[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Fact or Fiction: The Knicks should fire Mike D'Antoni.
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 4 of 8 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5  6 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
4/7/2011  2:15 AM
SupremeCommander wrote:I would be fine if a defensive assistant is forced on Pringles... but that's what led to his Phoenix breakup

I don't see that much wrong with Mike's defensive schemes. What I see is that often we have gaping holes in the middle when Amar'e fails to close down penetrators. We've been seeing the team tighten up on D and get wins lately. When you can get stops, which we've been able to do enough to get wins, then that's about all we can expect with this roster.

This roster has some weaknesses defensively, but they've fought hard to overcome those weaknesses. The best Man2Man defensive big we have is Shelden! That should tell you something right there. The good signs have been that the team is getting more cohesive on D and the effort has improved. I've been much happier with Melo's D since he took his role as a team leader more seriously on the defensive end. IMO the team is peaking at the right time.
AUTOADVERT
SupremeCommander
Posts: 34057
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127
4/7/2011  2:26 AM    LAST EDITED: 4/7/2011  2:26 AM
nixluva wrote:
SupremeCommander wrote:I would be fine if a defensive assistant is forced on Pringles... but that's what led to his Phoenix breakup

I don't see that much wrong with Mike's defensive schemes. What I see is that often we have gaping holes in the middle when Amar'e fails to close down penetrators. We've been seeing the team tighten up on D and get wins lately. When you can get stops, which we've been able to do enough to get wins, then that's about all we can expect with this roster.

This roster has some weaknesses defensively, but they've fought hard to overcome those weaknesses. The best Man2Man defensive big we have is Shelden! That should tell you something right there. The good signs have been that the team is getting more cohesive on D and the effort has improved. I've been much happier with Melo's D since he took his role as a team leader more seriously on the defensive end. IMO the team is peaking at the right time.

While I agree with you, and I do agree with the overall point of your comment, it should also tell you something that Shelden playing time despite being our toughest and best M2M defensive big, or that there was no use for Corey Brewer. These are specific types of players that can never fit Pringles' system. I tupsets me that the complaints about the Knicks defense are so basic--keep your hands up! or, move your feet! or, box out!

The level of detail on defense is no here close to the level of detail on offense. A small improvement on defense would yield huge benefits, while a small improvement on offense doesn't do too much.

I do think this team needs a "defensive coordinator" who isn't the coach's brother

DLeethal wrote: Lol Rick needs a safe space
ramtour420
Posts: 26282
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 3/19/2007
Member: #1388
Russian Federation
4/7/2011  2:41 AM
When the game plan is to have as many possessions as possible, by default your opponents are gonna have more possessions and gonna score more. Larry Brown had a completely opposite approach when he coached that Piston team to the championship, he wanted to run out the clock on every possession to limit the total possessions by both teams per game. Then every stop would mean that much more. Giving up all those points to lottery teams might seem like a mortal sin, but thats just one of the side effects of playing a high possession style of bball. You cannot play that style of bball and be considered one of the best defensive teams, simply because of the # of points that your opponents will score on you, unless you use a different stat. When you look at points per possession allowed(defensive efficiency) it gives a better estimate, and unfortunately we are near the very bottom in that stat also If we could only improve slightly on our defense, it would probably have an insane impact on our winning percentage. My bigger issue with MDA is what seems like a complete disregard for the momentum of the game. I understand not calling time out when we are on the run, but not calling it when the other team is starting to make a run? Then not calling it when they are officially on a run? And finally calling it when the game is either tied or we are down? Thats like underlining the fact that they have made a run and our backs are against the wall. It just bothers me. Lets see what he does in the playoofs tho before we call for his head
Everything you have ever wanted is on the other side of fear- George Adair
SupremeCommander
Posts: 34057
Alba Posts: 35
Joined: 4/28/2006
Member: #1127
4/7/2011  2:47 AM    LAST EDITED: 4/7/2011  2:47 AM
ramtour420 wrote:When you look at points per possession allowed(defensive efficiency) it gives a better estimate, and unfortunately we are near the very bottom in that stat also If we could only improve slightly on our defense, it would probably have an insane impact on our winning percentage.

