Beyond the fact that Dantoni either refuses or is incapable of adjusting to the players he has, which should be an acknowledged fact by now...
I have a simple test: With the players we had this year, I don't believe Dantoni or his system had any impact on our .500ish record above what any other coach would have. Dantoni as a coach did not make us better. Any coach should have been able to finish about 42-40.
A good coach, who has the adaptability to adjust and play to the strengths and weaknesses of the roster, in my opinion, would have been able to improve on our record.
Obviously, this can not be objectively proved. But ask yourselves two questions: 1) With the players we had this year, shouldn't and couldn't virtually any NBA-caliber head coach achieved a 42-40 record? 2) If so, why not hire one that has the flexibility to adjust to the roster, and theoretically maximize the players' impact?
Dantoni is inflexible in his system and philosophy, his rigid style does not maximize the talent of the roster, and I argue that almost any other NBA-caliber coach could do better.
Any other coach would have been fired a while ago but he had his excuses to get him by and frankly I feel that he is still the Knicks coach because Donnie Walsh didn't want to fire him before his contract ended which would have made him look bad which would have him not come back for the extension. So you have to look at it many ways to realize that Mike D has gotten a pass and it's really not fair, especially when you are in NY.
He has one more shot.
He has a training camp and off season with Amare, Anthony, and Billups...I expect more wins but I think the same result will happen.
Fellas this is the true Test:
Could MOA take Boston or Chicago and win as many games? Highly unlikely.
Could Thibs or Rivers do better than MOA did with the Knicks? MOST DEFINITELY.
The Celtics started out like 20-3 in their chip season.
I won't even get into the details about their defense masking any growing pains because like that saying goes "If I score I might win, but if they don't score I can't lose" I'll leave that alone, and I'll just say this:
Your logic = Doc Rivers overrated because KG, Pierce, and Allen were the reason for that team's success.
So by that definition what does that say about Mike?
Regardless of what you might think about Rivers, he clearly outcoached Mike D'Antoni in the series.
Either way it doesn't bode well for D'Antoni. If Rivers is actually a good coach, then D'Antoni isn't good enough to compete in the East against better coaches, which I think we've seen by now. If Rivers is actually a terrible coach, that means we got burned by a bad coach, which means D'Antoni sucks ass...
I'll also add this.
Doc River may be overrated to some, that's a subjective opinion, but his philosophy seems to be spot on. It mirrors that of several other championship teams that we've seen in the past, and it's produced a championship. Of course all of this occurred after his team acquired the players needed to win....but it's also got him to the Finals twice in 3 years.
MDA had "his players" in Phoenix and it produced a "maybe we could have advanced to the Finals if it weren't for the refs".....Avery Johnson has been to the Finals more times than MDA and he's the coach of the NJ Nets. Some people can't understand the fascination with Doc Rivers?????? I can't understand what the **** MDA has done. period.
I dont know how good Doc Rivers is. But he is demanding of his players and he holds them accountable. The players love Doc Rivers. They would run through the wall for him.
I think players like Dantoni, but they dont love him. You know what I'm saying. Players love Phil Jackson, players love Doug Collins. Not Dantoni. He doesnt inspire his players.
Now Doc and Phil Jackson have had players that held themselves and their teammates accountable.
Melo and STAT dont do that. We need a coach with a resume and when he walks into a room he demands respect.
That doesnt happen for Dantoni.
The comparison makes no sense tho..
We got Melo and Amare together w thirty or so games left in the season. No training camp, no time to get used to playing together, just some real, live NBA comp to get out there and make it work against.
The Celts and Doc Rivers got there big three in the offseason. They had time to get everybody on the same page in training camp and preseason, and their collective talent level and chemistry were just off the charts which sorta surprised the league IMO.
Our team needed some time to adjust to losing 4 players. The also needed time together to get used to Melo's rhythm. Billups needed time to get to know where everybody likes the ball, how coach wanted him to play etc.. Just a horrible compare/contrast if your trying to make an argument for one style of coaching over another because you're excluding other pertinent factors.
Last edited by ronoranina; Apr 28, 2011 at 23:00.