Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: RED's RANT! 3/28/11(Coach Logic)

  1. #1
    TYPE-A Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,308
    Rep Power
    15

    Default RED's RANT! 3/28/11(Coach Logic)

    You coach to your talent. You coach the team you have, not the team you had. I like Mike D'Antoni, and his best teams have been a lot of fun to watch. But ultimately the job of an NBA coach is to create double-teams, not be constantly victimized by them. So they can still swing the ball around on the outside the way they did before, but their best chance to create double-teams is to pound the ball in to Anthony and Stoudemire a lot closer to the basket.

    Put it another way: Nobody gutted the team so that Toney Douglas could get more time and more shots.

    The Knicks, despite the way they are playing, still should be better off with Anthony than without him. He is one of the best scorers in his sport, up there with anybody you care to mention, and didn't suddenly forget how to score the ball. But the Knicks are no longer built to shoot fast. They're just not. With the talent they have on the court now, they are getting killed in transition when the shots stop falling.

    There is still time to figure this out, despite all the excuses we keep hearing. Good grief, suddenly, in all of pro basketball, it's only the Knicks who are tired and having to grind their way through March. And guess what? If Stoudemire has tired legs, it's not like he was putting himself out there for too many minutes earlier in the season.
    There have been three OUTSTANDING coaches that I have had the pleasure of watching in my lifetime (and many more throughout history) in three different sports. Joe Torre (baseball), Bill Belichick (football), & Phil Jackson (basketball); when examined have many common traits. Later I will get to coach D'Antoni.
    So as to not provide a biography I will be as susinct as possible. Joe Torre, a man thought as "clueless Joe", took over the recently rebuilt Yanks in 1996. He was a career middle of the road, mediocre coach, but had ties with the tri-state area. The team he took over made the playoffs the year before, but then fired their coach Buck Showalter and moved in a different direction. After 12 seasons with Torre, the Yanks won 4 World Series, went to 6, and restored the franchise to again be known as the GREATEST EVER.
    Bill Belichick aka the Evil Genius began his career as an assistant in the 1970'S. He is more known for being a defensive coordinator with the NYGiants in the 80's & 90's, when they won 2 SuperBowls with a relentless defense. He is the only had coach in NFL history to win 3 SB's in four years, and this was in an era of free agency and many contractual implicating circumstances that rarely kept the same personel.
    Finally Phil Jackson, a former NBA champion with the New York Knicks and head coach with 11 titles under his belt. This includes 3 seperate 3peats, something never done before, even within the storied Laker franchise. He is one of the best to ever do it.
    Let's take a look at some similarities between these great minds. Obviously the results speak for themselves, but there are some interesting similarties...

    1. All are known for being calm cool and collected. Phil is seen wearing flip-flops at practice, Joe torre's temper seems non-existent as he drinks Bigalow Green tea during interviews, and Belichick has been known to lull reporters to sleep. Yet all get the best out of their players. They say the attitude of he team is a reflection of the coach; well these master minds were poker faced assassins. You could never tell exactly what they were thinking, but come game day, it was all business.

    2. Dealing with "super-stars". We know the knock on Phil and Joe; they're accomplishments were tried to be deminished due to the star power they coached. Not every coach has the make up to deal with these alpha males and the egos they bring. These athletes were conditioned to believe the world was their oyster. Yet these coaches, Belichick included, had a way of humbling their players, and having them buy into the team concept. That no one was bigger than the team. Sure we all knew MJ was the best, the catalyst, but damn if the back up wasn't made to feel his job wasn't just as important. Its psychological, and the mark of a genius. From humble pie t-shirts, to trading who some thought were vital cogs to success, these coaches made sure to instill a team concept, no matter who they coached, and all had arguably the best.

    3. Finding Diamonds in the Rough. Another similar feature with these genius leaders was the ability to not only get the most out of their players, but each had the ability to take players thought to be weak (either skill wise or age) and have them flourish under them. Not every player under Jackson was an MJ, quite the opposite, yet when these coaches acquired these players from the scrap heap, all of a sudden they didn't look so bad and limited. Belichick & Torres teams were full of late career castoffs, thought to have nothing left and be too expensive. Yet under these coaches not only did they flourish, they took less money to have a limited role... all with a smile on their faces.

    4. Systems... Between Phil & Belichick who's sports are more system based, they both emplored proven systems, and NEVER neglected defense. In Torres case, his winning teams were bolstured by pitching and defense. It wasn't until the franchise went away with this approach and more towards offense that they began to lose more often; but best believe those championships were won with DEFENSE, as was the case with Phil and Belichick.

    These great coaches didn't reinvent the game. They took what they knew and improved on it. When the concepts of winning in the old days were combined with the player salaries and business side of the sport, more coaches like these emerged, because an effective psychological approach was needed. No more were players together for years on end providing an opportunity to learn and grow. No longer were players getting jobs in the offseason to suppliment income. No, the modern day athletes were becoming bigger than the game. If you want to say any coac could win with those casts, think about it... how easy is it to coach a player who makes more than the coach, and more than everyone on the team? Its alienating and polarizing to say the least. How hard is it to get players to accept that they are equal, some more than others? When the star gets preferential treatment, club house amenaties, extra media attention, etc... how difficult can it be to get them all to play together as a cohesive unit? Not easy at all, or it would've happened more often.

