Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30

Thread: Be Specific, Gentlemen. Analysing D'Antoni's Offence

  1. #16
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    I think it's safe to say, at this point, that the PG position is the Achilles of this system and MDA.

    He can't coach around not having passable play from his 1.

  2. #17
    Evacuee Crazy⑧s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    日本
    Posts
    6,487
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    I think it's safe to say, at this point, that the PG position is the Achilles of this system and MDA.

    He can't coach around not having passable play from his 1.
    What does the thread title say, ron?

  3. #18
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by Crazy⑧s
    What does the thread title say, ron?

    *Edit

    I still have not been able to summon the motivation or creative will to post in more detail.

    Trill pretty much said everything I see re: this offense. That could be part of it.
    Last edited by ronoranina; May 01, 2011 at 22:19.

  4. #19
    Superstar elcol's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    620
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    three pointers are important part of our game, a lot of it is drive and kick out. melo comes off screens very often to set up that mid range post up. amare bodies up for one too. lots of pick and rolls and besides melo, very few off ball screens. to get landrys game on you have to set off ball screens for him, which stopped happening, causing him to create off the dribble and fail. when amare or melo is in the post they face up and try to draw doubles, which is the idea, after that its about swinging to the open three and creating from there. as i see it, plays are very simple, maybe one off balls screen and a pick and roll, we don't have much besides that.. the fast break is where dantoni is a little stronger, running it down the middle of the floor and getting a transition three pointer. the simplicity of the offense is great against mediocre defensive teams, but it all comes down to if the three pointer is clicking, when we shoot the 3 badly we already lost the game simply because we waste so many possessions on it..

  5. #20
    Veteran KingofNy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,492
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Plain and Simple Nash made Antoni look like an offensive genius. Without Nash, Antoni is a terrible coach and has been ever since. On top of being the defensive liability we knew he was, he became an even worse offensive liability with the acquisition of Melo and Billups. Mixing a half-court offense and Antoni is like mixing oil and water.

    Let's start on the D side of the ball: He ran the same defense the entire season... We ran the 2-3 zone the entire season/post season. He forced all the size we had off of the team and replaced them with garbage size (Big guys who can't rebound or play D). Teams would be killing us with the same play over and over, game after game and he wouldn't change one thing up. Don't believe me? Go back and check our back to back games against Indiana or Cleveland and watch us run the same defensive sets, same offensive sets, and same rotation. He didn't change one thing up. NOT ONE. Both we're ugly losses.

    Everyone thinks we're all of a sudden going to pick up some guys this offseason like Deandre Jordan to help sure up our middle. Hold on while I piss myself lauhging....HAHAHAHHAH That sh*t ain't happening with Antoni as our coach. Antoni doesn't want height... He doesn't want guys who play with their back to the basket. He doesn't want guys who crash the boards and dive for loose balls. Antoni wants every person on his rotation to be able to shoot the three-ball and run the fast break. He will outcast any guy that doesn't play like a point guard. I could seriously write a book about all of Antoni's problems and coaching liabilities.

    Now to this "so-called" offensive genius' crappy half-court offense. He ran a total of 3 plays each and every game. We basically played streetball, running high pick and rolls which barely ever worked, leading to ISO's to Stat, Melo, or whoever had the ball in their hands when the shot-clock ran out. Never did Antoni call plays that have our team move without the ball if it wasn't the guy setting the screen. Antoni's half court offense = stagnant ISO to doubleteamed superstars and then not send the open player cutting to the basket. He is a worse offensive coach than he is a defensive coach IMO.... UGGGHH I get frustrated even thinking back to it. I don't know if I can handle another season of this fool wrecking our team. Seriously.

  6. #21
    Hannibal Lecter TR1LL10N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Dark side of the Moon
    Posts
    2,743
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Red
    Sorry Crazy8's but to be fair we must realize the O & D aren't mutually exclusive in ball like it is say in football (where a whole different unit is used).

