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

Charlie Rosen Article: Grading the coaches
Author Thread
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
8/4/2011  4:08 PM
martin wrote:
nykshaknbake wrote:
nixluva wrote:I submit that MDA hasn't "failed" in lots of areas. I just think he hasn't overcome the circumstances as much as we may have liked. Yea you have to overcome a lot when you get handed a job and told that for 2 years you'll get no stability or help, cuz we're tearing it down for the summer of 2010!!! How can you not recognize how much that would impact ANY COACH, Phil Jax included. Phil wouldn't take that kind of job!!! WHY? Cuz he knows that his legacy would take a huge hit cuz he wouldn't be able to win. Heck he didn't win the title with a great roster compared to ours. Imagine we had Kobe, Gasol, Odom and Bynum. You think that was a much better situation for a coach than having Duhon, Gallo, Chandler, Al Harrington, Eddy Curry and all the other losers we've had in MDA's 1st 2 years? It's kind of hard to win with a changing roster that only includes kids and castoffs on final yr contracts!!!

Now is when we can really start to take MDA work seriously. Now that we're going with a true core that will be here for a while. A core that you can win with.

I think I've heard you say that multiple times in the past. Does it count now or just like before?

every year since he has been here MDA has had the roster turn over.

hard to judge any coach on those terms, no?

that's not to say we can't nit-pick, but not much long term value to be drawn either.


MDA certainly didn't overachieve under the changing circumstances of his tenure here. He's made mistakes and misjudgments, but he also has had success with players and those players have done well even financially. Just ask Lee if he likes his new contract. Still I can somewhat understand MDA having trouble, cuz he's a system coach and those kinds of guys aren't good with a mixed bag of players that don't really fit.

MDA has been a bit handcuffed with PG's that aren't really PG's but instead more scorer than distributor. While you need to be able to score at the PG spot, we all know Mike's system needs to have a good passer to work at optimum efficiency. It's literally the most important position in his system. Much like in football, Joe Walsh had his West Coast offense and you needed a quick thinking accurate and mobile QB to run it. Some guy that really couldn't read defenses, only throw bombs or had no touch wasn't going to be as successful.

We still don't have that PG, but at least the team has sufficient talent to give MDA a chance to win. He's had to adjust his system over the years here and in a way that's good. He's still found ways for the team to be able to score at a high level. Now if we can get the Defense and rebounding where it needs to be we'll have a winning team with a chance to contend.

AUTOADVERT
TymeLessKnicks
Posts: 21061
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 12/6/2005
Member: #1050
Sweden
8/5/2011  3:50 PM
Had enough Melo?
loweyecue
Posts: 27468
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 11/20/2005
Member: #1037

8/5/2011  5:29 PM
DEADHORSE wrote:
OUCH
TKF on Melo ::....he is a punk, a jerk, a self absorbed out of shape, self aggrandizing, unprofessional, volume chucking coach killing playoff loser!!
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
8/5/2011  6:01 PM
I think Knick fans are going to be suprised with how much better the team is gonna be when we finally have a season. MDA didn't have a lot of time to really work on things the way he needed, but with a full summer of time for him to think and devise some concepts I fully expect
him to come up with some great things for STAT, MELO and CB. It seems that Knick fans tend to really undersell our own players. We have 3 extremely high end players leading this team. With a nice young and talented supporting cast. The only issue I see is filling in the hole at C. We're strong at every other position.

This is the kind of team that D'Antoni should be able to win big with. We'll see what he's able to do. Sure we don't have a PG that is perfect for what he likes to do, but I think he'll still be able to do a lot with this roster.

nykshaknbake
Posts: 22247
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/15/2003
Member: #492
8/6/2011  9:08 AM
Excuses excuses. Expectations are tempered in those circumstances. They are not removed or eliminated. You can make evaluations. It's not a free pass.

martin wrote:
nykshaknbake wrote:
nixluva wrote:I submit that MDA hasn't "failed" in lots of areas. I just think he hasn't overcome the circumstances as much as we may have liked. Yea you have to overcome a lot when you get handed a job and told that for 2 years you'll get no stability or help, cuz we're tearing it down for the summer of 2010!!! How can you not recognize how much that would impact ANY COACH, Phil Jax included. Phil wouldn't take that kind of job!!! WHY? Cuz he knows that his legacy would take a huge hit cuz he wouldn't be able to win. Heck he didn't win the title with a great roster compared to ours. Imagine we had Kobe, Gasol, Odom and Bynum. You think that was a much better situation for a coach than having Duhon, Gallo, Chandler, Al Harrington, Eddy Curry and all the other losers we've had in MDA's 1st 2 years? It's kind of hard to win with a changing roster that only includes kids and castoffs on final yr contracts!!!

Now is when we can really start to take MDA work seriously. Now that we're going with a true core that will be here for a while. A core that you can win with.

I think I've heard you say that multiple times in the past. Does it count now or just like before?

every year since he has been here MDA has had the roster turn over.

hard to judge any coach on those terms, no?

that's not to say we can't nit-pick, but not much long term value to be drawn either.

nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
8/6/2011  11:50 AM
nykshaknbake wrote:Excuses excuses. Expectations are tempered in those circumstances. They are not removed or eliminated. You can make evaluations. It's not a free pass.

Let me ask you, how good did Doc Rivers look before they added KG and Allen?

During his first years with the Celtics, he was criticized by many in the media for his coaching style, most vociferously by ESPN's Bill Simmons, who in 2006 publicly called for Rivers to be fired in his columns.

Chris Forsberg of ESPN Boston somehow found this gem of a website that went up during the 2006-07 season, the year that the Celtics went 24-58, suffered through an 18-game losing streak and everyone thought that Greg Oden was the answer to all of the Celtics' problems. On the site, FireGlennDocRivers.com, fans could sign a petition stating their desire for the Celtics to relieve the then-embattled coach of his coaching duties.

I took the liberty of reading through some of the signatures. Allow me to pull up some of the things that fans thought of Rivers back then.

Been saying it for over a year, we can never win with this guy. I could hardly watch last year; this year is a joke. That was hideous game. We need a fresh start. I know we are not going to win a lot this year regardless, but we need a fresh start and if Danny can't see this he should go as well.
For the betterment of the team please fire Glenn Rivers. Bringing back Jim O'Brien should be better.
Go away, I want you to stay as far away from my beloved organization as the earth's dimensions will allow. FIRE THIS LOSER NOW!
Watching Doc coach (or lack there of) our team is kind of like watching your heavy set aunt join in on the volley ball game at the family outing. Everyone kind of stands around and cringes, pretending not to look, just waiting for something horrible to happen...well its happening!! Get rid of him!!
Doc Rivers just makes stupid decisions at the end of games. This is my 100% honest opinion, and although I am only a celtics fan, I know there are thousands if not millions of people who agree with me.
He seems like a nice enough guy but he doesnt no anything about coaching. Terrible game planning, terrible substitutions, and terrible play calling all highlight his career in Boston. Not to mention the fact that he cant win a close game to save his life.
You're not going to win a championship with Doc. Matter of fact you will never win a playoff series with Doc. Doc can't even draw up a single effective play at the end of games. I'd take anybody over Doc.

Ainge: No firing in near futureBy Shira Springer, Globe Staff | December 10, 2006 EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. -- This news will come as a great disappointment to those who blame Doc Rivers for most, if not all, of the Celtics' problems this season. Executive director of basketball operations Danny Ainge said yesterday that Rivers would remain the Celtics coach through the end of the 2006-07 season. When asked if Rivers would remain the coach even if the team did not win another game this season, Ainge said, "Yes." The Celtics won last night, beating the Nets, 92-90, on Paul Pierce's last-second shot.

Rivers is 254-267 for his coaching career in eight seasons with the Orlando Magic and Boston. He is 84-99 in two-plus seasons with the Celtics. Boston finished 45-37 in 2004-05 -- Rivers' first season there -- and lost in the first round of the playoffs to the Indiana Pacers. The team finished 33-49 last season, seven games out of the final playoff spot, as grumblings about Rivers' performance began.
martin
Posts: 76214
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
8/6/2011  3:52 PM
nykshaknbake wrote:Excuses excuses. Expectations are tempered in those circumstances. They are not removed or eliminated. You can make evaluations. It's not a free pass.

martin wrote:
nykshaknbake wrote:
nixluva wrote:I submit that MDA hasn't "failed" in lots of areas. I just think he hasn't overcome the circumstances as much as we may have liked. Yea you have to overcome a lot when you get handed a job and told that for 2 years you'll get no stability or help, cuz we're tearing it down for the summer of 2010!!! How can you not recognize how much that would impact ANY COACH, Phil Jax included. Phil wouldn't take that kind of job!!! WHY? Cuz he knows that his legacy would take a huge hit cuz he wouldn't be able to win. Heck he didn't win the title with a great roster compared to ours. Imagine we had Kobe, Gasol, Odom and Bynum. You think that was a much better situation for a coach than having Duhon, Gallo, Chandler, Al Harrington, Eddy Curry and all the other losers we've had in MDA's 1st 2 years? It's kind of hard to win with a changing roster that only includes kids and castoffs on final yr contracts!!!

Now is when we can really start to take MDA work seriously. Now that we're going with a true core that will be here for a while. A core that you can win with.

I think I've heard you say that multiple times in the past. Does it count now or just like before?

every year since he has been here MDA has had the roster turn over.

hard to judge any coach on those terms, no?

that's not to say we can't nit-pick, but not much long term value to be drawn either.

i think you just said the same thing as I did.

Or... what did you get out after roster turnovers?

Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
CrushAlot
Posts: 59764
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/25/2003
Member: #452
USA
8/7/2011  11:26 PM
martin wrote:
nykshaknbake wrote:
nixluva wrote:I submit that MDA hasn't "failed" in lots of areas. I just think he hasn't overcome the circumstances as much as we may have liked. Yea you have to overcome a lot when you get handed a job and told that for 2 years you'll get no stability or help, cuz we're tearing it down for the summer of 2010!!! How can you not recognize how much that would impact ANY COACH, Phil Jax included. Phil wouldn't take that kind of job!!! WHY? Cuz he knows that his legacy would take a huge hit cuz he wouldn't be able to win. Heck he didn't win the title with a great roster compared to ours. Imagine we had Kobe, Gasol, Odom and Bynum. You think that was a much better situation for a coach than having Duhon, Gallo, Chandler, Al Harrington, Eddy Curry and all the other losers we've had in MDA's 1st 2 years? It's kind of hard to win with a changing roster that only includes kids and castoffs on final yr contracts!!!

Now is when we can really start to take MDA work seriously. Now that we're going with a true core that will be here for a while. A core that you can win with.

I think I've heard you say that multiple times in the past. Does it count now or just like before?

every year since he has been here MDA has had the roster turn over.

hard to judge any coach on those terms, no?

that's not to say we can't nit-pick, but not much long term value to be drawn either.

I have to disagree a bit with the roster turnover argument. D'Antoni did have to adjust to the two big trades 12 games into the 08-09 season but from that trade on his rotation guys were not really touched and he had all of them for a season and a half and at least 1 (Harrington) training camp or two (the rest of his rotation guys).He only lost Q from his rotation at the end of the 08-09 season. The rookies and new guys in 09-10 were not played anyway. The guys that he had had for at least 68 games the previous season came out of training camp and went 1-9 and 3-14. Those guys, Lee, Duhon, Chandler, Harrington, Nate, Jeffries, Gallo were all there the previous season and aside from Harrington, started the year with the team. The only new guy to consistently get minutes was Bender. The turnover that occurred involved Walsh protecting D'Antoni and ridding the roster of the guys he had a hard time with. Nate, Hughes, Darko etc. The only rotation guy turned over was Jeffries.
I'm tired,I'm tired, I'm so tired right now......Kristaps Porzingis 1/3/18
martin
Posts: 76214
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
8/8/2011  12:34 AM
^ I think you just suggested that Walsh made trades to "protect" MDA. WTF does that mean?
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
8/8/2011  4:15 AM
martin wrote:^ I think you just suggested that Walsh made trades to "protect" MDA. WTF does that mean?

He doesn't know what he means. He just throws crap against the wall to see if it sticks. There's no point to saying Walsh made trades to protect MDA. The team stated it's plan when Walsh came in. They said they were gonna get under the cap for 2010 and still try to be competitive, which we all know was going to be extremely difficult.

In the end we all knew that it was gonna be a tough 2 years. If anything MDA did a decent enough job with many of the young players that it allowed Walsh to eventually make a deal this year. It's all water under the bridge now cuz we have our core for the next 5 years, with the possibility of adding one more big piece or several smaller pieces to try and reach the finals. It's been an expensive process, but overall it's been worth it. Sacrifice 2 years to win for 5.

CrushAlot
Posts: 59764
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/25/2003
Member: #452
USA
8/8/2011  1:56 PM
martin wrote:^ I think you just suggested that Walsh made trades to "protect" MDA. WTF does that mean?

This was discussed ad nauseam at the time it happened. Do you really need clarification or do you have an issue with the semantics used in describing the exodus of players that D'Antoni was having issues with?
I'm tired,I'm tired, I'm so tired right now......Kristaps Porzingis 1/3/18
martin
Posts: 76214
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
8/8/2011  2:40 PM
CrushAlot wrote:
martin wrote:^ I think you just suggested that Walsh made trades to "protect" MDA. WTF does that mean?

This was discussed ad nauseam at the time it happened. Do you really need clarification or do you have an issue with the semantics used in describing the exodus of players that D'Antoni was having issues with?

mostly i just think it's a dumb way to describe the way GMs work.

Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
CrushAlot
Posts: 59764
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/25/2003
Member: #452
USA
8/8/2011  6:21 PM
martin wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
martin wrote:^ I think you just suggested that Walsh made trades to "protect" MDA. WTF does that mean?

This was discussed ad nauseam at the time it happened. Do you really need clarification or do you have an issue with the semantics used in describing the exodus of players that D'Antoni was having issues with?

mostly i just think it's a dumb way to describe the way GMs work.


I think this states the issues with how the roster was handled in 2010 much better than I have.


2010 Report Card: Mike D’Antoni
June 21st, 2010 by Mike Kurylo | Comments | Permalink |

In 2010, the Knicks were expected to better their 33 wins from the season prior. The returning players should have reaped the benefits of familiarity with D’Antoni’s offense. The team had multiple young players which should have improved. And the addition of two first round picks should have assisted with filling out the roster. However D’Antoni’s team floundered in his second season, finishing 4 games worse than the year prior.

The 2010 New York offense was nearly identical to 2009. Both teams finished 17th in offensive efficiency (107.6 in 2010, 108.1 in 2009) with good shooting (10th in 2010, 12th in 2009) and turnovers (11th in 2010 and 2009), while eschewing rebounding (27th in 2010 and 2009) and free throw shooting (28th in 2010 and 2009). However the defense was considerably worse dropping from 110.8 points per 100 possessions in 2009 (23rd) to 111.6 pts/100poss (tied 27th). The team was considerably worse with regards to rebounding going from tied for 20th place to 27th.

Granted the D’Antoni era Knicks with their broken roster wasn’t supposed to be about winning games, at least thus far. But even casting that aside, it’s hard to like everything that has happened to the team under his leadership. Take for instance his handling of certain players. You can write off his dealing with Marbury, considering how the latter has acted publicly (and if the public only sees a small portion of Marbury’s life, then I can only imaging what he was truly like). But it’s hard to dismiss Nate Robinson as easily. Nate was an integral part of the team last year amassing 2209 minutes, but by December he was persona non grata. Benching one of the team’s best players for a month due to immaturity seems harsh.

Just as important was his inability to handle his team publicly. Surprisingly Nate dealt with the benching in a mature fashion when it came to the press, however Larry Hughes and Darko Milicic were much less accommodating. D’Antoni failed to quell the media storm that came with these issues, and instead seemed to fuel them by teetering between aloofness and annoyance whenever asked about playing time.

Of course there may be elements that we as outsiders are not privy to, especially with regards to what occurs behind the scenes. But it’s impossible to defend D’Antoni’s choices in the rotation during the 2010 season. Tossing out the corpse of Chris Duhon’s night after night was inexplicable, and perhaps the worst coaching decision he has made. It was like the NBA’s version of the Emperor’s New Clothes; everyone could see that Duhon was awful except for the one person who could have removed him from the rotation. It’s not like D’Antoni didn’t have other options. Nate Robinson, Sergio Rodriguez, and Toney Douglas were obvious choices to replace Duhon. And the rookie proved to be a good player once he finally got playing time.

The point guard spot wasn’t the only position where D’Antoni blundered. For a team that was one of the worst in the league on defense and rebounding, D’Antoni refused to give serious consideration to any of the team’s natural centers. Granted the issues with Eddy Curry are well documented, but the team should have experimented with either Jordan Hill or Darko Milicic to see if either could have addressed these issues. Both players received more minutes from their new teams upon being traded, so it’s hard to believe there was anything other than D’Antoni’s own blinders which prevented them from contributing to the team. The treatment of Douglas, Hill, and Robinson might not be on par with ignoring Barnes, trading away Ariza, and burying David Lee on the depth chart. However there’s no doubt that the team squandered the talent on an already resource poor team.

Not everything was bad for D’Antoni in 2010. He did help along some of the younger players. Danilo Gallinari didn’t turn into a superstar, but played well for a 21 year old. Meanwhile 23 year old Toney Douglas and 22 year old Bill Walker were surprisingly productive, albeit in limited minutes. And the ability to recognize David Lee’s passing ability and run the offense through him was pretty inventive. Depending on who the Knicks sign this summer, many of the issues with D’Antoni are likely to vanish. However human weaknesses often appear under the worst stress and strain, and perhaps 2010 was a magnifying glass on what D’Antoni doesn’t do well.

