Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Why? They look better (or less bad) with MDA than with Mike Brown. Before MDA, it looked like this was a group of players whose time has passed.
They just lost to the Orlando Magic and have some bad losses to the Kings, Pacers, and now Orlando over the last 8 games.
That doesn't contradict anything I wrote
Sure it does.
You posted as if Mike D'antoni has righted the ship.
He's officially sunken it now.
Calling things "less bad" means the ship is righted?
"Just as bad" or "even worse" is probably more appropriate.
JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Why? They look better (or less bad) with MDA than with Mike Brown. Before MDA, it looked like this was a group of players whose time has passed.
They just lost to the Orlando Magic and have some bad losses to the Kings, Pacers, and now Orlando over the last 8 games.
That doesn't contradict anything I wrote
Sure it does.
You posted as if Mike D'antoni has righted the ship.
He's officially sunken it now.
Calling things "less bad" means the ship is righted?
"Just as bad" or "even worse" is probably more appropriate.
So 3-4 is even worse than 1-4 (2-12 with preseason)!
This boils down to a simpler question: What # is bigger - 3 or 1?
gunsnewing wrote:Right. As much as I hate Dantoni's coaching philosophy I think you have to wait to see what the team looks like with Nash and once Pau is traded for complimentary pieces before callig this a failure what 5 games in?
So its okay for Kobe, Howard, Gasol, to have to wait for Nash. But its Melo's fault for not being successful in the same system with Tony Douglas as his PG.
Didn't Dwight Howard lead a team to the finals practically by himself? Now he has to depend on Nash?
Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Why? They look better (or less bad) with MDA than with Mike Brown. Before MDA, it looked like this was a group of players whose time has passed.
They just lost to the Orlando Magic and have some bad losses to the Kings, Pacers, and now Orlando over the last 8 games.
That doesn't contradict anything I wrote
Sure it does.
You posted as if Mike D'antoni has righted the ship.
He's officially sunken it now.
Calling things "less bad" means the ship is righted?
"Just as bad" or "even worse" is probably more appropriate.
So 3-4 is even worse than 1-4 (2-12 with preseason)!
This boils down to a simpler question: What # is bigger - 3 or 1?
No, it boils down to both coaches being unable to win titles with MVPs.
Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Why? They look better (or less bad) with MDA than with Mike Brown. Before MDA, it looked like this was a group of players whose time has passed.
They just lost to the Orlando Magic and have some bad losses to the Kings, Pacers, and now Orlando over the last 8 games.
That doesn't contradict anything I wrote
Sure it does.
You posted as if Mike D'antoni has righted the ship.
He's officially sunken it now.
Calling things "less bad" means the ship is righted?
"Just as bad" or "even worse" is probably more appropriate.
So 3-4 is even worse than 1-4 (2-12 with preseason)!
This boils down to a simpler question: What # is bigger - 3 or 1?
Knicks go 6-0 and people claim sample size is too small.
Dantoni goes 3-4 and that is sufficient sample size. How is sub .500 after 7 games even acceptable with that roster?!?!?!
LoL!
NUPE wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Why? They look better (or less bad) with MDA than with Mike Brown. Before MDA, it looked like this was a group of players whose time has passed.
They just lost to the Orlando Magic and have some bad losses to the Kings, Pacers, and now Orlando over the last 8 games.
That doesn't contradict anything I wrote
Sure it does.
You posted as if Mike D'antoni has righted the ship.
He's officially sunken it now.
Calling things "less bad" means the ship is righted?
"Just as bad" or "even worse" is probably more appropriate.
So 3-4 is even worse than 1-4 (2-12 with preseason)!
This boils down to a simpler question: What # is bigger - 3 or 1?
Knicks go 6-0 and people claim sample size is too small.
Dantoni goes 3-4 and that is sufficient sample size. How is sub .500 after 7 games even acceptable with that roster?!?!?!
LoL!
Forget the amount of games played, they are losing to the Kings, Pacers, and Orlando.
newyorknewyork wrote:NUPE wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Why? They look better (or less bad) with MDA than with Mike Brown. Before MDA, it looked like this was a group of players whose time has passed.
They just lost to the Orlando Magic and have some bad losses to the Kings, Pacers, and now Orlando over the last 8 games.
That doesn't contradict anything I wrote
Sure it does.
You posted as if Mike D'antoni has righted the ship.
He's officially sunken it now.
Calling things "less bad" means the ship is righted?
"Just as bad" or "even worse" is probably more appropriate.
So 3-4 is even worse than 1-4 (2-12 with preseason)!
This boils down to a simpler question: What # is bigger - 3 or 1?
Knicks go 6-0 and people claim sample size is too small.
Dantoni goes 3-4 and that is sufficient sample size. How is sub .500 after 7 games even acceptable with that roster?!?!?!
