There's nothing wrong with MDA's approach. He has his style and he should be supported by his GM to get him the kind of players he can win with. This is no different than Phil who NEVER went away from his Triangle offense win or lose. That's what he wanted to run and now he's going to do the same thing here. If a player can't learn it they'll be gone cuz he's not changing what he wants the team to do for a player that can't function within a team oriented system. Even if his new coach didn't run Triangle Phil said he wants a system run. That's no different than MDA.

People forget how close MDA and the Suns got to the finals and they NEVER had the best team in the NBA talent wise. Just cuz he had Nash doesn't make that the same as having Jordan, Pippen, Kobe and Shaq. People make it seem like MDA failed with the top talent in the league or something. People praise Thibs and yet he's not gonna do anything more than MDA without talent. It's entirely possible that Thibs grinding style has been part of the reason his team wear down and get injured. If the Knicks had given MDA a real PG even with the teams we had he would've done much better in NY. MDA just needs a GM that will commit to him and he'll be fine. He may not be the best NBA coach of all time, but he's better than some of the guys who have jobs now.

dk7th wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:To say that a coach should adapt to his roster and maximize there talents, is about as dumb as it gets. Thats like saying Phil should keep this talented roster in place and somehow teach them the triangle even though certain players just don't fit.

That goes for MDA, you give him a banged up howard and NASH a dis gruntal Gasol, and essential had Duhon again, and you think he suppose to get that bunch to play well beyond there talents.

It seems ridiculous to say that a coach should get his players to play above and beyond, then in the next breath say he doesnt have the players to play his style.

If every one on MDA's suns roster was able to knock down a 3 and thats what made him successful, should he force howard and gasol to shoot 3's or even intergrate them in his system with no training camp.

I'll give DOC RIVERS his props when he guides a team (without an elite PG )to the finals.

A coach can only be considered a bad coach if his roster is really good and there losing like crazy. You can't give a coach a bad roster with no chemistry (only played a few months with each other), no talent, and when he loses label him a bad coach because he didn't over achieve

It's not dumb, it's called coaching. It's what Tom Thibadeau did in Chicago and it's what Woody did after Stache left. It's what Stu Jackson did when he upset the Celtics by by dumping a halfcourt styke and allowing his roster to run. Phil adopted the triangle for a slew a different rosters featuring players of varying degrees of talent and skillsets. He made adjustments to maximize those rosters. No one is labeling him a bad coach. But I am labeling him an inflexible one.

I agree. Look at Riley, he went from Showtime in LA to a tough, physical style in NY and he came within one game of winning it all. Not adapting to the roster you have is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

He did not have much to adapt with here. Adapt to Tony Douglass? Jared Jeffries? Go ISO?

He was a stubborn mule don't get me wrong. He allowed Tony phuckin Douglass to lead the knicks in 3's shooting a whopping 25%. "Keep shooting Tony"

When you have one of the top two scorers in the league and you stick him in the corner, behind the arc and tell him to stay there like just another role player, you are asking for trouble, and not making the most of the talents of your best player.

trading for carmelo anthony was not part of d'antoni's plan when he came to the knicks way back in 2008. it was stupid for dolan to foist carmelo onto d'antoni, and dolan himself has recently admitted that he doesn't really know what he is doing. he certainly didn't know what he was doing back in february 2011. d'antoni has a system and he was successful when he had the right personnel to play within his system. in los angeles he had two players in gasol and bryant who were successful in a different system, the triangle, and bristled at having to play outside what they had become habituated to. was it a bad fit? yes it was. and d'antoni did the right thing in resigning and forgoing getting paid 4 million dollars.

i doubt that the triangle will make the best use of what "talents" carmelo possesses. and thibs will not be enamored of the boozer-esque level of defensive prowess that carmelo will bring with him. and we have seen what a melo-centric offense looks like, haven't we?