This is the essence of my issue with Pringles' defense and his approach to defense

DLeethal wrote: Lol Rick needs a safe space
martin
Posts: 76227
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
4/7/2011  9:54 AM
BigSm00th wrote:regardless of the mishandling of a guy like randolph, the fact remains, MDA is not the coach for this team long-term.

martin, fishmike, the rest of the apologists, i'd like to hear your responses to:

A) mda doesn't know how to coach D. we gave up almost 120 points to a lotto team two games ago that lost their leading scorer during the game. players, coaches, and writers all make a point of the fact that MDA is an offensive coach -- an innovator and a sharp guy -- but a guy that focuses on offense and believes in his system so much that he need not work on D. for those of you about to waste time disputing this, read the book 7 seconds or less. read about how he refused to take on thibodeau in phoenix. the guy doesn't care about D. http://www.aolnews.com/2008/12/12/mike-dantoni-suns-owner-still-fightin/.
B) defense wins championships. point me to one nba champion in the modern era that didn't play good D. it is far too late to look up the stats but i'd be shocked if there were an nba champ that wasn't a top 10 defensive team.
C) the knicks two best players and building blocks are carmelo and STAT. carmelo is widely regarded as, if not the best, the most versatile scorer in the game. he can score from anywhere, and he is clutch. STAT is as tough of a matchup as you can find on the post. both of these guys, however, thrive in iso settings and taking their guys 1 on 1. not necessarily a bad thing, but a fact.
D) MDA's offense relies on ball movement and good point guard play. his teams were so lethal in phoenix because of a stellar pg (nash) and great pieces around nash that knew their role, spaced the floor, and could hit shots.
E) putting C and D together, MDA's offensive coaching style doesn't fit what the knicks have. carmelo doesn't need a kick out, or spacing. carmelo can score in any situation, so can amare. what they need are 7 to 8 teammates who are tough, defense minded, athletic, and can rebound. MDA's system puts a preference on guys who can space the floor -- hence billy walker's playing over randolph all season (not trying to open up that can of worms, and i dont feel like debating the merits of tony randolph, but its a fact -- williams and walker played over randolph because they can shoot and randolph can't). MDA is too stubborn to adapt, so what we have is a mishmash of players and the great talents of melo and stat being suppressed when shawne williams moonlights as a C b/c he can stand in the corner and shoot in a 3 instead of a traditional C who will block shots, defend the rim, and rebound.

yes, the knicks are in the playoff. hooray. i am thrilled as anyone else here, having been posting at this place thru the doldrums of the last decade and hoping for stars like melo and STAT on our team. i was also excited about the d'antoni hiring when they first got him -- unfortunately, they never drafted a PG (jennings and lawson were both inexplicably passed over for a guy that MDA refused to play) or signed one that MDA could give the keys to and say "make my offense work." now he has two great scorers, but guys who don't need his system to score. not to mention, he doesn't emphasize D, and one could go so far as saying he refuses to coach it, stubbornly believing that if you score more, you win. he shuns the idea of bringing in a coach who has coached it effectively at the NBA level instead relying on nepotism and his inept brother dan. moreover, he is reluctant to develop young players who will cost him W's (i have yet to be provided an answer as to why guys like duhon, harrington and bender played over building blocks like gallinari, jordan hill, and douglas in the 09-10 season).

d'antoni may be the perfect coach for the golden state warriors. on a new york knicks team with carmelo anthony and amare stoudemire, given my reasons above, i don't think he will ever get us over the hump. get me a big name who has a ring and knows how to win. over the last 20 years, only 5 coaches have won a title (starting in 1990: phil jackson, rudy T, popovich, larry brown, riley, doc), so that may be tough. jerry sloan is available too. there are probably a few other guys who i am not thinking of, its late and i'm tired. (isiah LOL)

let the rest of the season play on, lets see how it goes in the playoffs. i am willing to see what MDA can do and whether he will "adapt." as GW Bush once said, "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice....can't fool me twice." i bet dolan's thinking the same thing. if the knicks give up a boat load of points and melo is sulking, chances are MDA is out. regardless of the fleeting success this offseason, MDA won't win a championship here.

