach did and that is meet my expectations. Now if he wins 50 I praise him. If he wins 35, 33, 30 hell yeah I'm going to blame him. Does this make sense to you?

4.)"

u are what the record says you are, isn't that what you've been arguing for the past several years?"-

e.) What I've actually said is that when we get better players, we will be a better team. When we get defensive players we will play defense. When we get guys that like to move the ball, the ball will move. Same offense, same coach, ball moves better this eyar and team plays better defense. D'Antoni deserves some credit for the better play as much as he does the "blame" for last years. But reality is, the players make it happen.

*.)The Hill and TD arguments-Of course those are seperate issues. But since you injected yourself into the conversation a page or two into the thread you missed that I brought that up to counter Crushalots surprise over the rigid D'Antoni giving in and playing two rookes, Mozgov and Fields. I was pointing out that this notion that he does not play rookies was a myth and so we talked about that for a while. Then you came along.

Mike came here the same good coach, with the same style, methods and system that won big and really the only mitigating factor was the players. It ALWAYS starts with the players. That's why what DW did was so important. He and Mike talked about the kind of players Mike needed to succeed and DOnnie went out and got those kind of players. I don't blame Mike mainly cuz I know EVERY good coach needs good players that give a damn and we didn't have many good players that really cared about winning.

Think about it. Guys had problems with Mike not based on how we played, but their minutes. Guys weren't thinking team. They were thinking CONTRACT. No coach can win in that scenario. I was hoping the players weren't talking crap when they said they would be about team and not worry about their next contract, but that wasn't to be the case. I just can't really blame Mike when that is the biggest reason the teams didn't excel.

TMS wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:

TMS wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:

TMS wrote:seems to me that there are more people around here that never want to lay any blame at the coach's feet for past failures than there are people that want to refuse to give him any credit for the team's current success... personally i think MDA has done a good job w/the team this year & having Amare & Felton at his side to actually lead by example played a huge role in their success... but you'd be blind to deny that the past 2 years were horrible & you can't simply absolve MDA of any blame for the way the team played the past 2 years either.

Again, false and based on nothing. My only question is, how do you criticize a guy when you don't know the circumstances behind the choice that is chosen? Do you do this to your neighbors, friends, ethnic groups? Or do you just reserve it for coaches? Sports figures?

I wanted Hill to play. But he wasn't and I don't know why. I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that D'Antoni had an agenda against Hill any more then I'm going to jump to the conclusion that Hill told the Knicks to go f themselves and that he doesn't want to play here, or was a lazy asse that gave no effort. All I know is the guy didn't play and that there were rumors he wasn't working hard all the time. Rumors that have persisted in HOuston. I also know that if a rookie came into Pat Riley's or Popovich or Sloan's or Jackson's teams and didn't work hard they would be given similar treatment. So if that is the case I understand D'Antoni's decision. Again this is a rumor so I can't criticize Hill based on this rumor. He deserves the same benefit of the doubt as D'Antoni. But, If we find out that D'Antoni had a true agenda against Hill then I would 100% support your opinion that Hill was mistreated. Unfortunately we don't know what happened, so I will criticize neither and just focus on what I actually know. Hill is getting equal benefit of the doubt from me as D'Antoni. So this notion that I'm defending D'Antoni at all costs is false. I defend both of them. The situation wasn't right for the guy to get playing time, and that is what happens sometimes. The fan view of a team is a very shallow view we just refuse to admit it. We know less then 10% of what goes on. I know, I've been there.

I'm taking a similar approach with Randolph, Mason, Rautins etc.

but back to the original point. This notion that D'Antoni "doesn't play rookies"(and this was the basis of most people's arguments last year when discussing Hill and Douglas) is false and based on nothing. If you need more evidence besides the minutes/chances that Gallinari, Douglas, Fields and Mozgov let's look at Leandro Barbosa

21 games before D'Antoni was hired-0 starts and 4.38 minutes
61 games after D'Antoni was hired-45 starts and 23.1 minutes per game

In order for it to be a good argument it has to be based on more then guesses and rumors and feelings.

i'm basing my comment on the record... u are what the record says you are, isn't that what you've been arguing for the past several years? so u wanna give MDA credit for the turn around in NY, but aren't willing to give him any share of the blame for its past failures because of the roster? is that fair? i don't think it is... i've already conceded that MDA's done a good job w/the team this year, but apparently you & the others aren't willing to concede any fault for the past 2.

the Hill & TD arguments are a completely separate issure here Bip... i didn't even bring up MDA's rotations in this discussion, you did... i'm referring to the PERFORMANCE of the team last year, not on the rotation choices MDA made over the course of the past 2 years... yes, i hold a coach accountable for the performance of his team, whether good or bad... i think that's completely fair... sorry if you disagree.

1.)

