mrKnickShot wrote:Great article by Peter Vescey - MDA blew the Boston Game(don't always agree with him but he is completely on point here):http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/fo...
Great article? They guy says what Mark Jax would have done. The guy has coached less than 40 games.
What Cotton Fitzimmons would have done? Half of Cotton's career he coached without the 3 pt line in place. He coached a .515 winning record and .417 % in the playoffs.
Besides, its Vescey.
Fans love this kind of crap journalism.
I've never seen a NBA game where a team was up 3 with less than a minute and commit an intentional foul. The game wasn't lost on that one play....I point to the 20+ turn overs.
CashMoney wrote:I've never seen a NBA game where a team was up 3 with less than a minute and commit an intentional foul. The game wasn't lost on that one play....I point to the 20+ turn overs.
Now that I think about this, I have not seen it.
This is just a case of hataz using small things to throw blame on MDA.
CrushAlot wrote:crzymdups wrote:I hate not fouling when you are up three and less than one possession on the shot clock left in the game. Especially against the Celtics - Pierce and Ray Allen seem to live to hit those shots against us. Foul them and take the game out of their hands.
+1. Sometimes the game situation and opponent dictates what is the most prudent move. Knicks should have fouled. Pierce and Allen are Knick killers in that situation.
The other key here that needs to be emphasized is your opponent has no time outs!
kNYks342 wrote:time and time again I look at MDA and his situational coaching....from the last set play in regulation (why do you run a play to get the ball in lins hands and then exchange it to carmelo who is 5 feet away from him...all with 4 seconds left, why not just get the ball to melo if thats what you wanted?) This has become a norm. This is the sign of a BAD coach, any coach can look at game film and try and make adjustments (which I think he did not do) But there is a vast difference in MDA and his lack of half time adjustments and in game situational coaching compared to any good coach. WE CAN NOT WIN WITH MDA PERIOD.
As I think about this, MDA really almost ought to be an offensive coordinator.
He has a great system, but we've seen some of his limitations
poor in game management, including rotations, time outs, drawing up plays
generally poor motivation of his players
inability to work with certain kinds of players
questionable defensive philosophy
CashMoney wrote:I've never seen a NBA game where a team was up 3 with less than a minute and commit an intentional foul. The game wasn't lost on that one play....I point to the 20+ turn overs.
True Cash and I point to Landry's 3 consecutive TO's to start the 3rd quarter going from up 5 to down 15!
Nalod wrote:mrKnickShot wrote:Great article by Peter Vescey - MDA blew the Boston Game(don't always agree with him but he is completely on point here):http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/fo...
Great article? They guy says what Mark Jax would have done. The guy has coached less than 40 games.
What Cotton Fitzimmons would have done? Half of Cotton's career he coached without the 3 pt line in place. He coached a .515 winning record and .417 % in the playoffs.
Besides, its Vescey.
Fans love this kind of crap journalism.
Of course you fail to mention that Carlisle and Doc Rivers foul in that situation.
NICE!
CashMoney wrote:I've never seen a NBA game where a team was up 3 with less than a minute and commit an intentional foul. The game wasn't lost on that one play....I point to the 20+ turn overs.
I have seen it happen a number of times. And, I have seen it this year in the NBA.
Talk show host love saying "we did not lose because of that ..." you can say this in every loss. New England did not lose because of the Welker drop. Yes they freakin did!
WE LOST BECAUSE OF THAT ONE PLAY!!
MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:CashMoney wrote:I've never seen a NBA game where a team was up 3 with less than a minute and commit an intentional foul. The game wasn't lost on that one play....I point to the 20+ turn overs.
Now that I think about this, I have not seen it.
This is just a case of hataz using small things to throw blame on MDA.
Wow. At least you did not mention MELO.
This is not just MDA - its the philosophy of not fouling which is quite common.
Nice try.
mrKnickShot wrote:MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:CashMoney wrote:I've never seen a NBA game where a team was up 3 with less than a minute and commit an intentional foul. The game wasn't lost on that one play....I point to the 20+ turn overs.
Now that I think about this, I have not seen it.
This is just a case of hataz using small things to throw blame on MDA.
Wow. At least you did not mention MELO.
This is not just MDA - its the philosophy of not fouling which is quite common.
Nice try.
No one loses a game because of ONE PLAY, OR ONE SHOT, mrKnickShot, if that were the case they would not keep score until the last 30 seconds of the game!
And the heat is being thrown on MDA here, not any other coach! Yea, the philosophy is at question, but it's being used to smear MDA's name in the mud puddles!
Did buffalo lose because Scott Norwood missed the kick?
Of course there could be number of "one plays" but of course you can lose a game on "one play"
We should have fouled Rondo or Garnet. We should have made Rondo pick up the ball where it was inbounded; not at 1/2 court. But we didn't. However, we did have the last shot with 4.9 sec left. We controlled our own destiny and could have outright won it at the buzzer. But the play wasn't set up very well. Melo, who was hot in scoring a few buckets in a row, missed. Not putting the blame on Melo. Call it the team's karma. I hate losing to the stuck-up Celtics - hopefully we will learn how to play them and win.
Edit - just watched the highlight again. Pierce didn't even take a good shot - a fadeaway and moving to the right- from 25 feet. Didn't even setup or square up correctly. They just have our number I guess. Have to somehow break that.
Yes. We could have won in the last 4.9 if it were not for the beautiful play design that we witnessed. Or maybe it was a good play designed but Melo Div'ad the plan.
mrKnickShot wrote:Yes. We could have won in the last 4.9 if it were not for the beautiful play design that we witnessed. Or maybe it was a good play designed but Melo Div'ad the plan.
Now you are probably getting close to the correct answer.
mrKnickShot wrote:Nalod wrote:mrKnickShot wrote:Great article by Peter Vescey - MDA blew the Boston Game(don't always agree with him but he is completely on point here):http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/knicks/fo...
Great article? They guy says what Mark Jax would have done. The guy has coached less than 40 games.
What Cotton Fitzimmons would have done? Half of Cotton's career he coached without the 3 pt line in place. He coached a .515 winning record and .417 % in the playoffs.
Besides, its Vescey.
Fans love this kind of crap journalism.
Of course you fail to mention that Carlisle and Doc Rivers foul in that situation.
NICE!
No discredit to them. IM sure we all read the article.
If we don't turn the ball over 22 times the game doesn't go down the wire. Our PGs had a combine 12 assist and 12 Turnovers.
Every situation is different, but I would have fouled in this situation. #1 I believe we had a foul to give. #2 Boston didn't have any time outs left. The plan should have been to foul when they are inside the 2 pt line &/or before they have any chance at putting up a shot. The best opportunity would have been when KG was handing the ball off to Pierce. Maybe wrap pierce up before he is able to get the ball.
We played good D though Pierce just hit a good shot. When KG is free to set illegal picks as much as he wants its harder to play tough D but they still played through it. We had our own opportunity to win the game, Melo got his Iso on Pierce he just missed his opportunity. But I would take a Melo Iso on Pierce any day of the week.
Jr Smith needs to find his shot
JR, Melo and Amare need to find their shots.
The spacing will be SO much better when they do. Hopefully Fields is benched in the near future.
