CrushAlot wrote:There actually are conflicting reporst on how supportive D'Antoni was with Mosgov. However in D'Antoni's defense Mosgov wrote about D'Antoni talking to him, saying he would get him on the court again soon etc. I think for the most part D'Antoni was doing right by Moz. I don't think that was the case for the other guys. It would be nice if the Knicks could get Moz back somehow.

“He should go on the floor and have three blocks, five rebounds, get to the line three times, have two dunks and when he comes out he only played five minutes and you go, ‘Whoa, look at that!’ Then he goes to seven minutes and then to 10 minutes. He has to have so much energy that he’s changing the game.”

Those seem like very specific goals and a very clear role. I've read articles and posts where they bash Mike for not giving him a clear role!!! How can you be more crystal clear that that? You don't even need plays called for you in order to succeed at doing these things. It's all hustle, effort and desire. Instead AR would get on the floor and try to do something flashy or just flat out not make the hustle plays.

This is the last time i'm going to try and make this point. I hope that it's clear from statements like this what really happened with these players. What are we to believe that Mike just doesn't like certain guys and picks on them. That he never wanted Hill or AR to be successful like a Marion, Diaw or Stoudemire? Why would he not want these players to succeed? No coach wants to cut off his own nose to spite his face. They would all play Atila the Hun if he could help them win games. This is a coach and a team desperate to win and people think he would hold back a player that could make that happen. All MDA did was win and now he's gonna act like a girl and not play kids with talent for no good reason? No he had good reasons, but people don't want to accept that MDA actually has standards and a methodology that has been successful in developing players.

nixluva wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:There actually are conflicting reporst on how supportive D'Antoni was with Mosgov. However in D'Antoni's defense Mosgov wrote about D'Antoni talking to him, saying he would get him on the court again soon etc. I think for the most part D'Antoni was doing right by Moz. I don't think that was the case for the other guys. It would be nice if the Knicks could get Moz back somehow.

Again you have to look at what he was asking a kid like AR to do. He wasn't asking him to score or try to take over games or do anything that was beyond his ability to do at his stage of development! This is all he wanted AR to do:

“He should go on the floor and have three blocks, five rebounds, get to the line three times, have two dunks and when he comes out he only played five minutes and you go, ‘Whoa, look at that!’ Then he goes to seven minutes and then to 10 minutes. He has to have so much energy that he’s changing the game.”

Those seem like very specific goals and a very clear role. I've read articles and posts where they bash Mike for not giving him a clear role!!! How can you be more crystal clear that that? You don't even need plays called for you in order to succeed at doing these things. It's all hustle, effort and desire. Instead AR would get on the floor and try to do something flashy or just flat out not make the hustle plays.

This is the last time i'm going to try and make this point. I hope that it's clear from statements like this what really happened with these players. What are we to believe that Mike just doesn't like certain guys and picks on them. That he never wanted Hill or AR to be successful like a Marion, Diaw or Stoudemire? Why would he not want these players to succeed? No coach wants to cut off his own nose to spite his face. They would all play Atila the Hun if he could help them win games. This is a coach and a team desperate to win and people think he would hold back a player that could make that happen. All MDA did was win and now he's gonna act like a girl and not play kids with talent for no good reason? No he had good reasons, but people don't want to accept that MDA actually has standards and a methodology that has been successful in developing players.

In regards to Randolph, I can't recall a player being screamed at by D'Antoni like he was in the first exhibition game in Milan. Maybe Douglas but definitely never in a preseason game. In Randolph's case either D'Antoni didn't want to deal with him or had a dislike for him. He certainly didn't have a personal coach working with him like Moz did with Dan D'Antoni. In regards to whether Hill personally was disliked by D'Antoni its hard to say. I do think the 'I like good rookies' was calous and gave some indication as to his feelings about Hill.