"I'm basing my comment on the record"-

So every coach of every losing team is doing a bad job and should be "blamed". So if the Knicks put a lineup out of me, Fishmike, Allanfan, NYK4eva and Martin and you coached us to 0 wins, would that mean you did a bad job? Maybe? but not necessarily. Should you be blamed? I would "blame" you for accepting the job that's for sure. But the roster has a lot to do with how a team does. I played for a lot of years. Won many times, but lost a few times as well. Never once blamed the coach for that because I know there is only so much they can do.

2.)

so u wanna give MDA credit for the turn around in NY, but aren't willing to give him any share of the blame for its past failures because of the roster?

At no time did that ever happen in this thread or any other thread. Why do you guys just blatantly make stuff up? What I actually said was "Personally I think basketball is a players game. I never give the coach too much credit or blame. We fire coaches way too much nowadays in my view." This has been a consistent theme of mine through Chaney, Williams, Wilkens (with a break for Brown and Isiah) and now D'Antoni. How did you miss that over the years?

3.) Reality is(and please read carefully so we don't ahve to talk about this I don't "blame" D'Antoni nonsense)I think a lot of people are to blame for last years record. Some directly, some indirectly. They include: The entire roster, D'Antoni, the coaching staff, Walsh, Layden, Isiah, Dolan and some others. I thought we'd win 30-35 games. We won 29. I can't "blame" a coach for reaching my expectation. He didn't do a good job, because a good job would mean he won 35+ according to my expectations. But winning 29 to me does not mean he did a bad job. He simply met expectations. Now this year I thought we had 45 win talent but predicted 38-41 due to injuries and issues that may crop up. That means if he wins in the 38-45 range he met my expectations. So I'm not going to give him "credit" for anything. He did what any capable coach did and that is meet my expectations. Now if he wins 50 I praise him. If he wins 35, 33, 30 hell yeah I'm going to blame him. Does this make sense to you?

4.)"

u are what the record says you are, isn't that what you've been arguing for the past several years?"-

What does this have to do with whether a coach has done a good job or not.

e.) What I've actually said is that when we get better players, we will be a better team. When we get defensive players we will play defense. When we get guys that like to move the ball, the ball will move. Same offense, same coach, ball moves better this eyar and team plays better defense. D'Antoni deserves some credit for the better play as much as he does the "blame" for last years. But reality is, the players make it happen.

*.)The Hill and TD arguments-Of course those are seperate issues. But since you injected yourself into the conversation a page or two into the thread you missed that I brought that up to counter Crushalots surprise over the rigid D'Antoni giving in and playing two rookes, Mozgov and Fields. I was pointing out that this notion that he does not play rookies was a myth and so we talked about that for a while. Then you came along.

if u watched how we just completely lied down & played with zero intensity & heart after the midway point last year, then yes, i believe MDA deserves a big part of the blame for how they performed last year... i've said that numerous times... the expectations for me last year was 35 wins also, but i didn't expect to see the complete lack of spirit or desire to even give forth an effort that i saw out of the team last year... i think he lost the team going down the stretch & guys started to play to their own personal agendas instead of playing team oriented style basketball... i think he deserves a big part of the blame for that... sorry if u disagree but that's how i look at it... u don't like to place too much of the blame or the credit on the coach when they win or lose... fine, that's your right... i'm doing neither on this thread... i've given MDA props for how the team has performed this year... if i'm going to do that, then i think it's also fair to hold him at least partially accountable for how they failed to perform in years past... these are NBA professional ballplayers we're watching here, not some fat out of shape schoolyard wannabes (thought i will state for the record i am not fat) ... i never once said that it was all MDA's fault that we were a crappy team.

I didn't say that it wasn't okay for you to "blame" him. I'm just saying I don't.

I do think he lost the team last year and I again think that was a variety of factors, one pointing to D'Antoni, one pointing to the situation, and one pointing to the team.

a.) The situation-Most players knew they were not going to be here. They had no loyalty to the caoch due to this situation. They quit on the Knicks because the Knicks quit on them(I think the Knicks made the right decision to quit on them). They came in to the season resentful of Gallo because he was the face of teh franchise. when the season went sour they gave up. Not excusable but understandable. For the record, before the season started Bip was the one that said there was a pretty good cahnce that would happen. That's why I wanted to trade the malcontents before they "infected" our players, because you could see that coming.

2.) The Coach-Very good chance he gave up on the guys that weren't going to be tehre long-term. Not something a coach should do but very possible. Why spend time with those guys that won't be here when you can spend time with guys that will. I think that's why he had little patience for the actions of Nate etc., because he knew he would not be here. Not excusable but understandable.

3.) The players-They all knew they weren't going to be here, so they lost that level of professionalism and quit on the team and began to focus on themselves. Not excusable but understandable.