    Trill to be fair we have to mention the not so obvious effects of running such a style which you neglected.

    First we can agree that getting "open or "quality" shots is the goal of any offense that's nothing new. By hurying the pace to set up and take advantage of a lack of transition or set D here in lies multiple concerns:

    1. To be a transition or fast-break team, specific players need to be acquired. As you mentioned a quicker PG. But it's really determined by the wings- they too must be able to score in the open court off the break. That in of itself a) reduces the players available (by type) & b) reduces the margin for error (not many can come in and replace)

    2. Pace = injury over time

    3. Jump "knock down" shooters further reduces the talent pool available. It's a bit much to ask for knock down shooters WITH the speed and driving capabilites to score on the break. When you start seeing things from an availability, realistic stand point- we soon realize a hand full of such players available. This is illustrated in the myriad of different players used and not used to find the right fit. They are of the LeBron James (jumper not so much so) Wade ilk. And even they aren't necessarily knock down shooters.

    4. There is a reason why most coaches would say "if we are in transition offensively, and we don't have #'s or position- pull the ball out and set up".

    Thats because the odds say a set up play designed for an individual(s) realistically can be relied upon more than scoring off the break. The opportunity is there more (or less depending), and the reputation of "slowing the ball down" during the playoffs or "it's more of a half-court game" rings true, mostly due to the quality shot aspect.

    This offense in concept makes sense, but its not practical for many reasons down the stretch. Quality shots = those shots that are taken by design for specific players achieving specific goals (inside, at a high % spot of their liking). In this offense it's an adlibbed approach taking what the defense gives by the "open knock down shooter", multiple being on the floor.

    But here's the real down-fall not mentioned. Combine the unavailable players with:

    The effect on defense. Remember this isn't football. You play BOTH sides of the ball. So not only is the personnel light when it comes to offensive abilities (driver, knock down shooter)- it further dwindles when adding defensive capabilities.

    This is the achilles heal. When you are hell bent on acquiring these players, you neglect defensive types. This is few and far when it comes to this type of player. Its like trying to field 5 Kobe Bryants- immpossible.

    Examples of this also would be like:
    Putting Michael or Ben Johnson in pads and playing running back. They were the fastest men in the world, but in reality they can never be better than say Emmit Smith who is much slower.

    Or, if the Yankees signed Arnold Swarchenegger. In theory he should be killing the ball, but those other ancillary skills won't allow that in reality.

    All in all balance is what Mike has to learn. His leasons are obvious. By that I mean if we take this system and add a Shaq in his prime. No coach would deny he can help. But in this system, he would be marginalized. This is what Mike sees with Jeffries. One defensive addition throws it off. Shaq like JJ would be relegated to setting screens at the top of the key and encouraged to shoot if the rock goes his way and he's open. It takes not his actual best used abilities into account, and forces him to conform, limiting him. Chalk that up to another limitation.

    If Mike really analyzes how his system is incorporated given the actual talent in the NBA- he would notice there are more "specialists" than adaptable blank slates that he ultimately has to work with.

    Now contrast that unorthodox style with conventional. First a coach with a star or any player accentuates their natural abilities. But they create balance by not having so many players with the same styles and abilities. Even with a Shaq, the Lakers didn't go to him every play. But when they did, those plays were designed and called with his specific talents in mind and analysis of where his high % shots are. The same would go for Kobe or anyone for that matter.

    This system neglects that specialized aspect. And it neglects to understand why multiple attacks lead to the "confusion" attempted to be created in its design. Good conventional coaches have plays designed for in and out of the paint and call the game accordingly. If someone is in foul trouble, they go at him, deliberately, not incorporate plays where anyone can shoot.

    If there's an obvious mis-match that is exposed strategically. Not in this system.


    But back to Trill and your Felton example. Yeah when he was healthy, we were clicking.