TeamBall wrote:

dk7th wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:To say that a coach should adapt to his roster and maximize there talents, is about as dumb as it gets. Thats like saying Phil should keep this talented roster in place and somehow teach them the triangle even though certain players just don't fit.

That goes for MDA, you give him a banged up howard and NASH a dis gruntal Gasol, and essential had Duhon again, and you think he suppose to get that bunch to play well beyond there talents.

It seems ridiculous to say that a coach should get his players to play above and beyond, then in the next breath say he doesnt have the players to play his style.

If every one on MDA's suns roster was able to knock down a 3 and thats what made him successful, should he force howard and gasol to shoot 3's or even intergrate them in his system with no training camp.

I'll give DOC RIVERS his props when he guides a team (without an elite PG )to the finals.

A coach can only be considered a bad coach if his roster is really good and there losing like crazy. You can't give a coach a bad roster with no chemistry (only played a few months with each other), no talent, and when he loses label him a bad coach because he didn't over achieve

It's not dumb, it's called coaching. It's what Tom Thibadeau did in Chicago and it's what Woody did after Stache left. It's what Stu Jackson did when he upset the Celtics by by dumping a halfcourt styke and allowing his roster to run. Phil adopted the triangle for a slew a different rosters featuring players of varying degrees of talent and skillsets. He made adjustments to maximize those rosters. No one is labeling him a bad coach. But I am labeling him an inflexible one.

I agree. Look at Riley, he went from Showtime in LA to a tough, physical style in NY and he came within one game of winning it all. Not adapting to the roster you have is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

He did not have much to adapt with here. Adapt to Tony Douglass? Jared Jeffries? Go ISO?

He was a stubborn mule don't get me wrong. He allowed Tony phuckin Douglass to lead the knicks in 3's shooting a whopping 25%. "Keep shooting Tony"

When you have one of the top two scorers in the league and you stick him in the corner, behind the arc and tell him to stay there like just another role player, you are asking for trouble, and not making the most of the talents of your best player.

trading for carmelo anthony was not part of d'antoni's plan when he came to the knicks way back in 2008. it was stupid for dolan to foist carmelo onto d'antoni, and dolan himself has recently admitted that he doesn't really know what he is doing. he certainly didn't know what he was doing back in february 2011. d'antoni has a system and he was successful when he had the right personnel to play within his system. in los angeles he had two players in gasol and bryant who were successful in a different system, the triangle, and bristled at having to play outside what they had become habituated to. was it a bad fit? yes it was. and d'antoni did the right thing in resigning and forgoing getting paid 4 million dollars.

i doubt that the triangle will make the best use of what "talents" carmelo possesses. and thibs will not be enamored of the boozer-esque level of defensive prowess that carmelo will bring with him. and we have seen what a melo-centric offense looks like, haven't we?

Neither was Amare, who D'antoni had to have a "clear the air" meeting with upon his signing here.

yes that is also true. http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/9045601/amare-stoudemire-contract-new-york-knicks-was-necessary-evil

"The Knicks just couldn't strike out looking on LeBron and everyone else. They would've been the league laughingstock -- for old times' sake -- if they ended up with truckloads of available cash and nobody willing to take it.

Amar'e Stoudemire was willing to take it, if only because his own team, the Phoenix Suns, wouldn't guarantee him a full scholarship after he suffered serious knee and eye injuries. Insurance or no insurance, the Knicks weren't asking too many questions. Their coach, Mike D'Antoni, didn't want a reunion with Stoudemire after clashing with him in Phoenix, but he walked into a breakfast meeting with his former player understanding how badly his bosses needed this to work out.