CrushAlot wrote:

KnicksFE wrote:

nixluva wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

nixluva wrote:I think there is just a tendency to want to use Hill as the poster boy for bashing MDA as a coach. They try to do the same with AR. They use the negative statements from the vets who didn't get the playing time they wanted and complained that MDA didn't talk to them. I think all of this may have some merit, but you can't look only at the negative stuff and ignore the more numerous players who have improved under MDA over the years. He took Diaw off the scrap heap and gave him a role that highlighted his talents and showed he could be a very useful NBA player. More Knick kids have developed under MDA when they put forth the effort. Gallo, Chan, Fields, Williams, TD and even Walker have shown growth. If he stayed I think Timo would've come along. MDA isn't perfect, but I think some take this point a bit too far.

I think a big part of the point of this thread was that on a 29 win team competing for nothing the coach was unable to find even token minutes for his two first round picks. The number of dnps both Douglas and Hill got while the team lost at an incredibly high rate with marginal vets playing major minutes is inexcusable in my opinion. I could link to a boat load of articles that criticize D'Antoni for how poorly he handled his rookies that year. I am sure some of those writers have a bias but that isn't the case for all of them. As far as Randolph is concerned there were some on this forum who suggested that he might never get a chance in NY playing for D'Antoni shortly after the trade happened. After the Milan game it appeared apparent that he was never going to be given a chance in NY. How a 21 year old goes from a lottery pick with a ton of talent to the last man off the bench, even after old man Rautins, to a guy who goes for 19.8 pts, 6.6 rebs, 1 blk a game, and shoots 53% from the field in 29 minutes for the final 5 games of the season for another team. How do you let that happen.
What has happened the past two years with this coach is that his team comes out of training camp and loses a lot. There is some experimentation with minutes and the rotation and then he seems to pick a core group of guys and everyone else is to an extent forgotten about. He appears to sour on big guys pretty quick. The traditional bigs he has had, Hill, Darko, Moz, Randolph all stopped receiving consistent minutes and started receiving dnps early on in the season. Starting December 8th Moz had 19 dnps over the course of 24 games and played a total of 19 minutes during that period. Mozgov blew up when D'Antoni had to use him because Chandler was out. However, I don't know when or if he would have made it back if it wasn't for his huge game when D'Antoni had to put him in.

I just don't see why you think these examples are legitimate. These are projects we're talking about not sure thing players. If anything the poor showings these players had up to that point only underscore why they didn't play more for this coach. Also you keep bringing up DNP's as if it's unusual for a rookie to get a DNP. Unless that young player is a stud it's not that unusual for a coach to let the kid ride the bench. Still in all of this MDA STARTED 2 rookies!!! So how does your argument hold up when that is the case?

You can't bash MDA for not playing Timo when he started the kid in the 1st place. It's a coaches prerogative on who plays and who doesn't. You seem to think that kids should be guaranteed minutes no matter what and that's not the case. MDA has a certain standard he holds his kids up to. If you're a young player you need to come in hungry and giving 110% if you want to play for MDA. You need to stay ready whether you play or not. What happens if you do that? You can end up being Shawne Williams who kept his mouth shut and kept working and now is a valued part of the rotation. You may be overlooking one of MDA's methods for developing his young players. Maybe he feels everything shouldn't come easy. maybe he wants to see a kid go hard every second of ever minute he's on the floor like Fields did.

Said this about AR and it could well have been applied to Hill or Darko to varying degrees:

“He should go on the floor and have three blocks, five rebounds, get to the line three times, have two dunks and when he comes out he only played five minutes and you go, ‘Whoa, look at that!’ Then he goes to seven minutes and then to 10 minutes. He has to have so much energy that he’s changing the game.”

However, Randolph’s talent has never really been in question. His biggest problem in the NBA, other than staying healthy, has been figuring out how to put all of his talents together — he fell in love with his barely-adequate jumper in Golden State, and it often seemed like he goes out on the court with no real idea of what he was supposed to do when he got out there.