    BUT, a) that was against low level teams, b) he did get injured as did almost every other guard we had, and c) MOST IMPORTANTLY WE WERE STILL NEAR LAST IN DEFENSE d) we took a chance as that approach had us down double digits almost every time, effectively shooting ourselves out of games e) it actually makes it harder to hold the lead

    That's why many say it's a false sense of security. A false positve. It's a one game maybe aboration that produces diminishing returns over the course of time- further exposed in the playoffs where the top teams who play defense, clamp down, and slow you down. Without a solid all around approach, illustrated by the all around personnel on the floor, it can only win when too many factors become true.

    That and the availability of players is why I say it's too risky.
    Neglecting to "showcase" a player's specific talents is why I say it's limited. These issues have many trickle down effects and reduce the likelyhood of winning a chip using this approach.

    Dude why must you rehash each and every argument once again? The OP created a specific thread on the details of MDA's offense and I provided precisely that. Do we not have 8 other threads that you yourself created to discuss all your points once again?

    I will say that:

    Pace = injury over time
    Is just complete made up nonsense. Please show how MDA coached teams have a higher incidence of injury.
    Last edited by TR1LL10N; May 02, 2011 at 07:41.

  7. #22
    Hannibal Lecter TR1LL10N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Dark side of the Moon
    Posts
    2,743
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by Crazy⑧s
    The entirety of MD's team's success is specific to an individual? I think that's true to a degree, but considering our roster, it shouldn't even be necessary. And if that's the case, and it's the absence of a good player at a specific spot that made our offence so pathetic and predictable against Boston, then why can't the individual blame, be it some or all, be pointed toward the fact that MD, its orchestrator, is so reliant on a particular thing to be successful? And without that crucial component, he is, in both meanings of the term, defenceless. That's a blaring weakness.
    Yes MDA's system is reliant on a specific player as much as Phil Jacksons system relies on an elite wing like MJ or Kobe.

    It's the exact opposite of what you assert our roster makes it wholly dependent on a "SSOL" type PG. STAT being the biggest reason as he most effective finishing or in the PnR. Yes, he has a great jump shot from the elbow but for that to truly be effective teams must worry about him slashing to basket for a finish. Pump faking and driving into traffic will only get him so far. He needs a PG to get him the ball in right spots and why there are long stretches that Amare looks ineffective and turnover prone.

    Even Melo, while a traditional ISO scorer would too benefit greatly from a PG that could break down the defense and get him the ball in better spots than around the arch. Melo can finish with the best of them score quickly in many ways and only becomes stoppable when the defense can predict yet another ISO dump to Melo around the arch.

    So yes, a "SSOL capable" PG is needed to truly maximize our roster since we are not really built for a half court grind. All our size issues and lack of depth would be magnified if we were to try and grind it out with bigger slower teams.

    With 2 of the most gifted athletes and scorers in the league on the one team playing as individuals offensively, I don't really believe that our being devoid of the right point guard is the issue.
    It's not just the PG but an almost complete lack of the right role players to allow our stars to be effective even in a traditional offense. You could keep our team exactly the same but bring in a defensive/rebounding center and we instantly become much more deadly. Getting out rebounded and being undersized often dictates how we must play on the offensive end.

    With 2 of the most gifted athletes and scorers in the league on the one team playing as individuals offensively, I don't really believe that our being devoid of the right point guard is the issue.about it. It seems that he literally doesn't know what to do with them.
    Well, you must remember that MDA had less than half the season to put all the pieces together and when you add in the 3 injuries of Billups you should understand why they don't look efficient. SSOL is about conditioning but more importantly it's about harmony and chemistry enabling the players to know their roles. It also takes commitment something that players may be reluctant to do since its often contrary to anything they are used to. One thing is for sure, when you have the right PG and a committed roster SSOL is very deadly.