    Although nothing is gaurenteed, even these coaches had mis-steps. They even lost a few. But I can attest that their squads were always prepared. That the issue was never the game plan, or motivation. Sure some things were done unorthodox, but it was quickly recognized when things worked and didn't.

    When I see this team, this coach, how we approach the game, and how we win and or lose, I feel insulted when someone lables D'Antoni as a "genius". I feel insulted when I hear we need size and NO ONE REALIZES we had size, but didn't use it. Defense, we had. Options and picks, we had.

    Everyone who states its the players etc... I wonder what they thought of things like taking 7 (missed) jump shots in a row after being down. Or the fact that although we won in MIA, we were down 16 to do so.

    How many times have you heard this "defense is just an attitude, the players have to want to play it for it to work"? Or something to that effect? I've heard this 10,000 times since coach was here. It inferes we lack defensive motivation. How about this "you can't blame the coach for effort or lack thereof"? How many theories on why we aren't performing well and answers have you heard? Too many to count I bet. Well let me offer my take as to why it really is the coach.

    1. If you assume we were a real threat or contender with our old squad (any since coach was here) you were mistaken. Musketeer illustrated in (what I consider a candidate for thread of the year) that to really be in that conversation, you have to have a top 10 defense. Blocks, steals, rebounds, opponent fg%, points given up per...

    We were near last in this catagory BEFORE the trade(s), and remain so. Granted the expectations grew, but in reality we are right where we were. A short sighted observer would say, that's because we didn't "bring in defensive players", and that's true. But what's also true is even with better defensive players (historically in PHX and on the Knicks during coaches time) he hasn't been better than middle of the road (15th). So to assume our squad with Felt and co. would be better is false. The same issues we had, we still have, therefore we wouldn't be much different (just higher expectations). We weren't going far before, we ain't going far now.

    But the real issue is why hasn't a D'Antoni team been better defensively? The easy answer is because they don't have top defensive players... but why? Wasn't Randolph a defensive presence? How about Darko, Brewer, the Matrix, Barbosa, Mozgov even had size (which is what many state- that size was the issue). How about Toney Douglas being all ACC DPOY? And how about the defensive system? The game plan, approach, how to defend the p&r, when to trap, to double, to push baseline, to use zone, to front in the post, the help etc... aren't those part of a coaches responsibility? If anything its coaches responsibility to play those players who can achieve these goals? Well of course, but again so why?

    Simply because if a coach is enamered with offense, specifically European offense which the bigs take more mid-ranged jumpers, then what's more important? To be able to close out and apply defensive strategy and principles, or to be able to take a 18ft jumper? In Mike's case it's the latter. You don't think these players traded, coveted, or dnp-cd'd were decided based on their defense were they? Nope! Players like Randolph were dnp'd due to lack of European shooting abilities, players like Al Harrington were given the green light. This is the same approach that puts a 6'10 power forward with super athleticism at the free throw line extended 20 times a game, but no on ever questions why we can't rebound. Or encourages low % shot aftershot. Or why a power forward is camped out at the 3pt line, playing small forward. No one questioned this?smh

    Remember when an expert would say "if a team is down, get to the line, or get quality shots and stops"? Remember when experts would say a rushed shot is only good when it goes in? To get the hot players the ball, and everyone get involved? That isn't D'Antoni's style, in fact it's the opposite. Its desinged to make mediocre players better by not focusing on an individual. But the game is dictated by the best individuals, and guess who the ball finds when the middle road players can't get it done? Guess who Phil Jackson or Belichick gets the ball to and designs specifically for?

    To go further, who realizes Brandon Jennings and Brook Lopez could have been here instead of 6'10 jumpshooting Gallo and Jordan Hill whoever, who was quickly traded because he too couldn't play Euro ball (a waste of a multiple picks).

    What makes these issues so upsetting is the fact that we had little to no margin for error. That every move, picks included, had to maximized to turn us around. We couldn't afford to miss on top ten draft picks, because they are so rare (the good ones). But Donnie being the supportive GM, got the players coach wanted, and watced as the players he (Donnie) knew had value be relegated to the bench or jettisoned. What was Donnie to do? His decisions were supportive and backed by an assumption influenced by coaches resume.

    They say coach is proven. Ask any D'Antoni supporter and they'll recite 60 wins as gospel. And in a way, they're right. His approach, with those players got them far. His approach with these players not so much. To that I say, the approach worked limitedly, and with these players the mistakes of such approach are on full display. You see the issues we have, are really the same issue's PHX had, just more glaring, because the same approach is used. But to hear a supporter say it and you would think they lost in game 7 of the finals. They never made it. And IFthey had, there is no gaurantee they would've won it. But that's not how they spin it, is it?