LoL!
Forget the amount of games played, they are losing to the Kings, Pacers, and Orlando.
There's double standard posters everywhere you look.
Crazy isn't it?
NUPE wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Why? They look better (or less bad) with MDA than with Mike Brown. Before MDA, it looked like this was a group of players whose time has passed.
They just lost to the Orlando Magic and have some bad losses to the Kings, Pacers, and now Orlando over the last 8 games.
That doesn't contradict anything I wrote
Sure it does.
You posted as if Mike D'antoni has righted the ship.
He's officially sunken it now.
Calling things "less bad" means the ship is righted?
"Just as bad" or "even worse" is probably more appropriate.
So 3-4 is even worse than 1-4 (2-12 with preseason)!
This boils down to a simpler question: What # is bigger - 3 or 1?
Knicks go 6-0 and people claim sample size is too small.
Dantoni goes 3-4 and that is sufficient sample size. How is sub .500 after 7 games even acceptable with that roster?!?!?!
LoL!
Exactly. When your only goal is the Championship with a "win now" team with 4 future hall of famers, there are no valid excuses. Even minus 1, 3 hall of famers should be enough.
On the flip side, Knicks currently only have 2 hall of famers in the starting lineup and are thriving.
Guess good coaching is everything...
Like us for much of last season, they have no PG at the moment- when you have several pieces that don't really fit together naturally, a PG is crucial in getting it to work.
Maybe they could trade for Toney Douglas or see if Bibby will come out of retirement, while they wait for Nash and Blake to get healthy.
smackeddog wrote:Like us for much of last season, they have no PG at the moment- when you have several pieces that don't really fit together naturally, a PG is crucial in getting it to work. Maybe they could trade for Toney Douglas or see if Bibby will come out of retirement, while they wait for Nash and Blake to get healthy.
Maybe they can steal the much treasured Kenny Atkinson from the Hawks, so he can help their point guards improve their game.
7 games in and no Nash and no training camp. Its gonna take time. Unlike the Knicks last year the Lakers have the players to turn it around. Dantoni needs players a lot more than Miken Woodson. Defense will always keep you afloat
Bbal is a team sport... isn't it?
Having names on the roster never was and will never be a warranty for success.
Team work in the concept of consistently executing the GM and coaching plan is a foundation for success.
LA just get all the pieces together and just started working on the plan.
They will be in the postseason but will not win it all this year. Next year will be another story.
If they will not get to the finals in 2014 this will be a real failure.
Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:The following are 2 statements that I believe to be true:1) You cannot judge D'Antoni on the Lakers until he has Nash back for a few weeks
2) D'Antoni has not had success in this league without Nash. Nash made him. It's not a coincidence that our record was so much better right after D'Antoni left. To not admit this is foolish.
An alternative way of phrasing that is that he's always had success when he had a competent PG. Two sides to every coin
He had Felton for half the season a couple years ago and Billups the second half. Both halves he was .500. To be considered a good coach, I think you should be able to have a decent record with a team loaded with talent. He's never had a decent record without Nash.
MSG3 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:The following are 2 statements that I believe to be true:1) You cannot judge D'Antoni on the Lakers until he has Nash back for a few weeks
2) D'Antoni has not had success in this league without Nash. Nash made him. It's not a coincidence that our record was so much better right after D'Antoni left. To not admit this is foolish.
An alternative way of phrasing that is that he's always had success when he had a competent PG. Two sides to every coin
He had Felton for half the season a couple years ago and Billups the second half. Both halves he was .500. To be considered a good coach, I think you should be able to have a decent record with a team loaded with talent. He's never had a decent record without Nash.
Both Felton and Billups were only here for half a season each. If both got more familiar with it the records might have been different.
playa2 wrote:I want to hear Nalod's perspective on this matter. 
The question was:
"Does Lakers lack of success so far put things into perspective?"
Nalods Response:
"No"
skeng wrote:MSG3 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:The following are 2 statements that I believe to be true:1) You cannot judge D'Antoni on the Lakers until he has Nash back for a few weeks
2) D'Antoni has not had success in this league without Nash. Nash made him. It's not a coincidence that our record was so much better right after D'Antoni left. To not admit this is foolish.
An alternative way of phrasing that is that he's always had success when he had a competent PG. Two sides to every coin
He had Felton for half the season a couple years ago and Billups the second half. Both halves he was .500. To be considered a good coach, I think you should be able to have a decent record with a team loaded with talent. He's never had a decent record without Nash.
Both Felton and Billups were only here for half a season each. If both got more familiar with it the records might have been different.
Yeah, we're talking about half seasons here? And it's in a year where the team's winning percentage went up by about 200 points.
Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Why? They look better (or less bad) with MDA than with Mike Brown. Before MDA, it looked like this was a group of players whose time has passed.