    If MD can't be successful without the very precise ingredients he needs, regardless of who's on his team, then, IMO, that lack of protean capability is his ultimate weakness, and it was evidenced in our 2 abismal home games against Boston. The entire roster was made to look foolish as our predictable and uncreative offence was offered as fodder to the Celtics.
    I think any coaches system is reliant on players. Doc did not win **** even with Pierce until they got KG and Allen. Phil Jackson has yet to do anything without an elite wing player. etc.etc.

    So it looks like MDA will be our coach...lets see what he can do with a full off season, some additional role players and a defensive coach. He might surprise us all.

    Thanks for your post, TR1LL1ON
    My pleasure. It's refreshing talking about the actual merits of a system instead beating back conspiracy theories, made up assertions and ad hom attacks.
    Last edited by TR1LL10N; May 02, 2011 at 07:58.

  8. #23
    TYPE-A Red's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,308
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Originally Posted by TR1LL10N
    Dude why must you rehash each and every argument once again? The OP created a specific thread on the details of MDA's offense and I provided precisely that. Do we not have 8 other threads that you yourself created to discuss all your points once again?

    I will say that:



    Is just complete made up nonsense. Please show how MDA coached teams have a higher incidence of injury.
    What you don't realize is:

    1. If the "rehashed" argument is in reference to taking defense into account, then you can't blame me for pointing out the truth. As I stated, because one CANNOT evaluate an offense in basketball without mentioning defense; one affects the other.

    2. As I will point out; that's exactly what you did and will do when analyzing "an offense", you are just unaware.

    3. It is well known and logic, pushing a fast pace, running and jumping and banging, leads to increased frequency of injury, and reduced player career time. Never hear analysts say playing like that will shorten his career? Why do you think they say this?

    Not because a Mike D'antoni system creates injures, because that's natural.

    Originally Posted by TR1LL10N
    Yes MDA's system is reliant on a specific player as much as Phil Jacksons system relies on an elite wing like MJ or Kobe.

    It's the exact opposite of what you assert our roster makes it wholly dependent on a "SSOL" type PG. STAT being the biggest reason as he most effective finishing or in the PnR. Yes, he has a great jump shot from the elbow but for that to truly be effective teams must worry about him slashing to basket for a finish. Pump faking and driving into traffic will only get him so far. He needs a PG to get him the ball in right spots and why there are long stretches that Amare looks ineffective and turnover prone.
    1. A specific player, or specific player type? Billups knows how to pass and get players involved. But more speficiations will be mentioned until we dwindle down to a handful- hence limitaton.

    2. Please don't compare D'Antoni to Phil Jackson
    Even Melo, while a traditional ISO scorer would too benefit greatly from a PG that could break down the defense and get him the ball in better spots than around the arch. Melo can finish with the best of them score quickly in many ways and only becomes stoppable when the defense can predict yet another ISO dump to Melo around the arch.

    So yes, a "SSOL capable" PG is needed to truly maximize our roster since we are not really built for a half court grind. All our size issues and lack of depth would be magnified if we were to try and grind it out with bigger slower teams.
    That's what happens in the playoffs right? Another limitation and counter intuitive to our long term plans.


    It's not just the PG but an almost complete lack of the right role players to allow our stars to be effective even in a traditional offense. You could keep our team exactly the same but bring in a defensive/rebounding center and we instantly become much more deadly. Getting out rebounded and being undersized often dictates how we must play on the offensive end.
    Do you see what you just did? How you mentioned the same points I did, yet I offered a deeper analysis on why this is a conundrum for a "Mike D'Antoni offense".

    As I said:

    "The right type of role players"

    1. Have to play defense... rebound... etc...

    2. Are rare

    3. Are Not available

    But the fact you were FORCED to wholistically include and thus conclude these as "weak" points illustrates how much you agree but try and argue. Why? You just echoed what I said.

    To analyze a NBA headcoach from an "offense only" view point is to say the game is played by two sets of players using two seperate strategies. That's short sighted and not the case as you illustrate this fact in your response.



