CrushAlot wrote:loweyecue wrote:CrushAlot wrote:I don't think management did him any favors in acquiring Anthony and amnestying Billups. In fact it appears there was a disregard for what he needs to be successful. However, I also think that the Berger article that quoted Warkenstein is right when he says D'Antoni is a roster specific coach. I don't think he is the problem this year and I don't think he was put in the position where he can succeed. That being said I do think he had done enough in the past to warrant termination. This year is different. He is not part of the problem but I also don't think he is capable of solving it.
So when was he put in a position to succeed during his tenure as a Knick's coach?
I think pre-trade last year he had the team closest to what he needs to run his style. I think we differ in opinion about how much success he is actually capable of achieving without a totally stacked roster and an mvp running the point.
Right pre-trade last year he had a team that he was driving towards success. He had put the hard work in, taken the early losses worked his way back to .500 and WHAM. He was once again put in a position to fail. 
will get fired this year, its a sad reflection of just how sick our franchise is.
loweyecue wrote:CrushAlot wrote:loweyecue wrote:CrushAlot wrote:I don't think management did him any favors in acquiring Anthony and amnestying Billups. In fact it appears there was a disregard for what he needs to be successful. However, I also think that the Berger article that quoted Warkenstein is right when he says D'Antoni is a roster specific coach. I don't think he is the problem this year and I don't think he was put in the position where he can succeed. That being said I do think he had done enough in the past to warrant termination. This year is different. He is not part of the problem but I also don't think he is capable of solving it.
So when was he put in a position to succeed during his tenure as a Knick's coach?
I think pre-trade last year he had the team closest to what he needs to run his style. I think we differ in opinion about how much success he is actually capable of achieving without a totally stacked roster and an mvp running the point.
Right pre-trade last year he had a team that he was driving towards success. He had put the hard work in, taken the early losses worked his way back to .500 and WHAM. He was once again put in a position to fail. will get fired this year, its a sad reflection of just how sick our franchise is.
I really liked that pre-trade team but I think they were very opportunistic in when they won. They had a great run after a bad start going 13-1 during an easy part of their schedule. The Knicks didn't fall below .500 after that run but they did play below .500 up until the trade deadline from that point on. I think Amare's play and leadership had a lot to do with that teams success.
CrushAlot wrote:loweyecue wrote:CrushAlot wrote:loweyecue wrote:CrushAlot wrote:I don't think management did him any favors in acquiring Anthony and amnestying Billups. In fact it appears there was a disregard for what he needs to be successful. However, I also think that the Berger article that quoted Warkenstein is right when he says D'Antoni is a roster specific coach. I don't think he is the problem this year and I don't think he was put in the position where he can succeed. That being said I do think he had done enough in the past to warrant termination. This year is different. He is not part of the problem but I also don't think he is capable of solving it.
So when was he put in a position to succeed during his tenure as a Knick's coach?
I think pre-trade last year he had the team closest to what he needs to run his style. I think we differ in opinion about how much success he is actually capable of achieving without a totally stacked roster and an mvp running the point.
Right pre-trade last year he had a team that he was driving towards success. He had put the hard work in, taken the early losses worked his way back to .500 and WHAM. He was once again put in a position to fail. will get fired this year, its a sad reflection of just how sick our franchise is.
I really liked that pre-trade team but I think they were very opportunistic in when they won. They had a great run after a bad start going 13-1 during an easy part of their schedule. The Knicks didn't fall below .500 after that run but they did play below .500 up until the trade deadline from that point on. I think Amare's play and leadership had a lot to do with that teams success.
That team was average to bad on defense, and the current version is showing that a single key addition like Tyson with some great contribution from Shumpert can raise the defense to top 10. And it's still the same guy coaching hem. Did Woodson make some miracle improvement? I don't know our defensive schemes have looked the same over the last 2-4 years. Only the execuion has changed.
Antoni isn't part of the solution.
Fire Antoni Now!!
What exactly are we going to wheel and deal here?
CrushAlot wrote:loweyecue wrote:CrushAlot wrote:I don't think management did him any favors in acquiring Anthony and amnestying Billups. In fact it appears there was a disregard for what he needs to be successful. However, I also think that the Berger article that quoted Warkenstein is right when he says D'Antoni is a roster specific coach. I don't think he is the problem this year and I don't think he was put in the position where he can succeed. That being said I do think he had done enough in the past to warrant termination. This year is different. He is not part of the problem but I also don't think he is capable of solving it.
So when was he put in a position to succeed during his tenure as a Knick's coach?