They just lost to the Orlando Magic and have some bad losses to the Kings, Pacers, and now Orlando over the last 8 games.
That doesn't contradict anything I wrote
Sure it does.
You posted as if Mike D'antoni has righted the ship.
He's officially sunken it now.
Calling things "less bad" means the ship is righted?
"Just as bad" or "even worse" is probably more appropriate.
So 3-4 is even worse than 1-4 (2-12 with preseason)!
This boils down to a simpler question: What # is bigger - 3 or 1?
the king of empirical data and hard evidence is trying to bolster his argument by comparing a dataset of 7 observations to one with 5?
Bonn1997 wrote:skeng wrote:MSG3 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:The following are 2 statements that I believe to be true:1) You cannot judge D'Antoni on the Lakers until he has Nash back for a few weeks
2) D'Antoni has not had success in this league without Nash. Nash made him. It's not a coincidence that our record was so much better right after D'Antoni left. To not admit this is foolish.
An alternative way of phrasing that is that he's always had success when he had a competent PG. Two sides to every coin
He had Felton for half the season a couple years ago and Billups the second half. Both halves he was .500. To be considered a good coach, I think you should be able to have a decent record with a team loaded with talent. He's never had a decent record without Nash.
Both Felton and Billups were only here for half a season each. If both got more familiar with it the records might have been different.
Yeah, we're talking about half seasons here? And it's in a year where the team's winning percentage went up by about 200 points.
Also, Billups being skeptic towards MDA as a coach might hint at him not committing to running the MDA offense as MDA envisions it.
skeng wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:skeng wrote:MSG3 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:The following are 2 statements that I believe to be true:1) You cannot judge D'Antoni on the Lakers until he has Nash back for a few weeks
2) D'Antoni has not had success in this league without Nash. Nash made him. It's not a coincidence that our record was so much better right after D'Antoni left. To not admit this is foolish.
An alternative way of phrasing that is that he's always had success when he had a competent PG. Two sides to every coin
He had Felton for half the season a couple years ago and Billups the second half. Both halves he was .500. To be considered a good coach, I think you should be able to have a decent record with a team loaded with talent. He's never had a decent record without Nash.
Both Felton and Billups were only here for half a season each. If both got more familiar with it the records might have been different.
Yeah, we're talking about half seasons here? And it's in a year where the team's winning percentage went up by about 200 points.
Also, Billups being skeptic towards MDA as a coach might hint at him not committing to running the MDA offense as MDA envisions it.
Well that's a part of being a good coach isn't it? Making your team believe in you? Funny how people blame Billups and Melo but D'Antoni is still a great coach even though he was a failure in 2/3 of his NBA stints (not counting LA yet).
SupremeCommander wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:JrZyHuStLa wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:newyorknewyork wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Why? They look better (or less bad) with MDA than with Mike Brown. Before MDA, it looked like this was a group of players whose time has passed.
They just lost to the Orlando Magic and have some bad losses to the Kings, Pacers, and now Orlando over the last 8 games.
That doesn't contradict anything I wrote
Sure it does.
You posted as if Mike D'antoni has righted the ship.
He's officially sunken it now.
Calling things "less bad" means the ship is righted?
"Just as bad" or "even worse" is probably more appropriate.
So 3-4 is even worse than 1-4 (2-12 with preseason)!
This boils down to a simpler question: What # is bigger - 3 or 1?
the king of empirical data and hard evidence is trying to bolster his argument by comparing a dataset of 7 observations to one with 5?
My argument is that the number 3 is bigger than the number 1. I don't need a big data set to make that argument.
You may think I'm making some other argument like "MDA is doing well" but I'm not.
Bonn1997 wrote:skeng wrote:MSG3 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:MSG3 wrote:The following are 2 statements that I believe to be true:1) You cannot judge D'Antoni on the Lakers until he has Nash back for a few weeks
2) D'Antoni has not had success in this league without Nash. Nash made him. It's not a coincidence that our record was so much better right after D'Antoni left. To not admit this is foolish.
An alternative way of phrasing that is that he's always had success when he had a competent PG. Two sides to every coin
He had Felton for half the season a couple years ago and Billups the second half. Both halves he was .500. To be considered a good coach, I think you should be able to have a decent record with a team loaded with talent. He's never had a decent record without Nash.
Both Felton and Billups were only here for half a season each. If both got more familiar with it the records might have been different.
Yeah, we're talking about half seasons here? And it's in a year where the team's winning percentage went up by about 200 points.
So you're saying D'Antoni should be judged well on being .500 with a talent laden team? He did a good job because a 20 win team with marginal talent turned into a .500 team with All Star talent? Give me a break. The guy did a bad job here. Why is that so hard to admit?