D'Antoni walked out of that breakfast meeting declaring that Stoudemire was a changed man, all grown up and worthy of being a Knick."

and here is what i wrote several days earlier-- makes you wonder how often ian o'connor comes around to snoop for an idea:

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=44131&page=1

and having felton as a starting point guard was not an ideal situation either, following on the heels of duhon during the two years of roster flush. lebron announced on july 8th and felton was signed july 9th. walsh had him on an audition contract of just two years-- a perfect length to be able to upgrade at d'antoni's most crucial position when the opportunity presented itself.

the point about d'antoni is he gets crapped on by so many fans but there was no way he was going to have a winning season the first two years here. that should not be held against him, just as you wouldn't hold losing records against any other coach in a similar situation. it was all about the summer of 2010.

the ongoing issue is whether he got a fair chance with a team that was constructed along a plan, with an opportunity to upgrade at positions of need when the opportunity to do so presented itself. the answer is "absolutely not."

YOu don't get that without talent. Lampe was on that team!!!
We don't take Marbury off their hands, they don't become that team!!!!
We forget how good Isiah was at helping other teams!

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/PHO/2005.html#roster::none

BigDaddyG wrote:

nixluva wrote:The funny thing is tho that MDA has actually made changes to what he's done. He wasn't running SSOL in NY but no one seems to have noticed. Sure we shot 3's but we weren't running even off Makes like in SSOL. SSOL is a full court offense and tell me when we ran that in NY? We never had the PG to run that. Most of the fans and media talking about MDA don't know jack ISH about SSOL. They just think it's about 3's. Most haven't looked at the playbook and what the principles of the system are. There's a reason top coaches like Coach K and Popovich have used MDA's stuff for their own teams. It's not a gimmick.

There's nothing wrong with MDA's approach. He has his style and he should be supported by his GM to get him the kind of players he can win with. This is no different than Phil who NEVER went away from his Triangle offense win or lose. That's what he wanted to run and now he's going to do the same thing here. If a player can't learn it they'll be gone cuz he's not changing what he wants the team to do for a player that can't function within a team oriented system. Even if his new coach didn't run Triangle Phil said he wants a system run. That's no different than MDA.

People forget how close MDA and the Suns got to the finals and they NEVER had the best team in the NBA talent wise. Just cuz he had Nash doesn't make that the same as having Jordan, Pippen, Kobe and Shaq. People make it seem like MDA failed with the top talent in the league or something. People praise Thibs and yet he's not gonna do anything more than MDA without talent. It's entirely possible that Thibs grinding style has been part of the reason his team wear down and get injured. If the Knicks had given MDA a real PG even with the teams we had he would've done much better in NY. MDA just needs a GM that will commit to him and he'll be fine. He may not be the best NBA coach of all time, but he's better than some of the guys who have jobs now.

I don't think anyone has brought up the Duhon years. Most fans understand that those teams were rebuilding. To suggest that Stache made it to the Western Conference finals with teams that lacked talent is disingenuous. How many teams in the Western Conference had more talented players than Nash, STAT, Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion, Boris Diaw, Raja Bell, etc. during those years? That's one hall of famer and three perennial all stars? I'll take it step further and say those teams would have made at least one finals appearance if they had a clue on defense. But Stache doesn't focus on defense. I think it does say a lot that other teams have integrated aspects of Stache's offense. No one is saying that the guy doesn't have a basketball mind. Good coaches do steal from other good coaches. But a good coach, like Pop, also understands his roster. Pop knows he has dominant post player in Duncan and any wrinkles he introduce in his system are built around that. Stache on the other hand would rather have a dominant post player like Pau camp out in the perimeter and discard the strongest parts of his game.
Does Thibs grind his players? Probably. Does he find ways to win? Yes! Do you hear him complaining that he doesn't have a star point guard. No! Thibs has proven that he can make adjustments with the players he has.
I'm sorry that Stache didn't have a star point guard. But you know what? Lots of coaches win games without star point guards. JVG won games with Child's and Ward for goodness sakes. Maybe Melo should have initiated the pick and roll more instead of having Toney Douglas playing out of control. I'm not saying that would have guaranteed success, but it's better than watching the same train wreck happen over and over again.
Yeah, I get that Phil also has his own system. But Phil has won and gets the benefit of the doubt. Stache hasn't won lately, so he doesn't. Also, if you notice, Phil made a lot of tweaks to the triangle such as featuring MJ in the high post instead of center, finding defined roles for non shooters like Ron Harper, making the offense run with Pau and Bynum playing together... Even the great coaches know they need to make adjustments from time to time.