    Well, you must remember that MDA had less than half the season to put all the pieces together and when you add in the 3 injuries of Billups you should understand why they don't look efficient. SSOL is about conditioning but more importantly it's about harmony and chemistry enabling the players to know their roles. It also takes commitment something that players may be reluctant to do since its often contrary to anything they are used to. One thing is for sure, when you have the right PG and a committed roster SSOL is very deadly.

    I think any coaches system is reliant on players. Doc did not win **** even with Pierce until they got KG and Allen. Phil Jackson has yet to do anything without an elite wing player. etc.etc.

    So it looks like MDA will be our coach...lets see what he can do with a full off season, some additional role players and a defensive coach. He might surprise us all.



    My pleasure. It's refreshing talking about the actual merits of a system instead beating back conspiracy theories, made up assertions and ad hom attacks.
    It about conditioning because without that, a player will break down, the system will break down. Producing injuries, and poor results.

    Again, Doc was COY in ORL.

    And again, why say stick on topic (which I did), then bring Doc up as if a comparison would detract from the conclusion; Mike D'Antoni's coaching is very limited, even when we take an illogical short-sighted approach and ignore the other half... defense.

    Again, this isn't football, o & d aren't independent of the other, they are one in the same.

    Too risky:

    A team consistent of...

    Conditioned athletic pg's who if they can't play defense will lose
    Knock down shooters on the perimeter who if they can't play defense will lose
    Role players including rebounders and defenders, who are too conditioned and athletic

    Considering our current state of affairs (contracts etc...)

    Who thinks this is realistic?

  9. #24
    Veteran jpz17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,782
    Rep Power
    10

    Default

    Ok guys. I'll admit it D'ANTONI IS NOT A TOP 3 COACH. There.. I'll never say it again. Bookmark it. 5 star it, whatever.

    I still believe he is around 5-10 though and we are so lucky to have him compared to Isiah, Brown, or Cheney. (LOL, what jokes)

  10. #25
    SWAGABURY KingStarbury3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Chinabury
    Posts
    3,313
    Rep Power
    21

    Default

    Im still a little undecided here, I was reading some of Reds posts and Trillions posts and both of them dropped alotta knowledge while making very good arguments for their case.

    One thing I did not like in that Boston series was how Toney Douglas defended Rondo. The Lakers showed everybody how to defend Rondo. Its very simple, Bibby (Who Douglas is 100X faster then) did a good job on Rondo yesterday. If u let him get to the hoop your in for a long night. If you square up between Rondo and the hoop in the halfcourt game while giving him a foot and a half to two feet of space hes close to useless. There is no way Rondo shoulda raped Douglas like that, either Mike D had no gameplan or Douglas was too stupid to follow the gameplan. If your a coach, you cant just go into a game against the celtics and not have a defensive strategy for Rondo. At times Dantoni made the right decision by puttin jeffries on Rondo but u cant do that all game, Jeffries sucks too much on offense to get those types of minutes.

  11. #26
    Super Moderator RunningJumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,006
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Rondo isn't even an All-Star imo. He should never get those kinds of lay-ups.

  12. #27
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    962
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Trillion ended this thread when he said his system requires a specific kinda point guard.

    In my opinion, specifically MDA needs one that can run a pick and roll. That's not how Billups and Douglas plays so with that said there really should be no tangible reason for Mike D'Antoni to continue coaching the knicks.

    He doesn't know how to maximize the abilities of his players without A P&R PG. Not a knock on him, it's kinda like have we really seen Phil implement anything other than the Triangle, and does he ever go to a team where he thinks he can't implement that.

    I've recently begun to think basketball is all about making your team make sense for your system. Quite simply, MDA is not a good fit for this team. He should be gone and go off to the sunset with the Warriors.