Report Card (5 point scale):

In order to grade D’Antoni I’m going to use a different set of metrics. In a recent interview, Henry Abbott of TrueHoop was asked about Nate McMillan and said this about NBA coaches:

The way to judge a coach is not to obsess over this or that little thing, but to look around the franchise and ask: Are the basketball players well-led? Do they give great effort at all times? Are the offense and defense generally efficient? Are the players on the roster well-deployed? Do the players believe in the coach as their leader? Is the staff on the same page?

So I’ll attempt to answer these questions, although I have to do so as an outsider, speculating where necessary.

Are the basketball players well-led? 3
Do they give great effort at all times? 3
Sometimes it’s hard to separate ability with effort, and perhaps with D’Antoni’s short rotation watching the same players with the same flaws become ingrained in my memory. I didn’t get the feeling that the team was ill-prepared or lethargic, but I didn’t feel that they were superbly organized or energetic.

Are the offense and defense generally efficient? 1
The offense has been what you’d expect, but the defense was just dreadful last season. If pushed I could go with a 2, but when you consider that D’Antoni wasted so many minutes on Jared Jeffries, you’d expect better than the 3rd worst defense in the NBA. Additionally he could have moved David Lee back to PF in order to better protect the paint.

Are the players on the roster well-deployed? -5
By far D’Antoni’s worst ability, as mentioned above.

Do the players believe in the coach as their leader? NA
Impossible to answer this question from my perspective.

Is the staff on the same page? 5
I’ve never heard any dissent from the other coaches or even the front office. Considering that one of the assistant coaches is kin, and that Donnie Walsh has gone out on a limb to protect his coach, this is D’Antoni’s strength so far.

Final Grade: F

http://knickerblogger.net/2010-report-card-mike-dantoni/

I'm tired,I'm tired, I'm so tired right now......Kristaps Porzingis 1/3/18
martin
Posts: 76214
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
8/8/2011  8:32 PM
CrushAlot wrote:Of course there may be elements that we as outsiders are not privy to, especially with regards to what occurs behind the scenes. But it’s impossible to defend D’Antoni’s choices in the rotation during the 2010 season. Tossing out the corpse of Chris Duhon’s night after night was inexplicable, and perhaps the worst coaching decision he has made. It was like the NBA’s version of the Emperor’s New Clothes; everyone could see that Duhon was awful except for the one person who could have removed him from the rotation. It’s not like D’Antoni didn’t have other options. Nate Robinson, Sergio Rodriguez, and Toney Douglas were obvious choices to replace Duhon. And the rookie proved to be a good player once he finally got playing time.

The point guard spot wasn’t the only position where D’Antoni blundered. For a team that was one of the worst in the league on defense and rebounding, D’Antoni refused to give serious consideration to any of the team’s natural centers. Granted the issues with Eddy Curry are well documented, but the team should have experimented with either Jordan Hill or Darko Milicic to see if either could have addressed these issues. Both players received more minutes from their new teams upon being traded, so it’s hard to believe there was anything other than D’Antoni’s own blinders which prevented them from contributing to the team. The treatment of Douglas, Hill, and Robinson might not be on par with ignoring Barnes, trading away Ariza, and burying David Lee on the depth chart. However there’s no doubt that the team squandered the talent on an already resource poor team.

hindsight is 20-20 and we have the luxury of having it. Those 2 paragraphs seems to be make the whole exercise and article pointless.

Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
CrushAlot
Posts: 59764
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/25/2003
Member: #452
USA
8/8/2011  8:53 PM
martin wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:Of course there may be elements that we as outsiders are not privy to, especially with regards to what occurs behind the scenes. But it’s impossible to defend D’Antoni’s choices in the rotation during the 2010 season. Tossing out the corpse of Chris Duhon’s night after night was inexplicable, and perhaps the worst coaching decision he has made. It was like the NBA’s version of the Emperor’s New Clothes; everyone could see that Duhon was awful except for the one person who could have removed him from the rotation. It’s not like D’Antoni didn’t have other options. Nate Robinson, Sergio Rodriguez, and Toney Douglas were obvious choices to replace Duhon. And the rookie proved to be a good player once he finally got playing time.

The point guard spot wasn’t the only position where D’Antoni blundered. For a team that was one of the worst in the league on defense and rebounding, D’Antoni refused to give serious consideration to any of the team’s natural centers. Granted the issues with Eddy Curry are well documented, but the team should have experimented with either Jordan Hill or Darko Milicic to see if either could have addressed these issues. Both players received more minutes from their new teams upon being traded, so it’s hard to believe there was anything other than D’Antoni’s own blinders which prevented them from contributing to the team. The treatment of Douglas, Hill, and Robinson might not be on par with ignoring Barnes, trading away Ariza, and burying David Lee on the depth chart. However there’s no doubt that the team squandered the talent on an already resource poor team.

hindsight is 20-20 and we have the luxury of having it. Those 2 paragraphs seems to be make the whole exercise and article pointless.