MDA had to make changes his entire career given his teams health issues and yet no one ever gives him credit for that because all they can do is bash the guy. As I said most don't really know the offense of defense well enough to recognize the things MDA did to adjust to his rosters. If you didn't really know the system how could you tell if he changed anything??? In the 05-06 playoffs MDA started Nash, Marion, Diaw, Bell and Tim Thomas and his 8 man rotation added James Jones, Eddie House and Barbosa. THAT'S IT!!! That's not some murderers row rotation. MDA gave Diaw a role and Tim Thomas never really had a better playoff showing. That was a great bit of coaching in a tough Western Conf. MDA beat Phil on the way to that WCF's.

Also this idea that the only reason the Suns lost was cuz MDA didn't coach D is BULL ISH!!! Joe Johnson was hurt in the playoffs they went to the WCF's in 04-05 and it had an impact on their chances. The Spurs used a LOT of dirty tactics in order to beat the Suns and the Stern didn't do the Suns any favors with suspensions. STAT had some major health issues that also hurt their chances. There's no way to know if the Suns might have gotten to a finals if not for some of these extenuating Circumstances.

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:To say that a coach should adapt to his roster and maximize there talents, is about as dumb as it gets. Thats like saying Phil should keep this talented roster in place and somehow teach them the triangle even though certain players just don't fit.

That goes for MDA, you give him a banged up howard and NASH a dis gruntal Gasol, and essential had Duhon again, and you think he suppose to get that bunch to play well beyond there talents.

It seems ridiculous to say that a coach should get his players to play above and beyond, then in the next breath say he doesnt have the players to play his style.

If every one on MDA's suns roster was able to knock down a 3 and thats what made him successful, should he force howard and gasol to shoot 3's or even intergrate them in his system with no training camp.

I'll give DOC RIVERS his props when he guides a team (without an elite PG )to the finals.

A coach can only be considered a bad coach if his roster is really good and there losing like crazy. You can't give a coach a bad roster with no chemistry (only played a few months with each other), no talent, and when he loses label him a bad coach because he didn't over achieve

It's not dumb, it's called coaching. It's what Tom Thibadeau did in Chicago and it's what Woody did after Stache left. It's what Stu Jackson did when he upset the Celtics by by dumping a halfcourt styke and allowing his roster to run. Phil adopted the triangle for a slew a different rosters featuring players of varying degrees of talent and skillsets. He made adjustments to maximize those rosters. No one is labeling him a bad coach. But I am labeling him an inflexible one.

I agree. Look at Riley, he went from Showtime in LA to a tough, physical style in NY and he came within one game of winning it all. Not adapting to the roster you have is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

He did not have much to adapt with here. Adapt to Tony Douglass? Jared Jeffries? Go ISO?

He was a stubborn mule don't get me wrong. He allowed Tony phuckin Douglass to lead the knicks in 3's shooting a whopping 25%. "Keep shooting Tony"

When you have one of the top two scorers in the league and you stick him in the corner, behind the arc and tell him to stay there like just another role player, you are asking for trouble, and not making the most of the talents of your best player.

trading for carmelo anthony was not part of d'antoni's plan when he came to the knicks way back in 2008. it was stupid for dolan to foist carmelo onto d'antoni, and dolan himself has recently admitted that he doesn't really know what he is doing. he certainly didn't know what he was doing back in february 2011. d'antoni has a system and he was successful when he had the right personnel to play within his system. in los angeles he had two players in gasol and bryant who were successful in a different system, the triangle, and bristled at having to play outside what they had become habituated to. was it a bad fit? yes it was. and d'antoni did the right thing in resigning and forgoing getting paid 4 million dollars.

i doubt that the triangle will make the best use of what "talents" carmelo possesses. and thibs will not be enamored of the boozer-esque level of defensive prowess that carmelo will bring with him. and we have seen what a melo-centric offense looks like, haven't we?

