Originally Posted by
knicksin60
Larry Brown had already won a championship and had a resume of taking a number of mediocre teams to the playoffs, before he came to the Knicks.And the reason why he was fired by Isiah Thomas was because of his fall out with Stephon Marbury.Mike D'antoni on the other hand, has never proven that he could coach a group of undertalented players to mediocrity and has never proven that he could get a playoff team passed the conference finals.Comparing Larry Brown's situation to D'antoni's situation with the Knicks is comparing apples to oranges.
So by saying that Mike D'antoni was the best coach available at the time, are you implying that he is better than Avery Johnson, Scott Skiles and Jeff Van Gundy? D'antoni might have seemed like a good coach 2 years ago but he wasn't the best coach available.When Walsh went out and lured D'antoni into coming to the Knicks he knew that D'antoni's relationship with players on the U.S. Olympic team could play a major role in attracting free agents in 2010.I don't think it was because D'antoni was this great coach who was going to eventually transform the Knicks into the '96 Bulls.
When D'antoni made his debut for the Knicks, didn't he say that he was going to bring back competitive basketball to MSG? Was he just saying those things because his large pay check required him to fill Knick fans with false hope? Or did he actually believe that he was going to make the Knicks a better team? So far, he's been Knick coach for almost 2 years and the Knicks still haven't learned how to play defense and are regressing as the clock moves forward.
You don't have to be a great head coach to get a group of undertalented players to compete every night.Look at Rick Adelman, he isn't a great coach but he manages to get the best out of his Houston Rockets team in a conference that is a lot tougher than the one that the Knicks play in.Mike Fratello, when he coached in the NBA was far from a great coach but he took mediocre Cavalier teams to the playoffs every year.And he was doing this during a period in which players like Michael Jordan, Patrick Ewing and Karl Malone were dominating the league.Don't tell me that the reason why D'antoni is about to lose 50 games, once again for the Knicks, is because the Knicks are completely uncoachable.If that is the only reason why the Knicks are so bad then they shouldn't even be competing in the NBA.The fact that they have players who are talented enough to play in the NBA should be enough for a good coach not to lose 50 games with them every year.You're telling me that a man who can coach an Olympic team to a gold medal can't coach a group of NBA players to win a mere 40 games in a weak division because his players aren't good enough to play for him? Something has to be wrong with this picture.
Even if the Knicks acquired McGrady,Thomas or House it won't make much of a difference for them.Mike D'antoni has proven that if you're not his favorite player you aren't going to be used to your full potential and could be in danger of being put on the inactive roster.I know a coach is suppose to set certain standards for his team, but how have the Knicks benefited from D'antoni benching Larry Hughes? When he was in the lineup, the Knicks were playing defense and looked like they were going to be serious contenders for the last playoff spot in the East.But then the inevitable took place: Mike D'antoni decided to go with his pride rather than his common sense and the Knicks suffered as a result of it.
I don't think Mike D'antoni is a bad person.He seems like a guy with a wonderful personality, but when he doesn't do his job correctly, he will be criticized for it.