I don't think this is hindsight. There was a very passionate group of posters on this forum that wanted these players developed and questioned daily why it wasn't happening. This is just a synopsis of the year of frustration for fans who had to watch young guys not get developed while the coach talked about the playoffs.
I'm tired,I'm tired, I'm so tired right now......Kristaps Porzingis 1/3/18
martin
Posts: 76214
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
8/8/2011  9:41 PM
CrushAlot wrote:
martin wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:Of course there may be elements that we as outsiders are not privy to, especially with regards to what occurs behind the scenes. But it’s impossible to defend D’Antoni’s choices in the rotation during the 2010 season. Tossing out the corpse of Chris Duhon’s night after night was inexplicable, and perhaps the worst coaching decision he has made. It was like the NBA’s version of the Emperor’s New Clothes; everyone could see that Duhon was awful except for the one person who could have removed him from the rotation. It’s not like D’Antoni didn’t have other options. Nate Robinson, Sergio Rodriguez, and Toney Douglas were obvious choices to replace Duhon. And the rookie proved to be a good player once he finally got playing time.

The point guard spot wasn’t the only position where D’Antoni blundered. For a team that was one of the worst in the league on defense and rebounding, D’Antoni refused to give serious consideration to any of the team’s natural centers. Granted the issues with Eddy Curry are well documented, but the team should have experimented with either Jordan Hill or Darko Milicic to see if either could have addressed these issues. Both players received more minutes from their new teams upon being traded, so it’s hard to believe there was anything other than D’Antoni’s own blinders which prevented them from contributing to the team. The treatment of Douglas, Hill, and Robinson might not be on par with ignoring Barnes, trading away Ariza, and burying David Lee on the depth chart. However there’s no doubt that the team squandered the talent on an already resource poor team.

hindsight is 20-20 and we have the luxury of having it. Those 2 paragraphs seems to be make the whole exercise and article pointless.

I don't think this is hindsight. There was a very passionate group of posters on this forum that wanted these players developed and questioned daily why it wasn't happening. This is just a synopsis of the year of frustration for fans who had to watch young guys not get developed while the coach talked about the playoffs.

I am saying that we the readers have hindsight over the author.

Author: "It’s not like D’Antoni didn’t have other options." Readers know: Nate is not a PG, Sergio got minutes when he came to NY (more than he ever did in POR) and TD has shown us his short-comings as a PG (even to this day).

Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
CrushAlot
Posts: 59764
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/25/2003
Member: #452
USA
8/8/2011  10:12 PM
martin wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
martin wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:Of course there may be elements that we as outsiders are not privy to, especially with regards to what occurs behind the scenes. But it’s impossible to defend D’Antoni’s choices in the rotation during the 2010 season. Tossing out the corpse of Chris Duhon’s night after night was inexplicable, and perhaps the worst coaching decision he has made. It was like the NBA’s version of the Emperor’s New Clothes; everyone could see that Duhon was awful except for the one person who could have removed him from the rotation. It’s not like D’Antoni didn’t have other options. Nate Robinson, Sergio Rodriguez, and Toney Douglas were obvious choices to replace Duhon. And the rookie proved to be a good player once he finally got playing time.

The point guard spot wasn’t the only position where D’Antoni blundered. For a team that was one of the worst in the league on defense and rebounding, D’Antoni refused to give serious consideration to any of the team’s natural centers. Granted the issues with Eddy Curry are well documented, but the team should have experimented with either Jordan Hill or Darko Milicic to see if either could have addressed these issues. Both players received more minutes from their new teams upon being traded, so it’s hard to believe there was anything other than D’Antoni’s own blinders which prevented them from contributing to the team. The treatment of Douglas, Hill, and Robinson might not be on par with ignoring Barnes, trading away Ariza, and burying David Lee on the depth chart. However there’s no doubt that the team squandered the talent on an already resource poor team.

hindsight is 20-20 and we have the luxury of having it. Those 2 paragraphs seems to be make the whole exercise and article pointless.

I don't think this is hindsight. There was a very passionate group of posters on this forum that wanted these players developed and questioned daily why it wasn't happening. This is just a synopsis of the year of frustration for fans who had to watch young guys not get developed while the coach talked about the playoffs.

I am saying that we the readers have hindsight over the author.

Author: "It’s not like D’Antoni didn’t have other options." Readers know: Nate is not a PG, Sergio got minutes when he came to NY (more than he ever did in POR) and TD has shown us his short-comings as a PG (even to this day).

I don't think the 26 dnps over the first 60 games until Walsh traveled with the team while Duhon was starting and playing horribly is excusable in Douglas's case. You can sacrifice player development if you are winning. You can't justify not even giving a guy any minutes when you are losing at an incredible rate and the guy you are starting is playing horrific ball and won't be on the team the following year.
I'm tired,I'm tired, I'm so tired right now......Kristaps Porzingis 1/3/18
martin
Posts: 76214
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
8/8/2011  10:22 PM
CrushAlot wrote:
martin wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
martin wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:Of course there may be elements that we as outsiders are not privy to, especially with regards to what occurs behind the scenes. But it’s impossible to defend D’Antoni’s choices in the rotation during the 2010 season. Tossing out the corpse of Chris Duhon’s night after night was inexplicable, and perhaps the worst coaching decision he has made. It was like the NBA’s version of the Emperor’s New Clothes; everyone could see that Duhon was awful except for the one person who could have removed him from the rotation. It’s not like D’Antoni didn’t have other options. Nate Robinson, Sergio Rodriguez, and Toney Douglas were obvious choices to replace Duhon. And the rookie proved to be a good player once he finally got playing time.

The point guard spot wasn’t the only position where D’Antoni blundered. For a team that was one of the worst in the league on defense and rebounding, D’Antoni refused to give serious consideration to any of the team’s natural centers. Granted the issues with Eddy Curry are well documented, but the team should have experimented with either Jordan Hill or Darko Milicic to see if either could have addressed these issues. Both players received more minutes from their new teams upon being traded, so it’s hard to believe there was anything other than D’Antoni’s own blinders which prevented them from contributing to the team. The treatment of Douglas, Hill, and Robinson might not be on par with ignoring Barnes, trading away Ariza, and burying David Lee on the depth chart. However there’s no doubt that the team squandered the talent on an already resource poor team.

hindsight is 20-20 and we have the luxury of having it. Those 2 paragraphs seems to be make the whole exercise and article pointless.

I don't think this is hindsight. There was a very passionate group of posters on this forum that wanted these players developed and questioned daily why it wasn't happening. This is just a synopsis of the year of frustration for fans who had to watch young guys not get developed while the coach talked about the playoffs.

I am saying that we the readers have hindsight over the author.

Author: "It’s not like D’Antoni didn’t have other options." Readers know: Nate is not a PG, Sergio got minutes when he came to NY (more than he ever did in POR) and TD has shown us his short-comings as a PG (even to this day).

I don't think the 26 dnps over the first 60 games until Walsh traveled with the team while Duhon was starting and playing horribly is excusable in Douglas's case. You can sacrifice player development if you are winning. You can't justify not even giving a guy any minutes when you are losing at an incredible rate and the guy you are starting is playing horrific ball and won't be on the team the following year.

whenever you get out of your tunnel vision let the rest of us know.

Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
CrushAlot
Posts: 59764
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/25/2003
Member: #452
USA
8/8/2011  10:32 PM
martin wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
martin wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
martin wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:Of course there may be elements that we as outsiders are not privy to, especially with regards to what occurs behind the scenes. But it’s impossible to defend D’Antoni’s choices in the rotation during the 2010 season. Tossing out the corpse of Chris Duhon’s night after night was inexplicable, and perhaps the worst coaching decision he has made. It was like the NBA’s version of the Emperor’s New Clothes; everyone could see that Duhon was awful except for the one person who could have removed him from the rotation. It’s not like D’Antoni didn’t have other options. Nate Robinson, Sergio Rodriguez, and Toney Douglas were obvious choices to replace Duhon. And the rookie proved to be a good player once he finally got playing time.

The point guard spot wasn’t the only position where D’Antoni blundered. For a team that was one of the worst in the league on defense and rebounding, D’Antoni refused to give serious consideration to any of the team’s natural centers. Granted the issues with Eddy Curry are well documented, but the team should have experimented with either Jordan Hill or Darko Milicic to see if either could have addressed these issues. Both players received more minutes from their new teams upon being traded, so it’s hard to believe there was anything other than D’Antoni’s own blinders which prevented them from contributing to the team. The treatment of Douglas, Hill, and Robinson might not be on par with ignoring Barnes, trading away Ariza, and burying David Lee on the depth chart. However there’s no doubt that the team squandered the talent on an already resource poor team.

hindsight is 20-20 and we have the luxury of having it. Those 2 paragraphs seems to be make the whole exercise and article pointless.

I don't think this is hindsight. There was a very passionate group of posters on this forum that wanted these players developed and questioned daily why it wasn't happening. This is just a synopsis of the year of frustration for fans who had to watch young guys not get developed while the coach talked about the playoffs.

I am saying that we the readers have hindsight over the author.

Author: "It’s not like D’Antoni didn’t have other options." Readers know: Nate is not a PG, Sergio got minutes when he came to NY (more than he ever did in POR) and TD has shown us his short-comings as a PG (even to this day).

I don't think the 26 dnps over the first 60 games until Walsh traveled with the team while Duhon was starting and playing horribly is excusable in Douglas's case. You can sacrifice player development if you are winning. You can't justify not even giving a guy any minutes when you are losing at an incredible rate and the guy you are starting is playing horrific ball and won't be on the team the following year.

whenever you get out of your tunnel vision let the rest of us know.

Its funny because I see you as having tunnel vision in regard to this issue. If you can find an article supporting the handling of the roster that year, player development, and indicating that communication between the coach and some of his players wasn't an issue please post it. Otherwise I will continue to have 'tunnel vision' in regards to how all of the new guys brought in for that season were handled.
I'm tired,I'm tired, I'm so tired right now......Kristaps Porzingis 1/3/18
martin
Posts: 76214
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
8/8/2011  10:45 PM
CrushAlot wrote:
martin wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
martin wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
martin wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:Of course there may be elements that we as outsiders are not privy to, especially with regards to what occurs behind the scenes. But it’s impossible to defend D’Antoni’s choices in the rotation during the 2010 season. Tossing out the corpse of Chris Duhon’s night after night was inexplicable, and perhaps the worst coaching decision he has made. It was like the NBA’s version of the Emperor’s New Clothes; everyone could see that Duhon was awful except for the one person who could have removed him from the rotation. It’s not like D’Antoni didn’t have other options. Nate Robinson, Sergio Rodriguez, and Toney Douglas were obvious choices to replace Duhon. And the rookie proved to be a good player once he finally got playing time.

The point guard spot wasn’t the only position where D’Antoni blundered. For a team that was one of the worst in the league on defense and rebounding, D’Antoni refused to give serious consideration to any of the team’s natural centers. Granted the issues with Eddy Curry are well documented, but the team should have experimented with either Jordan Hill or Darko Milicic to see if either could have addressed these issues. Both players received more minutes from their new teams upon being traded, so it’s hard to believe there was anything other than D’Antoni’s own blinders which prevented them from contributing to the team. The treatment of Douglas, Hill, and Robinson might not be on par with ignoring Barnes, trading away Ariza, and burying David Lee on the depth chart. However there’s no doubt that the team squandered the talent on an already resource poor team.

hindsight is 20-20 and we have the luxury of having it. Those 2 paragraphs seems to be make the whole exercise and article pointless.

I don't think this is hindsight. There was a very passionate group of posters on this forum that wanted these players developed and questioned daily why it wasn't happening. This is just a synopsis of the year of frustration for fans who had to watch young guys not get developed while the coach talked about the playoffs.

I am saying that we the readers have hindsight over the author.

Author: "It’s not like D’Antoni didn’t have other options." Readers know: Nate is not a PG, Sergio got minutes when he came to NY (more than he ever did in POR) and TD has shown us his short-comings as a PG (even to this day).

I don't think the 26 dnps over the first 60 games until Walsh traveled with the team while Duhon was starting and playing horribly is excusable in Douglas's case. You can sacrifice player development if you are winning. You can't justify not even giving a guy any minutes when you are losing at an incredible rate and the guy you are starting is playing horrific ball and won't be on the team the following year.

whenever you get out of your tunnel vision let the rest of us know.

Its funny because I see you as having tunnel vision in regard to this issue. If you can find an article supporting the handling of the roster that year, player development, and indicating that communication between the coach and some of his players wasn't an issue please post it. Otherwise I will continue to have 'tunnel vision' in regards to how all of the new guys brought in for that season were handled.

i don't need articles and quotes, I use my own judgment. I also understand that team dynamics are not as black and white as your portray them to be.

There are other players on the team that also needed development and continuity that TD (for instance) could not have provided. Duhon is a useless starter and maybe a bench player at best but he knew how to run an offense and the PnR no matter how beat up and probably hung over as he was.

Lee, Chandler and Gallo all needed his play, and in terms of player development, they were most likely the most important, not Hill and TD. They were the young guys whose value needed to be lifted in the greater summer of 2010 Free Agent land. You don't just throw a late first round draft pick who is a converted SG the reigns of pro basketball team and hope for the best, non-playoff team or whatever.

Generally, young players earn minutes. And team dynamics are a subtle thing.

Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
Charlie Rosen Article: Grading the coaches

©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