D'Antoni was paid for the remainder of his contract with the Knicks. Also, once the guy left the Knicks stopped losing and started winning. What was noble on D'Antoni's part was recognizing that the team wasn't going to win under him but that it might win with a different voice. Stepping aside and receiving the remainder of his guaranteed deal was the right thing for all involved but the guy did get paid.

you lose sight of the big picture. which is more important: (1) build a team where the gm and the coach are on the same page and do their best to work according to an overarching plan or (2) scrap the overarching plan and acquire a deeply flawed and redundant talent and demand that the coach adapt to the talent.

rhetorical question: do you ever wonder why walsh left and d'antoni resigned?

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

mreinman wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:To say that a coach should adapt to his roster and maximize there talents, is about as dumb as it gets. Thats like saying Phil should keep this talented roster in place and somehow teach them the triangle even though certain players just don't fit.

That goes for MDA, you give him a banged up howard and NASH a dis gruntal Gasol, and essential had Duhon again, and you think he suppose to get that bunch to play well beyond there talents.

It seems ridiculous to say that a coach should get his players to play above and beyond, then in the next breath say he doesnt have the players to play his style.

If every one on MDA's suns roster was able to knock down a 3 and thats what made him successful, should he force howard and gasol to shoot 3's or even intergrate them in his system with no training camp.

I'll give DOC RIVERS his props when he guides a team (without an elite PG )to the finals.

A coach can only be considered a bad coach if his roster is really good and there losing like crazy. You can't give a coach a bad roster with no chemistry (only played a few months with each other), no talent, and when he loses label him a bad coach because he didn't over achieve

It's not dumb, it's called coaching. It's what Tom Thibadeau did in Chicago and it's what Woody did after Stache left. It's what Stu Jackson did when he upset the Celtics by by dumping a halfcourt styke and allowing his roster to run. Phil adopted the triangle for a slew a different rosters featuring players of varying degrees of talent and skillsets. He made adjustments to maximize those rosters. No one is labeling him a bad coach. But I am labeling him an inflexible one.

I agree. Look at Riley, he went from Showtime in LA to a tough, physical style in NY and he came within one game of winning it all. Not adapting to the roster you have is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

He did not have much to adapt with here. Adapt to Tony Douglass? Jared Jeffries? Go ISO?

He was a stubborn mule don't get me wrong. He allowed Tony phuckin Douglass to lead the knicks in 3's shooting a whopping 25%. "Keep shooting Tony"

When you have one of the top two scorers in the league and you stick him in the corner, behind the arc and tell him to stay there like just another role player, you are asking for trouble, and not making the most of the talents of your best player.

trading for carmelo anthony was not part of d'antoni's plan when he came to the knicks way back in 2008. it was stupid for dolan to foist carmelo onto d'antoni, and dolan himself has recently admitted that he doesn't really know what he is doing. he certainly didn't know what he was doing back in february 2011. d'antoni has a system and he was successful when he had the right personnel to play within his system. in los angeles he had two players in gasol and bryant who were successful in a different system, the triangle, and bristled at having to play outside what they had become habituated to. was it a bad fit? yes it was. and d'antoni did the right thing in resigning and forgoing getting paid 4 million dollars.

i doubt that the triangle will make the best use of what "talents" carmelo possesses. and thibs will not be enamored of the boozer-esque level of defensive prowess that carmelo will bring with him. and we have seen what a melo-centric offense looks like, haven't we?

D'Antoni was paid for the remainder of his contract with the Knicks. Also, once the guy left the Knicks stopped losing and started winning. What was noble on D'Antoni's part was recognizing that the team wasn't going to win under him but that it might win with a different voice. Stepping aside and receiving the remainder of his guaranteed deal was the right thing for all involved but the guy did get paid.