I think pre-trade last year he had the team closest to what he needs to run his style. I think we differ in opinion about how much success he is actually capable of achieving without a totally stacked roster and an mvp running the point.
This is why I don't understand why people wouldn't want to give Jax a chance. One coach has a team stacked and perfectly fitting to his offense and isn't able to win. The other coach has some of the best players ever on his team and IS able to win. Am I missing something?
ATrain wrote:CrushAlot wrote:loweyecue wrote:CrushAlot wrote:I don't think management did him any favors in acquiring Anthony and amnestying Billups. In fact it appears there was a disregard for what he needs to be successful. However, I also think that the Berger article that quoted Warkenstein is right when he says D'Antoni is a roster specific coach. I don't think he is the problem this year and I don't think he was put in the position where he can succeed. That being said I do think he had done enough in the past to warrant termination. This year is different. He is not part of the problem but I also don't think he is capable of solving it.
So when was he put in a position to succeed during his tenure as a Knick's coach?
I think pre-trade last year he had the team closest to what he needs to run his style. I think we differ in opinion about how much success he is actually capable of achieving without a totally stacked roster and an mvp running the point.
This is why I don't understand why people wouldn't want to give Jax a chance. One coach has a team stacked and perfectly fitting to his offense and isn't able to win. The other coach has some of the best players ever on his team and IS able to win. Am I missing something?
What are you talking about? If you bring in Phil what is he gonna do with this exact same team? How about we fix this roster 1st and then see what we can do? Coach is the LEAST of our problems
nixluva wrote:ATrain wrote:CrushAlot wrote:loweyecue wrote:CrushAlot wrote:I don't think management did him any favors in acquiring Anthony and amnestying Billups. In fact it appears there was a disregard for what he needs to be successful. However, I also think that the Berger article that quoted Warkenstein is right when he says D'Antoni is a roster specific coach. I don't think he is the problem this year and I don't think he was put in the position where he can succeed. That being said I do think he had done enough in the past to warrant termination. This year is different. He is not part of the problem but I also don't think he is capable of solving it.
So when was he put in a position to succeed during his tenure as a Knick's coach?
I think pre-trade last year he had the team closest to what he needs to run his style. I think we differ in opinion about how much success he is actually capable of achieving without a totally stacked roster and an mvp running the point.
This is why I don't understand why people wouldn't want to give Jax a chance. One coach has a team stacked and perfectly fitting to his offense and isn't able to win. The other coach has some of the best players ever on his team and IS able to win. Am I missing something?
What are you talking about? If you bring in Phil what is he gonna do with this exact same team? How about we fix this roster 1st and then see what we can do? Coach is the LEAST of our problems
THE SYSTEM IS NOT GETTING YOU A TITLE! Regardless of who is on the roster.
I think he contributes to it. He doesn't have a point guard but it's still no excuse. He could adapt a little better. IMO but meh what do I know.
CrushAlot wrote:I don't think management did him any favors in acquiring Anthony and amnestying Billups. In fact it appears there was a disregard for what he needs to be successful. However, I also think that the Berger article that quoted Warkenstein is right when he says D'Antoni is a roster specific coach. I don't think he is the problem this year and I don't think he was put in the position where he can succeed. That being said I do think he had done enough in the past to warrant termination. This year is different. He is not part of the problem but I also don't think he is capable of solving it.
I agree that D'Antoni is a roster-specific coach, but that argument is true for just about any successful coach you can think of. Phil Jackson has a similar roster every time he takes a job, Doc Rivers doesn't win until he gets three Hall-of-Famers, etc... Now, D'Antoni might be a little more roster-specific than the group I mentioned, but the fact remains the same: you're not winning in the NBA if you don't have really really good players to build around.
Acquiring Carmelo Anthony and building the team around an elite wing player instead of an elite point guard is a disservice to Mike D'Antoni because his system isn't built for that type of player, but even a player of Anthony's caliber is so hard to come by that I believe you have to get those players whenever the opportunity presents itself. The situation isn't ideal (Ideally you'd get Chris Paul and Amar'e, etc..., but we learned from both 2010 and the present Nets team that waiting for Free Agency and hoping is a dangerous game (it worked for us in 2010 because we had to purge Isiah's garbage, but D'Antoni has to adjust to it). At this point, he hasn't proven that he can. I don't believe that makes him a bad coach, but he won't get a contract extension if the team doesn't play to expectations because the players aren't going to change.
y2zipper wrote:CrushAlot wrote:I don't think management did him any favors in acquiring Anthony and amnestying Billups. In fact it appears there was a disregard for what he needs to be successful. However, I also think that the Berger article that quoted Warkenstein is right when he says D'Antoni is a roster specific coach. I don't think he is the problem this year and I don't think he was put in the position where he can succeed. That being said I do think he had done enough in the past to warrant termination. This year is different. He is not part of the problem but I also don't think he is capable of solving it.