I have no idea what an MDA apologist is or what you mean by it.

Here is a crux of your arguments: 1) Defense wins and we need to be better defensively. I don't think anyone is saying anything differently. Duh. This is going to be a mix of players and system. 2) Amare and Melo are iso players and MDA preaches ball movement so he his system is not right for those 2 guys cause you need a PG to run it. The PG part of course has nothing to do with either Melo or Amare, and it also ignores the fact that Amare just thrived in that type of system.

Generally, I see the missing pieces as part of what the GM needs to provide the team.

Remind me again how Kerr brought in defensive players for MDA's PHO teams. Year after year the trend for that organization as a whole was to sell their draft picks and not keep players that were deemed too expensive but who were obviously talented (Joe Johnson); they were a cheap outfit.

Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
BigSm00th
Posts: 24504
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/9/2001
Member: #178
USA
4/7/2011  1:35 PM
apologist (noun) - a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

you are defending the contention that d'antoni should be fired, no?

1) defense wins and antoni has no idea how to coach D. he has coached 6 full seasons in the NBA and never has one of his teams been in the top 10 in opponents field goal %. players talk about how it isn't emphasized in practice. that by itself is a reason for me to think he isn't a good long-term fit for a team with championship aspirations.
2) put simply: the knicks have two of the best scorers in the NBA. the appeal of mike d'antoni as a basketball coach is his ability to coach a dynamic offense. it seems to be a redundant skill, given that the knicks have two great scorers, to have a coach that's "genius" is his dynamic, free-wheeling, ball-movement offense. when MDA was signed, the thinking was it would lure lebron, a great passer. lebron was not lured, and instead we have amare and melo, two great scorers and guys who are more adept at scoring than setting other people up.

with regards to the "phoenix didn't have any defenders" line of reasoning, i would venture to say that the suns didn't acquire any defensive minded players because d'antoni wouldn't play them! (marion and raja bell were competent defenders, yet they played because they fit in the offensive scheme, not because they could D guys up). i find it perplexing that the knicks acquired corey brewer, a player known for his defense, and promptly waived him because d'antoni told the front office "this guy can't play for me." why not? he would have been the team's best perimeter defender! he isn't a great shooter, and MDA ONLY plays those who fit in his OFFENSE and understand his scheme. why roger mason wasn't bought out instead of brewer to make room for jeffries is beyond me, but i'm willing to guess mason's ability to shoot had something to do with it.

there is no knick assistant coach yelling stuff out to the defense (see: chicago, boston), there is no talking in general between the players. the knicks routinely give up season-high point totals to players and teams. that is both the players and the general scheme.

i'm willing to see what MDA does in the playoffs, when the games slow down and teams rely on getting stops, not scoring more points. as of now, i think if this team's goal is to win a championship, d'antoni is not the right guy.

#Knickstaps
BigSm00th
Posts: 24504
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/9/2001
Member: #178
USA
4/7/2011  1:47 PM
in a microcosm, why brewer couldn't play for MDA:

can't shoot...hustles back on D and makes a defensive play. MDA would've yanked him!

#Knickstaps
martin
Posts: 76227
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
4/7/2011  1:50 PM
BigSm00th wrote:in a microcosm, why brewer couldn't play for MDA:

can't shoot...hustles back on D and makes a defensive play. MDA would've yanked him!

By all accounts, why hasn't he yanked Turiaf, JJ, AC?

Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
4/7/2011  1:53 PM
martin wrote:
BigSm00th wrote:in a microcosm, why brewer couldn't play for MDA:

can't shoot...hustles back on D and makes a defensive play. MDA would've yanked him!

By all accounts, why hasn't he yanked Turiaf, JJ, AC?

AC is not a good example, because MDA has forgotten about him for stretches.