He walked away from the last 24 games and got paid.

nixluva wrote:IMO the Knicks owed him for having him ruin his record wasting 2 seasons and then totally moving away from what he as a coach needed to win. Makes ZERO sense to bring in a System Coach andthin then not work with him to build a team that can run that system. This is why I have defended the guy so hard over the years. When Phil had less than capable rosters with a big like Kwame trying to run the Triangle how did that work out? It's just stupid to expect good things under those circumstances.t

CrushAlot wrote:

nixluva wrote:IMO the Knicks owed him for having him ruin his record wasting 2 seasons and then totally moving away from what he as a coach needed to win. Makes ZERO sense to bring in a System Coach andthin then not work with him to build a team that can run that system. This is why I have defended the guy so hard over the years. When Phil had less than capable rosters with a big like Kwame trying to run the Triangle how did that work out? It's just stupid to expect good things under those circumstances.t

There are a lot of things to discuss here. But to your point, the Knicks plan was to get any two stars they could, not guys that fit a system. Mjax was the Guy to hire in my opinion.

If mjax doesn't have a pg like curry, im sure they would have fired him already. Now just imagine if MDA had curry, we wouldn't be having this discussion, we would be talking about KD, LBJ or Curry for MVP.

You give most coaches an above avg PG and they will have success, you give MDA an above avg pg you already know whats going to happen.

nixluva wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

nixluva wrote:IMO the Knicks owed him for having him ruin his record wasting 2 seasons and then totally moving away from what he as a coach needed to win. Makes ZERO sense to bring in a System Coach andthin then not work with him to build a team that can run that system. This is why I have defended the guy so hard over the years. When Phil had less than capable rosters with a big like Kwame trying to run the Triangle how did that work out? It's just stupid to expect good things under those circumstances.t

There are a lot of things to discuss here. But to your point, the Knicks plan was to get any two stars they could, not guys that fit a system. Mjax was the Guy to hire in my opinion.

If mjax doesn't have a pg like curry, im sure they would have fired him already. Now just imagine if MDA had curry, we wouldn't be having this discussion, we would be talking about KD, LBJ or Curry for MVP.

You give most coaches an above avg PG and they will have success, you give MDA an above avg pg you already know whats going to happen.

YUP and it just underscores how stupid it was to NOT give MDA at least a decent PG. It's not like this was some mystery and we just couldn't figure out what MDA needed most for his system to work. Being impatient and going for Tyson as opposed to waiting on CP3 was a Huge mistake.

The biggest mistake for me will always be walsh not calling the jazz for williams. That changes everything, maybe melo waits for FA and we get him then.

knicks1248 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

nixluva wrote:IMO the Knicks owed him for having him ruin his record wasting 2 seasons and then totally moving away from what he as a coach needed to win. Makes ZERO sense to bring in a System Coach andthin then not work with him to build a team that can run that system. This is why I have defended the guy so hard over the years. When Phil had less than capable rosters with a big like Kwame trying to run the Triangle how did that work out? It's just stupid to expect good things under those circumstances.t

There are a lot of things to discuss here. But to your point, the Knicks plan was to get any two stars they could, not guys that fit a system. Mjax was the Guy to hire in my opinion.

If mjax doesn't have a pg like curry, im sure they would have fired him already. Now just imagine if MDA had curry, we wouldn't be having this discussion, we would be talking about KD, LBJ or Curry for MVP.

You give most coaches an above avg PG and they will have success, you give MDA an above avg pg you already know whats going to happen.

YUP and it just underscores how stupid it was to NOT give MDA at least a decent PG. It's not like this was some mystery and we just couldn't figure out what MDA needed most for his system to work. Being impatient and going for Tyson as opposed to waiting on CP3 was a Huge mistake.

The biggest mistake for me will always be walsh not calling the jazz for williams. That changes everything, maybe melo waits for FA and we get him then.