I agree that D'Antoni is a roster-specific coach, but that argument is true for just about any successful coach you can think of. Phil Jackson has a similar roster every time he takes a job, Doc Rivers doesn't win until he gets three Hall-of-Famers, etc... Now, D'Antoni might be a little more roster-specific than the group I mentioned, but the fact remains the same: you're not winning in the NBA if you don't have really really good players to build around.
Acquiring Carmelo Anthony and building the team around an elite wing player instead of an elite point guard is a disservice to Mike D'Antoni because his system isn't built for that type of player, but even a player of Anthony's caliber is so hard to come by that I believe you have to get those players whenever the opportunity presents itself. The situation isn't ideal (Ideally you'd get Chris Paul and Amar'e, etc..., but we learned from both 2010 and the present Nets team that waiting for Free Agency and hoping is a dangerous game (it worked for us in 2010 because we had to purge Isiah's garbage, but D'Antoni has to adjust to it). At this point, he hasn't proven that he can. I don't believe that makes him a bad coach, but he won't get a contract extension if the team doesn't play to expectations because the players aren't going to change.
Finally, some sense. It seems as if some people are much more satisfied with going to playoffs with Felton,Gallo,Chandler,Amare etc than winning a championship with our current nucleus. If Kobe Bryant falls into your lap you just don't trade him because he doesn't fit your system. You get rid of the coach and find a system that is fit for him. Now if this was Iguodala, Rudy Gay, Danny Granger, JJohnson, Crawford(all great scorers btw)of course the argument would be different. But players of Anthony's caliber are rare and you keep those players and you give yourself the best possible chance to win with that player. Not only that, but Dolan sells more by getting Anthony. And if he wants to continue to sell, he will keep Anthony and get a coach who is happy to have Anthony.
All I see is that he's made attempts to adjust every single time we've changed the roster. He had Zach, Lee and Jamal and had that team looking decent. He had the team last year which was coming together and playing well, before the Trade Drama got the best of our young guys. He had the team ready for the Playoffs before CB and STAT got hurt. I don't see how he's the problem when we gave him a PG for HALF a Season and then traded him and then got rid of his replacement. Now what does he have?
They're not even running the offense fully. As someone mentioned we only go East and West now. Last year we had the North/South thing going too, which is why we were a top 5 offense in the league.
Also doesn't he get credit for the defense being good. They're # 7 in the league and really played well tonight for the most part. It's not a perfect D, but it's better than any of his detractors give him credit for.
Sorry, but you can make the case that this is the worst coach in the NBA.
You can't masquerade this 7 seconds or mess as anything more than good players and great point guard play.
We know you can't get your star players shots because your offense is all about "ball movement", ie your point guard doing everything.
We know you can't even get your gunners like Novack or Billy walker when he is shooting out of his mind the ball, because it's not free flowing free love basketball, pie in the sky bullshit offense that weights every player equally open. So you whined up with smart teams playing up on your players making shots and playing off of JJ2.
That is such a great offense it blows my mind.
That unless you have 5 players that can equally make shots and pressure the defense equally at the same time, your offense falls a part because any team that has a brain pays more attention defensively to your players making shots. Leaving the players who don't want or can't make shots more open. And that's your offensive design, great master mind??? Good players making shots is our game plan!!! Fuck out of here!!!
Fire this guy tomorrow, the team getting hot doesn't change the fact that this guy basically rolls the balls out and crosses his fingers leaving everything up to what the defense gives us and what his point guard can do. Instead of actually imposing a game plan on the other team and making them react. This is why despite great talent this guy always lost, because there is always going to be a point when teams don't give you anything and you can't pray that your point guard finds what the other team is giving up. There is always going to be a point where the team playing against us doesn't have to neglect any area of the court to play great defense. And to likely get to this great team you either have to find perfect players or neglect the defensive side of the ball.
Fire Antoni!!!!!!
nixluva wrote:All I see is that he's made attempts to adjust every single time we've changed the roster. He had Zach, Lee and Jamal and had that team looking decent. He had the team last year which was coming together and playing well, before the Trade Drama got the best of our young guys. He had the team ready for the Playoffs before CB and STAT got hurt. I don't see how he's the problem when we gave him a PG for HALF a Season and then traded him and then got rid of his replacement. Now what does he have? They're not even running the offense fully. As someone mentioned we only go East and West now. Last year we had the North/South thing going too, which is why we were a top 5 offense in the league.
Also doesn't he get credit for the defense being good. They're # 7 in the league and really played well tonight for the most part. It's not a perfect D, but it's better than any of his detractors give him credit for.
Does he get the credit? Or does Woodson? Legit question, no bashing.
Wow. What a load of horse$hit. The team was not driving toward sucess pre trade. We were almost 10 game sover 0.500 then worked our way to 2 games over 0.500. I get you like him but how about putting things that are true rather than false in his defense?
loweyecue wrote:CrushAlot wrote:loweyecue wrote:CrushAlot wrote:I don't think management did him any favors in acquiring Anthony and amnestying Billups. In fact it appears there was a disregard for what he needs to be successful. However, I also think that the Berger article that quoted Warkenstein is right when he says D'Antoni is a roster specific coach. I don't think he is the problem this year and I don't think he was put in the position where he can succeed. That being said I do think he had done enough in the past to warrant termination. This year is different. He is not part of the problem but I also don't think he is capable of solving it.
So when was he put in a position to succeed during his tenure as a Knick's coach?
I think pre-trade last year he had the team closest to what he needs to run his style. I think we differ in opinion about how much success he is actually capable of achieving without a totally stacked roster and an mvp running the point.
Right pre-trade last year he had a team that he was driving towards success. He had put the hard work in, taken the early losses worked his way back to .500 and WHAM. He was once again put in a position to fail. will get fired this year, its a sad reflection of just how sick our franchise is.
ATrain wrote:nixluva wrote:All I see is that he's made attempts to adjust every single time we've changed the roster. He had Zach, Lee and Jamal and had that team looking decent. He had the team last year which was coming together and playing well, before the Trade Drama got the best of our young guys. He had the team ready for the Playoffs before CB and STAT got hurt. I don't see how he's the problem when we gave him a PG for HALF a Season and then traded him and then got rid of his replacement. Now what does he have? They're not even running the offense fully. As someone mentioned we only go East and West now. Last year we had the North/South thing going too, which is why we were a top 5 offense in the league.
Also doesn't he get credit for the defense being good. They're # 7 in the league and really played well tonight for the most part. It's not a perfect D, but it's better than any of his detractors give him credit for.
Does he get the credit? Or does Woodson? Legit question, no bashing.
IT's the same defense and really Woodson is here to bring a different voice and add to what they're doing. They still have issues they need to address, but they're getting better. The major improvement was Tyson and Shump and the whole team is buying in more. We didn't have an Anchor of Tyson's level and in fact MDA has never had one. This is the 1st legit Center he's had in his prime. Shaq was done.
He got killed for his D, but his teams were never BAD defensive teams. He had Nash and STAT in the middle of his D, which I believe is why they would suck on D at times. Now that he has Tyson you can see that his defense isn't as bad as people said it was. #7 in defensive efficiency is really good.
It wasn't D'Antoni that wanted to gut a young improving team of multiple players that fit the system well and also give up the cap space and draft picks that could have been used to fill out the missing pieces for an overrated overpaid self centered Prima donna that doesn't fit with Amare or the coach's style.
ItalianStallion wrote:It wasn't D'Antoni that wanted to gut a young improving team of multiple players that fit the system well and also give up the cap space and draft picks that could have been used to fill out the missing pieces for an overrated overpaid self centered Prima donna that doesn't fit with Amare or the coach's style.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2105538,00.html
ItalianStallion wrote:It wasn't D'Antoni that wanted to gut a young improving team of multiple players that fit the system well and also give up the cap space and draft picks that could have been used to fill out the missing pieces for an overrated overpaid self centered Prima donna that doesn't fit with Amare or the coach's style.
And just how far would we have gone with this "young improving team"?
ATrain wrote:ItalianStallion wrote:It wasn't D'Antoni that wanted to gut a young improving team of multiple players that fit the system well and also give up the cap space and draft picks that could have been used to fill out the missing pieces for an overrated overpaid self centered Prima donna that doesn't fit with Amare or the coach's style.
And just how far would we have gone with this "young improving team"?
How far are we going now? backwards lol
ATrain wrote:ItalianStallion wrote:It wasn't D'Antoni that wanted to gut a young improving team of multiple players that fit the system well and also give up the cap space and draft picks that could have been used to fill out the missing pieces for an overrated overpaid self centered Prima donna that doesn't fit with Amare or the coach's style.
And just how far would we have gone with this "young improving team"?
As far as Amares back and Felotns point guard play would take him.