    That's the same as me saying, even with Jennings, Lopez, Randolph and Darko we still had no gaurantee to win it all...

    But I can gaurantee we wouldn't be having this debate had we approached this rebuilding like those great coaches mentioned earlier. They had a system that started with a team 1st mentality. They sacrificed, worked harder than any other, but remained even keeled. They motivated and got players to but in. Everyone was accountable or gone, no matter what the name. Even the stars were known to take less $ to benefit the team.

    This sounds "anti-D'Antoni" to me. Don't insult my intelligence by putting genius and D'Antoni in the same sentence.
    Last edited by Red; Mar 28, 2011 at 14:07.

  2. #2
    Member JeffVanGundyPLEASE!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    136
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    great post this is exactly how i felt similar to what i posted in another thread its one thing to exciting games with offensive pizazz but to have that champion pedigree it starts with defense that each coach you have mentioned posesses

  3. #3
    TYPE-A Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,308
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Its more than defense. When you mention defense the first thing people say is Mike is preachin, or he doesn't have the pieces.

    But when you really look into it...
    1. He was middle of the pack
    2. Since he's been here, we've been a bottom defensive team
    3. The players needed don't possess the offensive skills HE requires as well as defense.

    Its a misnomer that a player will make that much a difference, when the ENTIRE approach doesn't. Lend itself to superior defense, talent or not

    Game plan is a part of it, reputation is another, and motivation to achieve a goal (defense) never translated to a competitive defensive team!

    That's NOT a coincidence.

  4. #4
    Veteran nyk_nyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,529
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Damn excellent post RED!

    I'm not just saying that because we share the same opinion on Dantoni. I thought this was very insightful and gave everyone a quick look at what it means to be an effective coach.

  5. #5
    Veteran nyk_nyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,529
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Originally Posted by Red
    Its more than defense. When you mention defense the first thing people say is Mike is preachin, or he doesn't have the pieces.

    But when you really look into it...
    1. He was middle of the pack
    2. Since he's been here, we've been a bottom defensive team
    3. The players needed don't possess the offensive skills HE requires as well as defense.

    Its a misnomer that a player will make that much a difference, when the ENTIRE approach doesn't. Lend itself to superior defense, talent or not

    Game plan is a part of it, reputation is another, and motivation to achieve a goal (defense) never translated to a competitive defensive team!

    That's NOT a coincidence.
    Agreed. To add to that, We've had Darko and Randolph to help cure some of the defensive problems. I'll admit that they can be a liability on offense BUT the game is played on both ends of the floor and you have to find a way to incorporate a less offensive player if said player increases you team defense. When Brewer was waived I was shocked--- since having him and TD in the backcourt at times might have been a lockdown tandem.

    I also find it weird that Jeffries is gettinig minutes that Randolph couldn't even sniff. At least Randolph can finish better around the basket. Anyway, I don't want to sway too far off topic but I agree defense is motivation and Dantoni has never been known for that. I mean talking it up in interviews isn't enough. Guys need to know that their minutes is in jeapordy if they slack on defense. With this team, it appears to be the offense that dictates minutes. Just my opinion.

  6. #6
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,270
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    NY needs a defensive minded coach. We have scorers so thats not a concern. Someone like Rex Ryan would probably do wonders for this team. haha

  7. #7
    TYPE-A Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,308
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Originally Posted by nyk_nyk
    Agreed. To add to that, We've had Darko and Randolph to help cure some of the defensive problems. I'll admit that they can be a liability on offense BUT the game is played on both ends of the floor and you have to find a way to incorporate a less offensive player if said player increases you team defense. When Brewer was waived I was shocked--- since having him and TD in the backcourt at times might have been a lockdown tandem.

    I also find it weird that Jeffries is gettinig minutes that Randolph couldn't even sniff. At least Randolph can finish better around the basket. Anyway, I don't want to sway too far off topic but I agree defense is motivation and Dantoni has never been known for that. I mean talking it up in interviews isn't enough. Guys need to know that their minutes is in jeapordy if they slack on defense. With this team, it appears to be the offense that dictates minutes. Just my opinion.
    All one has to look at is Anthony Randolph and Darkos stats? He's been avg 20 and 10 every game?

    Or Brandon Jennings WHO TORCHED US!

    OR the Nuggets who now lead the NBA in scoring.

    HOW COULD ANYONE BE STUPID ENOUGH TO NOT LOOK AT THIS AND CONCLUDE THIS COACH DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S DOING...HOW?

    HOW do some have the audacity to talk about "we need a pg", or "we need a big" , before saying "we need a new coach".

    This one has squandered away every opportunity we had to really compete. And now after YEARS you don't realize coach is the REASON we don't have them.

    SERIOUSLY!!! And you call yourself a fan.

    Anthony Randolphs Numbers are akin to a toilet bowl full of sh*t BEING THROWN RIGHT IN YOUR FACES! Jennings is like being urinated on! I thought because coach said they were no good, they were no good. But coaches rep is the no good thing. Player after player, instance after instance, and some support this? Suppot 28th overal defense, with any roster? Really? Smfh!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •