Posted by SupremeCommander:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by SupremeCommander:

That 99 team got smoked in the Finals because Larry Johnson was a shell of his former self, Ewing was shelved, and Van Gundy was still feeling out how to use Camby and Spree. Moreover, the team was structurally flawed in that Houston and Spreewell were both often on the floor at the same time.

My point is simply if the Knicks have a comparable roster to that team, we'll be in great shape and fun to watch. Also, every argument agiant D'Antoni seems to be based upon THIS roster. Well, this roster SUCKS. Why the hell should the Knicks pick a coach for THESE players?

Every argument against D'Antoni that I've made has clearly stated that the players who will be brought in will pale in comparison to what he had in Phoenix. Where are we getting a 2 time MVP PG, 2 freakishly athletic all star forwards and a 6th man of the year who all fit his system perfectly? And even with all that he couldn't get close to the Finals.

(BTW, that argument against D'Antoni line wasn't directed at you, more of the board in general... just wanted you to know that)

Anyway, you're right, to an extent. But nobody--and I mean nobody--thought Steve Nash was a two time MVP. The free-spending Mark Cuban let him walk! Amare ended up getting hurt. Marion cared more about himself than the team. They've brought in different guys to fill some sort of system function. Year in, year out, they were one of the best teams in the league. They went from Joe Johnson to Boris Diaw, Marion to Shaq and haven't missed a beat really. That counts for something in my book.

Perhaps D'Antoni isn't the guy that will get the Knicks a championship. But he is a guy that can make the franchise (1) relevant and (2) marquee again. Talk of titles in Knicks land at the moment is a waste of breath. There is a long way to go before that should be factored into any coaching decision.

What did Dantoni do when Nash missed games and the roster was relatively healthy?


Here are the results the past 4yrs...

In 2007-2008 the Suns were 0-1 without Nash
In 2006-2007 the Suns were 2-4 without Nash
In 2005-2006 the Suns were 0-3 without Nash
In 2004-2005 the Suns were 1-5 without Nash

So as we can see the Suns were 3-13 without Nash throughout D'Antoni's tenure with the team. The Suns go as Nash goes. So without his special point guard D'Antoni has major red flags as a coach.



[Edited by - TrueBlue on 05-09-2008 2:21 PM]

Posted by tkf:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by SupremeCommander:

Look, this team is going to improve defensively (and offensively) just by getting rid of Curry and Randolph (I say offensively too because the ball doesn't move with them on the floor).

Now, the Suns aren't to be confused with a great defensive team. But people don't understand D'Antoni's system too well here. A big part of his system and ideology is to be successful in today's NBA, you have to get more FGA and FTA. Hard fouls are a no-no, for example, because it slows the pace of game as well as gives the other team more FTA.

For all you guys that loved watching Latrell Spreewell play, that's the type of guy the Knicks would need... a guy who can jam the passing lanes and fly.

If you loved that 1999 team as much as me, you should be excited about D'Antoni

The 99 Knicks team was tough, resilient and played hard on defense. None of that can be said about a D'Antoni team.

and they got smoked in the finals by the same team that ended D'antoni's suns playoff run 3 out of the 4 years he was there... So if the spurs were in the east, there probably would have been no finals run for that 99 team....So what does this all mean isles?


[Edited by - tkf on 09-05-2008 1:31 PM]

Come on tkf, that team made it to the Finals on heart. They were shorthanded and weren't nearly as talented as those Suns teams.

2 out of the 3 times that the Spurs beat the Suns, the Suns had home court advantage and their 3 best players were all healthy. The Suns won all of 3 games in those series. The Mavs were able to beat the Spurs, same with a Lakers team that got smoked by Larry Brown's Pistons, why couldn't the Suns? Why are D'Antoni's Suns allowed to use the Spurs as an excuse as to why their 60 win teams underachieved?

I understand that Isles, but the knicks couldn't beat the bulls and the knicks had top 50 players in Ewing, they had starks, oak, derek harper, a solid bench and a HOF coach.. Yet they couldn't beat the bulls, neither could sloan and the jazz or the cavs... Duncan has been the key factor in the suns not winning, the same way the knicks could not get past jordan, but that does not make us think any less of those knicks? does it?

The suns also had injuries. They lost JJ in the playoffs vs the spurs, he was hurt, missed a game and was never the same, and then last year with the suspensions the suns got a raw deal then..... So lets not overlook that and make excuses for the knicks...

A lot of you are acting as if the Suns were supposed to beat the spurs? do you really think they were better? do you? considering that the spurs always had the best player on the floor in Duncan...

Don't bother comparing the Spurs to MJ's Bulls. The Spurs have been beaten several times while nobody beat the Bulls when MJ was playing full seasons. In 2 of those years, the Suns had a better record and underachieved in the playoffs. It doesn't matter that they lost to the Spurs, they should have beaten them in those years but they didn't even come close. You can't just dismiss their failure because they lost to the Spurs.

Losing a young JJ shouldn't have cost them the series. They got screwed with the suspensions but they still lost home court after the first game and blew a chance to dominate the series before suspensions hit.

Posted by Bippity10:

I again have no problem bringing him here but you have to be wary of the cost. Just think for a second. Let's pretend he's a bust and does a horrible job here. The fans are screaming fire D'Antoni but we are hesitant to get rid of him because his salary is "staggering". The money is not ours but will affect our decision making. It's time to change.

Now I personally don't think he will fail, but.......Offer him Market value, and if he accepts than you know he wants to be here and is not just here for the money, like everyone else. If he doesn't accept, guess what? In the 3 or 4 years that will be needed to destroy this roster someone great will find NY appealing.

This and Nalod's are best posts so far and I agree with fishmike as well. The way to get around the buyout problem is to put in two termination clauses in to the contract. Need clearly defined goals over the next three years. If he doen't meet those goals then we can terminate the contract if we dont get him the players then its on us.