I do not think anyone would have quit if they thought they were in the long-term team plans. The situation was not conducive to winning. You could see it from a mile away. You think Al harrington is going to make an extra pass or go the extra mile to help Gallo or Wilson when he is playing for a paycheck to play somewhere else. What was his incentive? What was Nates? Larry Hughes? Now compare that to the incentive for Felton and Amare.

these are NBA professional ballplayers we're watching here, not some fat out of shape schoolyard wannabes

Marv wrote:

Bippity10 wrote: So if the Knicks put a lineup out of me, Fishmike, Allanfan, NYK4eva and Martin and you coached us to 0 wins, would that mean you did a bad job?

wow. talk about a sexual harrassment suit waiting to happen. can you imagine what happens to tina or jill if they enter THAT locker room??

It's obvious Isiah put that squad together

TMS wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:I didn't say that it wasn't okay for you to "blame" him. I'm just saying I don't.

I do think he lost the team last year and I again think that was a variety of factors, one pointing to D'Antoni, one pointing to the situation, and one pointing to the team.

a.) The situation-Most players knew they were not going to be here. They had no loyalty to the caoch due to this situation. They quit on the Knicks because the Knicks quit on them(I think the Knicks made the right decision to quit on them). They came in to the season resentful of Gallo because he was the face of teh franchise. when the season went sour they gave up. Not excusable but understandable. For the record, before the season started Bip was the one that said there was a pretty good cahnce that would happen. That's why I wanted to trade the malcontents before they "infected" our players, because you could see that coming.

2.) The Coach-Very good chance he gave up on the guys that weren't going to be tehre long-term. Not something a coach should do but very possible. Why spend time with those guys that won't be here when you can spend time with guys that will. I think that's why he had little patience for the actions of Nate etc., because he knew he would not be here. Not excusable but understandable.

3.) The players-They all knew they weren't going to be here, so they lost that level of professionalism and quit on the team and began to focus on themselves. Not excusable but understandable.

I do not think anyone would have quit if they thought they were in the long-term team plans. The situation was not conducive to winning. You could see it from a mile away. You think Al harrington is going to make an extra pass or go the extra mile for Gallo or Wilson when he is playing for a paycheck to play somewhere else. What was his incentive? What was Nates? Larry Hughes?

these are NBA professional ballplayers we're watching here, not some fat out of shape schoolyard wannabes

Doesn't matter if they are NBA players. It was still a horrible team in a bad situation. Nobody was winning with that swirling around.

i agree w/you on all the points you just made, except for the one about the players all coming in resentful of the fact that Gallo was the face of the franchise... i believe that guys like Nate, Hughes & Al all came in with the clear intention of trying to be a part of the Knicks' turn around, but after it became apparent to them that none of them were in MDA's future plans, they gave up trying to appease the head coach & started to play for themselves... actually Al Harrington was 1 of Gallo's closer friends on that squad at the beginning of last year, but as the season progressed i believe a resentment formed because of the clear favoritism that was shown to Gallo & Lee by the head coach... yes, it's a petty thing that these guys should have been able to rise above, but also the coach alienating certain guys that grew out of favor with him with the benchings & lack of communication certainly didn't help matters... as you said, players gave up on the Knicks because the Knicks gave up on them... the head coach made it apparent that none of those guys that left factored into his future plans, & he pretty much iced them out & subsequently lost the team... i don't blame that entirely on the coach because i do believe players should be expected to be professionals & not quit on the team no matter what happens, but i do believe that the coach played his equal part in how things played out, & felt that things could have easily been handled better than they were to keep guys from quitting the way they did.

D'Antoni's plans or the Knicks plans? Walsh's plan was to clear cap space so it was obvious from the get go that the big money players were going. D'antoni could have found a way to pull the team together. He could have found a way to get them to understand that winning would lead to higher contracts elsewhere. But......I know it's blasphemy because we are fans but...D'Antoni's job was not to win last year. His job was to find out who was worth keeping long-term and to raise the value of those that needed to be traded. For the reasons mentioned above he was not able to raise the value of many of the players. He did however do a great job of helping to determine which guys were warriors and which guys were not the type of guys that needed to be kept. After that, how he treated Nate and Al was not my concern. The only thing I wanted to see was Gallinari, Wilson, TD and WAlker get better. 3 out of 4 so far.

Al may have liked Gallo, who knows. But Al wanted to be here forever. The team did not see him in it's long-term plans and saw Gallo. The coach said Gallo was here to stay. The GM said he was here to stay. The marketing team promoted him. Al hated that. He wanted to be that guy but wasn't so he became resentful. Not sure what the coach did wrong with Al. The coach gave him minutes. The coach gave him the green light. The coach gave him the ball in the fourth quarter. the only thing the coach did wrong with Al(as the evidence has been presented to me) is not tell him that he loved him and that he wanted him to stay forever.