November 18, 2010 ι By MARC BERMAN
SACRAMENTO – Mike D'Antoni made the bold move tonight in Sacramento, giving Anthony Randolph his first DNP as a Knick.
It was not the politically correct move with Knicks brass which regards Randolph as an intriguing prospect. But it was long overdue. If the Knicks weren't playing at Golden State Friday night, Randolph assuredly would be a DNP again, coming off tonight's huge, streak-busting 113-106 win over the Kings with a Randolph-less rotation.

Randolph paid careful attention during his first Knicks media training class, but has been a disappointment on the court since the start of preseason and has been given limited minutes - 11.1 per game, shooting 27.6 percent.
There's been too many mistakes, not enough rebounds, blocked shots or accurate jump shots. He's more apt to shoot an airball from 20 feet than sink it. Turnovers have been an issue.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/knicksblog/antoni_takes_the_leap_benches_randolph_MSlv5aWUqk6JGkmrcqHu9H#ixzz1Ubm3D5Gv

I agree, for all I know MDA was very supportive of Mozgov and for a guy who didn’t even speak the language; he was coming along really fine.

There actually are conflicting reporst on how supportive D'Antoni was with Mosgov. However in D'Antoni's defense Mosgov wrote about D'Antoni talking to him, saying he would get him on the court again soon etc. I think for the most part D'Antoni was doing right by Moz. I don't think that was the case for the other guys. It would be nice if the Knicks could get Moz back somehow.

Just because there are conflicting reports to a story, you don’t have to accept either side, sometimes as a fan, you have to go a little farther and use your own judgment and own conclusion. For example

Mozgov was an undrafted / unknown player before the Knicks discovered him, so it wasn’t like he was a big time prospect playing overseas and the Knicks had to play him.

Mozgov albeit older, was a rookie to the NBA game.

Mozgov was very limited in his English, so I would assume that for some players, at first, it must have being a little hard to communicate with him on the court and develop chemistry.

Yet, Mozgov was named the starting center for the NY Knicks when the season started, that to me tells me that MDA was supportive of him.
I agree, the Knicks should find a way to bring him back. He fit nicely with our team.

nixluva wrote:I can't accept any claim that MDA was anything but supportive of Timo. You can't have a coach start a rookie and keep him in there even when he's faltering and say that he's not supportive!!! MDA said that Timo was great in practice and then in the games he'd tighten up. So the kid was working his butt off.

As for AR, from what I can gather AR had a poor attitude toward not playing even if he tried to say the right things in the press. The kid didn't listen. All he had to do when he got in games was do the little things. Rebound, defend, hustle for loose balls... Instead he would keep trying to make an impact on offense. Taking awful shots. This is why he got yelled at by MDA. AR was willfully trying to show out and prove that he was something that he's not. Right now he's not a polished offensive player and he needed to play like a big and not a guard.

For the 3rd time this is what MDA said he wanted AR to do:

“He should go on the floor and have three blocks, five rebounds, get to the line three times, have two dunks and when he comes out he only played five minutes and you go, ‘Whoa, look at that!’ Then he goes to seven minutes and then to 10 minutes. He has to have so much energy that he’s changing the game.”

People can keep ignoring this clear statement all they want but MDA was CRYSTAL CLEAR!!! There was no ambiguity or lack of direction. AR simply refused to go out and do the basic things as he was told. This was the same thing that got him in trouble with Nelson in G.S.!!! It's like the bashing MDA took over Nate. Then what did Nate have the same problems with in Boston? Stop blaming the coach when it's all about the young player in these situations. Contrast that with how well kids like Fields and Williams have done. They're not successful cuz MDA is playing favorites. That's what the idiot Media tends to say. As usual they don't know anything about coaching. If Jorts and Jordan come in and bust it from day one, they're gonna get a shot here. Every time a young player does that he eventually ends up doing well under MDA.

Marc Berman, of the New York Post, reported the following:

Not surprisingly, the communication issue came up, with D'Antoni agreeing he needs to talk to the players more often and get their thoughts -- even during a game.

Players have complained publicly and privately D'Antoni doesn't communicate enough individually to guys and define their roles -- with Larry Hughes, Eddy Curry, Robinson, Al Harrington and Darko Milicic headlining the list.