Here is why JJ & Turiaf haven't gotten yanked - His Hundred Million Dollar player has told MDA he doesn't want to play the five. And MDA has surprisingly, perhaps against his inclinations, listened!
Juice
Posts: 21742
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2009
Member: #2968
4/7/2011  2:01 PM    LAST EDITED: 4/7/2011  2:04 PM
BigSm00th wrote:apologist (noun) - a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

you are defending the contention that d'antoni should be fired, no?

1) defense wins and antoni has no idea how to coach D. he has coached 6 full seasons in the NBA and never has one of his teams been in the top 10 in opponents field goal %. players talk about how it isn't emphasized in practice. that by itself is a reason for me to think he isn't a good long-term fit for a team with championship aspirations.
2) put simply: the knicks have two of the best scorers in the NBA. the appeal of mike d'antoni as a basketball coach is his ability to coach a dynamic offense. it seems to be a redundant skill, given that the knicks have two great scorers, to have a coach that's "genius" is his dynamic, free-wheeling, ball-movement offense. when MDA was signed, the thinking was it would lure lebron, a great passer. lebron was not lured, and instead we have amare and melo, two great scorers and guys who are more adept at scoring than setting other people up.

with regards to the "phoenix didn't have any defenders" line of reasoning, i would venture to say that the suns didn't acquire any defensive minded players because d'antoni wouldn't play them! (marion and raja bell were competent defenders, yet they played because they fit in the offensive scheme, not because they could D guys up). i find it perplexing that the knicks acquired corey brewer, a player known for his defense, and promptly waived him because d'antoni told the front office "this guy can't play for me." why not? he would have been the team's best perimeter defender! he isn't a great shooter, and MDA ONLY plays those who fit in his OFFENSE and understand his scheme. why roger mason wasn't bought out instead of brewer to make room for jeffries is beyond me, but i'm willing to guess mason's ability to shoot had something to do with it.

there is no knick assistant coach yelling stuff out to the defense (see: chicago, boston), there is no talking in general between the players. the knicks routinely give up season-high point totals to players and teams. that is both the players and the general scheme.

i'm willing to see what MDA does in the playoffs, when the games slow down and teams rely on getting stops, not scoring more points. as of now, i think if this team's goal is to win a championship, d'antoni is not the right guy.

This is what the "OTHER SIDE" doesn't get....

If the Chicago Bulls can START Keith Bogans for the majority of the year on a playoff contending team and keep in mind Keith Bogans also started games for the championship Spurs...... then D'AnToni has ZERO EXCUSE to NOT PLAY or REFUSE to play players who bring a dimension to the game and to a team lacking those skillsets.

Once again he's an EXTREME coach who has gone on record to the press stating he has a PECKING ORDER and that it's HARD FOR GUYS TO CRACK IT. This is an automatic disclaimer he has sized you up before you even approach his circle.

It is what it is...make no mistake about it..... Melo and Amar'e can excel with or without D'AnToni
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
4/7/2011  2:05 PM
martin wrote:
BigSm00th wrote:in a microcosm, why brewer couldn't play for MDA:

can't shoot...hustles back on D and makes a defensive play. MDA would've yanked him!

By all accounts, why hasn't he yanked Turiaf, JJ, AC?

because they are d'antoni apologists too?

"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
martin
Posts: 76227
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
4/7/2011  2:10 PM
Juice wrote:
BigSm00th wrote:apologist (noun) - a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

you are defending the contention that d'antoni should be fired, no?