  13. #28
    Evacuee Crazy⑧s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    日本
    Posts
    6,487
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Originally Posted by TR1LL10N

    STAT being the biggest reason as he most effective finishing or in the PnR. Yes, he has a great jump shot from the elbow but for that to truly be effective teams must worry about him slashing to basket for a finish. Pump faking and driving into traffic will only get him so far. He needs a PG to get him the ball in right spots and why there are long stretches that Amare looks ineffective and turnover prone.
    I think (hope) we all realise this, TR1LL1ON. How many times has it been regurgitated? The premise of the thread was to be specific about our offence, so, if Amar'e's a motion scorer, where were those plays throughout the end of the season and the playoffs? Do we need CP3 to provide motion offence plays for Amar'e? NO!

    Even Melo, while a traditional ISO scorer would too benefit greatly from a PG that could break down the defense and get him the ball in better spots than around the arch. Melo can finish with the best of them score quickly in many ways and only becomes stoppable when the defense can predict yet another ISO dump to Melo around the arch.
    Exactly. Is that the fault of the PG? Of course it isn't! You could easily blame the front court for not setting competent screens to get him to his spot on the block. Melo's perimeter game was about providing spacing for the 3. Simply and plainly. That was courtesy of design, not incapability.

    So yes, a "SSOL capable" PG is needed to truly maximize our roster since we are not really built for a half court grind. All our size issues and lack of depth would be magnified if we were to try and grind it out with bigger slower teams.
    I agree to a point, but again, how that - size issues - becomes so incredibly reliant on a back court player makes literally no sense to me.


    Getting out rebounded and being undersized often dictates how we must play on the offensive end.
    I have to refer, again, to the premise of the thread. I'm looking for something unambiguous from MD's supporters about plays and offence, and I get nothing except the ol' blatant patent Maybe that's my fault for not being specific enough, but I think I was.



    Well, you must remember that MDA had less than half the season to put all the pieces together and when you add in the 3 injuries of Billups you should understand why they don't look efficient. SSOL is about conditioning but more importantly it's about harmony and chemistry enabling the players to know their roles. It also takes commitment something that players may be reluctant to do since its often contrary to anything they are used to. One thing is for sure, when you have the right PG and a committed roster SSOL is very deadly.
    And if we don't have the right roster and PG? Wouldn't that lead any and all lookers on to presume that we have the wrong coach? Round hole square peg? To piss in the wind?


    So it looks like MDA will be our coach...lets see what he can do with a full off season, some additional role players and a defensive coach. He might surprise us all.
    Maybe? After watching this team's offence in the last month of the season, that's not something that I can base a lot of faith upon.

  14. #29
    Evacuee Crazy⑧s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    日本
    Posts
    6,487
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Originally Posted by KingofNy

    Now to this "so-called" offensive genius' crappy half-court offense. He ran a total of 3 plays each and every game. We basically played streetball, running high pick and rolls which barely ever worked, leading to ISO's to Stat, Melo, or whoever had the ball in their hands when the shot-clock ran out. Never did Antoni call plays that have our team move without the ball if it wasn't the guy setting the screen. Antoni's half court offense = stagnant ISO to doubleteamed superstars and then not send the open player cutting to the basket. He is a worse offensive coach than he is a defensive coach IMO.... UGGGHH I get frustrated even thinking back to it. I don't know if I can handle another season of this fool wrecking our team. Seriously.
    That's what I was after! A deliberate point and shoot at the offence itself.

    It seems like an attack on the coach, but is it? Not really.

    Thanks for posting per request of the OP.

  15. #30
    Evacuee Crazy⑧s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    日本
    Posts
    6,487
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Originally Posted by clumsy
    it's kinda like have we really seen Phil implement anything other than the Triangle, and does he ever go to a team where he thinks he can't implement that.
    I remember the Bulls without Jordan over that 3 year spell, and they ran the triangle FAR less and were still successful, even pushing us to 7 games with Kukoc leading the way.

Posting Permissions

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