1) defense wins and antoni has no idea how to coach D. he has coached 6 full seasons in the NBA and never has one of his teams been in the top 10 in opponents field goal %. players talk about how it isn't emphasized in practice. that by itself is a reason for me to think he isn't a good long-term fit for a team with championship aspirations.
2) put simply: the knicks have two of the best scorers in the NBA. the appeal of mike d'antoni as a basketball coach is his ability to coach a dynamic offense. it seems to be a redundant skill, given that the knicks have two great scorers, to have a coach that's "genius" is his dynamic, free-wheeling, ball-movement offense. when MDA was signed, the thinking was it would lure lebron, a great passer. lebron was not lured, and instead we have amare and melo, two great scorers and guys who are more adept at scoring than setting other people up.

with regards to the "phoenix didn't have any defenders" line of reasoning, i would venture to say that the suns didn't acquire any defensive minded players because d'antoni wouldn't play them! (marion and raja bell were competent defenders, yet they played because they fit in the offensive scheme, not because they could D guys up). i find it perplexing that the knicks acquired corey brewer, a player known for his defense, and promptly waived him because d'antoni told the front office "this guy can't play for me." why not? he would have been the team's best perimeter defender! he isn't a great shooter, and MDA ONLY plays those who fit in his OFFENSE and understand his scheme. why roger mason wasn't bought out instead of brewer to make room for jeffries is beyond me, but i'm willing to guess mason's ability to shoot had something to do with it.

there is no knick assistant coach yelling stuff out to the defense (see: chicago, boston), there is no talking in general between the players. the knicks routinely give up season-high point totals to players and teams. that is both the players and the general scheme.

i'm willing to see what MDA does in the playoffs, when the games slow down and teams rely on getting stops, not scoring more points. as of now, i think if this team's goal is to win a championship, d'antoni is not the right guy.

This is what the "OTHER SIDE" doesn't get....

If the Chicago Bulls can START Keith Bogans for the majority of the year on a playoff contending team and keep in mind Keith Bogans also started games for the championship Spurs...... then D'AnToni has ZERO EXCUSE to NOT PLAY or REFUSE to play players who bring a dimension to the game and to a team lacking those skillsets.

Once again he's an EXTREME coach who has gone on record to the press stating he has a PECKING ORDER and that it's HARD FOR GUYS TO CRACK IT. This is an automatic disclaimer he has sized you up before you even approach his circle.

It is what it is...make no mistake about it..... Melo and Amar'e can excel with or without D'AnToni

I don't get that statement. What does it mean? And what does it have to do with MDA? And who are the other players on CHI who play SG? All I know is that Chicago has been wanting to upgrade their SG for the whole year.

Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
CashMoney
Posts: 23145
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 1/15/2011
Member: #3374
USA
4/7/2011  2:20 PM
BigSm00th wrote:in a microcosm, why brewer couldn't play for MDA:

can't shoot...hustles back on D and makes a defensive play. MDA would've yanked him!

MDA didn't want him becuase he's a one dimensonal SF. Who would you play COrey Brewer over right now on the Knicks?

Blue & Orange 4 Life!
Juice
Posts: 21742
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2009
Member: #2968
4/7/2011  2:37 PM    LAST EDITED: 4/7/2011  2:38 PM
martin wrote:
Juice wrote:
BigSm00th wrote:apologist (noun) - a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.

you are defending the contention that d'antoni should be fired, no?

1) defense wins and antoni has no idea how to coach D. he has coached 6 full seasons in the NBA and never has one of his teams been in the top 10 in opponents field goal %. players talk about how it isn't emphasized in practice. that by itself is a reason for me to think he isn't a good long-term fit for a team with championship aspirations.
2) put simply: the knicks have two of the best scorers in the NBA. the appeal of mike d'antoni as a basketball coach is his ability to coach a dynamic offense. it seems to be a redundant skill, given that the knicks have two great scorers, to have a coach that's "genius" is his dynamic, free-wheeling, ball-movement offense. when MDA was signed, the thinking was it would lure lebron, a great passer. lebron was not lured, and instead we have amare and melo, two great scorers and guys who are more adept at scoring than setting other people up.

with regards to the "phoenix didn't have any defenders" line of reasoning, i would venture to say that the suns didn't acquire any defensive minded players because d'antoni wouldn't play them! (marion and raja bell were competent defenders, yet they played because they fit in the offensive scheme, not because they could D guys up). i find it perplexing that the knicks acquired corey brewer, a player known for his defense, and promptly waived him because d'antoni told the front office "this guy can't play for me." why not? he would have been the team's best perimeter defender! he isn't a great shooter, and MDA ONLY plays those who fit in his OFFENSE and understand his scheme. why roger mason wasn't bought out instead of brewer to make room for jeffries is beyond me, but i'm willing to guess mason's ability to shoot had something to do with it.

there is no knick assistant coach yelling stuff out to the defense (see: chicago, boston), there is no talking in general between the players. the knicks routinely give up season-high point totals to players and teams. that is both the players and the general scheme.

i'm willing to see what MDA does in the playoffs, when the games slow down and teams rely on getting stops, not scoring more points. as of now, i think if this team's goal is to win a championship, d'antoni is not the right guy.

This is what the "OTHER SIDE" doesn't get....

If the Chicago Bulls can START Keith Bogans for the majority of the year on a playoff contending team and keep in mind Keith Bogans also started games for the championship Spurs...... then D'AnToni has ZERO EXCUSE to NOT PLAY or REFUSE to play players who bring a dimension to the game and to a team lacking those skillsets.

Once again he's an EXTREME coach who has gone on record to the press stating he has a PECKING ORDER and that it's HARD FOR GUYS TO CRACK IT. This is an automatic disclaimer he has sized you up before you even approach his circle.

It is what it is...make no mistake about it..... Melo and Amar'e can excel with or without D'AnToni

I don't get that statement. What does it mean? And what does it have to do with MDA? And who are the other players on CHI who play SG? All I know is that Chicago has been wanting to upgrade their SG for the whole year.

Pop and Thibs have rings and D'AToni doesn't they value lesser players by giving them prominent roles because they do certain things very well and help balance a team - 1


Bulls started Bogans over Korver and Pargo and when Brewer got back healthy - 2


They were looking at O.J. Mayo, J.R. Smith, and Melo but weren't willing to give up players like Noah/Gibson(defenders) to get it done - 3


Every team looks for upgrades - 4


huh?
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
4/7/2011  2:46 PM
Kerr can't use Mike as an excuse for his inability to bring in defensive help. Mike didn't resist Kerr bringing in Shaq even tho it would most surely hurt the PnR defense the team would be able to play and it did. Other than Shaq, I can't think of too many other bigs that Kerr actually gave Mike. This idea that you can't get Mike a big he would play is stupid. Guys like Tyson, Camby, Anderson etc. would all play for Mike. He just may not love the idea of a big slow guy that can't shoot, but that would be stupid for a GM to do since the entire team was built to run.

Right now this Knicks team isn't the fastest team Mike has ever had. This is more of a hybrid mix that can play fast at times but mostly gets it done in the halfcourt. This is fine, since much of Mike offense is actually based in the halfcourt. It's just that people don't realize it. He still believes in early offense, but he also has sets that work great in the halfcourt.

Yeah defense wins, but you have to score too. It's silly to say that D wins and O doesn't, since they're both 50% of the game!!! Also great offense beats great defense. It's much harder to shutdown the great offensive players in this league and always has been. If Mj or Kobe or Bird are on fire who can stop them? That's the whole reason you have a DWade, Lebron, Durant, Dirk, Rose or Melo. To help you overcome great defense. No one is better than Mike at getting great offensive players off than Mike.
Juice
Posts: 21742
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2009
Member: #2968
4/7/2011  3:06 PM    LAST EDITED: 4/7/2011  3:08 PM
nixluva wrote:Kerr can't use Mike as an excuse for his inability to bring in defensive help. Mike didn't resist Kerr bringing in Shaq even tho it would most surely hurt the PnR defense the team would be able to play and it did. Other than Shaq, I can't think of too many other bigs that Kerr actually gave Mike. This idea that you can't get Mike a big he would play is stupid. Guys like Tyson, Camby, Anderson etc. would all play for Mike. He just may not love the idea of a big slow guy that can't shoot, but that would be stupid for a GM to do since the entire team was built to run.

Right now this Knicks team isn't the fastest team Mike has ever had. This is more of a hybrid mix that can play fast at times but mostly gets it done in the halfcourt. This is fine, since much of Mike offense is actually based in the halfcourt. It's just that people don't realize it. He still believes in early offense, but he also has sets that work great in the halfcourt.

Yeah defense wins, but you have to score too. It's silly to say that D wins and O doesn't, since they're both 50% of the game!!! Also great offense beats great defense. It's much harder to shutdown the great offensive players in this league and always has been. If Mj or Kobe or Bird are on fire who can stop them? That's the whole reason you have a DWade, Lebron, Durant, Dirk, Rose or Melo. To help you overcome great defense. No one is better than Mike at getting great offensive players off than Mike.

Kerr was only there for like 2 seasons.... D'AnToni was his own GM there for a minute and almost gave up Marion for Lewis. Let's not act like Kerr was there for an eternity he was trying to figure things out 1rst year on the job as a 1rst time GM

Meanwhile Walsh(a seasoned GM) has given D'AnToni defenders and he doesn't really play them much or not at all(Darko/Hill/Moz/AR/Turiaf/Effries/Brown/Brewer/Hunter)
CashMoney
Posts: 23145
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 1/15/2011
Member: #3374
USA
4/7/2011  3:20 PM
Juice wrote:
nixluva wrote:Kerr can't use Mike as an excuse for his inability to bring in defensive help. Mike didn't resist Kerr bringing in Shaq even tho it would most surely hurt the PnR defense the team would be able to play and it did. Other than Shaq, I can't think of too many other bigs that Kerr actually gave Mike. This idea that you can't get Mike a big he would play is stupid. Guys like Tyson, Camby, Anderson etc. would all play for Mike. He just may not love the idea of a big slow guy that can't shoot, but that would be stupid for a GM to do since the entire team was built to run.

Right now this Knicks team isn't the fastest team Mike has ever had. This is more of a hybrid mix that can play fast at times but mostly gets it done in the halfcourt. This is fine, since much of Mike offense is actually based in the halfcourt. It's just that people don't realize it. He still believes in early offense, but he also has sets that work great in the halfcourt.

Yeah defense wins, but you have to score too. It's silly to say that D wins and O doesn't, since they're both 50% of the game!!! Also great offense beats great defense. It's much harder to shutdown the great offensive players in this league and always has been. If Mj or Kobe or Bird are on fire who can stop them? That's the whole reason you have a DWade, Lebron, Durant, Dirk, Rose or Melo. To help you overcome great defense. No one is better than Mike at getting great offensive players off than Mike.

Kerr was only there for like 2 seasons.... D'AnToni was his own GM there for a minute and almost gave up Marion for Lewis. Let's not act like Kerr was there for an eternity he was trying to figure things out 1rst year on the job as a 1rst time GM

Meanwhile Walsh(a seasoned GM) has given D'AnToni defenders and he doesn't really play them much or not at all(Darko/Hill/Moz/AR/Turiaf/Effries/Brown/Brewer/Hunter)

Defenders? You must be making a joke, right?

Blue & Orange 4 Life!
BigSm00th
Posts: 24504
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/9/2001
Member: #178
USA
4/7/2011  3:43 PM
nixluva wrote:Kerr can't use Mike as an excuse for his inability to bring in defensive help. Mike didn't resist Kerr bringing in Shaq even tho it would most surely hurt the PnR defense the team would be able to play and it did. Other than Shaq, I can't think of too many other bigs that Kerr actually gave Mike. This idea that you can't get Mike a big he would play is stupid. Guys like Tyson, Camby, Anderson etc. would all play for Mike. He just may not love the idea of a big slow guy that can't shoot, but that would be stupid for a GM to do since the entire team was built to run.

Right now this Knicks team isn't the fastest team Mike has ever had. This is more of a hybrid mix that can play fast at times but mostly gets it done in the halfcourt. This is fine, since much of Mike offense is actually based in the halfcourt. It's just that people don't realize it. He still believes in early offense, but he also has sets that work great in the halfcourt.

Yeah defense wins, but you have to score too. It's silly to say that D wins and O doesn't, since they're both 50% of the game!!! Also great offense beats great defense. It's much harder to shutdown the great offensive players in this league and always has been. If Mj or Kobe or Bird are on fire who can stop them? That's the whole reason you have a DWade, Lebron, Durant, Dirk, Rose or Melo. To help you overcome great defense. No one is better than Mike at getting great offensive players off than Mike.

LOL, the part you have bolded means you have been smoking too much of whatever MDA is passing out at his group therapy sessions.

name me a good championship team that doesn't play great Defense. you can't -- they all do.

MDA's teams in phoenix are the PERFECT answer to your statement - unconscious offensive teams that couldn't get stops when they needed them.

#Knickstaps
BigSm00th
Posts: 24504
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/9/2001
Member: #178
USA
4/7/2011  3:45 PM    LAST EDITED: 4/7/2011  3:49 PM
CashMoney wrote:
BigSm00th wrote:in a microcosm, why brewer couldn't play for MDA:

can't shoot...hustles back on D and makes a defensive play. MDA would've yanked him!

MDA didn't want him becuase he's a one dimensonal SF. Who would you play COrey Brewer over right now on the Knicks?

this is tremendous. lets bookmark this and in 2 weeks when we are playing the heat in the first round, ask me that again.

he'd be our BEST perimeter defender. bill walker, roger mason, even shawne williams depending on the matchup.

Why does MDA play the one dimensional SF shawne williams? because his ONE DIMENSION is shooting!

also, why is that the mavs (6th best team in the LEAGUE according to record) can use a guy like brewer but the knicks can't? (we need anthony carter, roger mason, rautins -- these guys are point guards 3/4/5 by my count; we need derrick brown who doesnt play).

#Knickstaps
Juice
Posts: 21742
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/2/2009
Member: #2968
4/7/2011  3:49 PM    LAST EDITED: 4/7/2011  3:49 PM
CashMoney wrote:
Juice wrote:
nixluva wrote:Kerr can't use Mike as an excuse for his inability to bring in defensive help. Mike didn't resist Kerr bringing in Shaq even tho it would most surely hurt the PnR defense the team would be able to play and it did. Other than Shaq, I can't think of too many other bigs that Kerr actually gave Mike. This idea that you can't get Mike a big he would play is stupid. Guys like Tyson, Camby, Anderson etc. would all play for Mike. He just may not love the idea of a big slow guy that can't shoot, but that would be stupid for a GM to do since the entire team was built to run.

Right now this Knicks team isn't the fastest team Mike has ever had. This is more of a hybrid mix that can play fast at times but mostly gets it done in the halfcourt. This is fine, since much of Mike offense is actually based in the halfcourt. It's just that people don't realize it. He still believes in early offense, but he also has sets that work great in the halfcourt.

Yeah defense wins, but you have to score too. It's silly to say that D wins and O doesn't, since they're both 50% of the game!!! Also great offense beats great defense. It's much harder to shutdown the great offensive players in this league and always has been. If Mj or Kobe or Bird are on fire who can stop them? That's the whole reason you have a DWade, Lebron, Durant, Dirk, Rose or Melo. To help you overcome great defense. No one is better than Mike at getting great offensive players off than Mike.

Kerr was only there for like 2 seasons.... D'AnToni was his own GM there for a minute and almost gave up Marion for Lewis. Let's not act like Kerr was there for an eternity he was trying to figure things out 1rst year on the job as a 1rst time GM

Meanwhile Walsh(a seasoned GM) has given D'AnToni defenders and he doesn't really play them much or not at all(Darko/Hill/Moz/AR/Turiaf/Effries/Brown/Brewer/Hunter)

Defenders? You must be making a joke, right?

So let me get this straight..... our GM brought/acquired all these players to add firepower to the offense? Another area the coach must have been lacking in, that's supposed to be his strength
Page 4 of 8 « First‹ Previous 2  3  4  5  6 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
Fact or Fiction: The Knicks should fire Mike D'Antoni.
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy