MIKE D plays DEFENSIVE Players so STOPPP THE NONSENSE.

Seriously>>? That's you're excuse for not acknowledging Mike D plays defensive minded players,"I cant decipher this because Turiaf is injured so often".

Are you watching the games??

When Turiaf is available he plays. Plain and simple.

He's not a shooter.

He brings defense and rebounding.

Mike D plays him. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I honestly cant explain him using Turiaf. It goes against everything he's done so far in his career as coach. We'll see how much PT he gets when Gallo is healthy again. If he's healthy himself...
 

iSaYughh

Starter
What do mean height means nothing?? Isn't that the point of Clydeandthepearl's bellyaching?

Secondly I was arguing a specific point w C&TP. He said Mike D doesn' play guys who are over 6'8''. All I did was post clear evidence that is not the case..

And you find fault w that?? SMH

You can't win. Because the game and it's goal post will keep changing each as you make your way through points.

Which means that a personal dislike for D'ant and emotional reliance on railing against him for a notion of playing defense, takes precedent over actuality; including the actual issues we do have on defense, and any real issues that exist with D'ant.

Occasionally, randomness will have it that real problems w him and the team align with the static dislike/emotion. But even then, it's fruitless because the actuality matters less than the reliance on the personal grudge and emotion.

All this talk about players above 6'8, eg; MD never playing big men; never giving youth who can play D a chance; only playing offensive players at direct expense of viable guys who can play D; that we don't want defense or rebounding and *any* good Center is useless for us (ostensibly, bc Darko and Jordan Hill didn't lead us to the playoffs and Mike D'antoni didn't personally lobotomize Anthony Randolph and have him playing like a quality NBA playe this season).

What does it mean that D'ant disgruntles and defies people's wishes; yet his success and our actual progress this season has transcended all expectations, even his most rabid skeptics?
 
Last edited:

pat

Starter
I guess being one of the worst teams in the league at giving up points is good in your eyes.

We could argue about fg % allowed or points per shot, but in a system in which the shot clock rarely goes down to 15 or below in our offense and opponents usually cannot resist running with us, how can you even think of points allowed as a benchmark? It just does not make sense at all. If the shot volume is about 15% above average, it would be insanely good defense to hold an opponent even at league average.
 

iSaYughh

Starter
I honestly cant explain him using Turiaf. It goes against everything he's done so far in his career as coach. We'll see how much PT he gets when Gallo is healthy again. If he's healthy himself...

Dude...he had as much, if not MORE robust pt when Gallo has been entirely healthy!

Turiaf -- pretty athletic, can move, good heart, plays fast and hard, isn't a headcase or project, plays solid all around D.

All D'ant wants. And Turiaf is far from ideal; his total package wouldn't be starter worthy on many teams, he has worse offense than defense, and he isn't even a true center body.

Give him any quality starting C who doesn't move like a lumber Jack and he will play and be appreciated.

STAT is an all-star Center anyways...Al Horford "supposedly" was really more a 4 than 5...Pau Gasol was a lame 5 and really a 4...etcetc.

I doubt Hawk or LAK fans, or fans of other teams who employ hybrid 4/5's predominantly as starting NBA 5's moan and place such an emphasis that they don't have a stereotypical 5.
 

ronoranina

Fundamentally Sound
We could argue about fg % allowed or points per shot, but in a system in which the shot rarely goes down to 15 or below in our offense and opponents usually cannot resist running with us, how can you even think of points allowed as a benchmark? It just does not make sense at all. If the shot volume is about 15% above average, it would be insanely good defense to hold an opponent even at league average.

Exactly. You can't hold a team under a hundred regularly when you average close to 120. Not gonna say it's impossible. But, it's pretty close to impossible.
Real heads know this.
 
Last edited:
I see what Clyde's point is. Turiaf can't shoot, but he flows well with the offense, because he moves well without the ball, and runs a pretty good pick n roll. Randolph? Ball stopper, and bad shot taker. Curry? Fat, slow, ball stopper. Thats why they dont play. Moz also plays well in the system, but he is playing scared. Once he slows down, he well be an asset.

Williams should never be guarding a post player. Period.
 

iSaYughh

Starter
Point differential is all that matters most. I keep saying it in game threads when same ppl complain even after wins.

What we happen to score or what our opponent happens to score is arbitrary.

I wonder if it would get the same reaction if we had an extra-ordinary defensive system, and won games 85-80 much of the time, with a league-worst type of offense.

I don't think it would beget as much misunderstanding and conflict. Mainly bc there's an emotional nostalgia and ingrained sentiment in sports that defense is the always unsung hero and true seasoned sports fans know this.
 
We could argue about fg % allowed or points per shot, but in a system in which the shot clock rarely goes down to 15 or below in our offense and opponents usually cannot resist running with us, how can you even think of points allowed as a benchmark? It just does not make sense at all. If the shot volume is about 15% above average, it would be insanely good defense to hold an opponent even at league average.

Oh, I agree for the most part. But playing players that have no shot at stopping bigs down low is a major cause in us giving up so many points in the paint. Which also has us ranked in the bottom half on defense. We have absolutely no resistance when Mike D goes small. We'll win some games like this, but we'll never win the ultimate prize.
 

moneyg

Starter
What do mean height means nothing?? Isn't that the point of Clydeandthepearl's bellyaching?

Secondly I was arguing a specific point w C&TP. He said Mike D doesn' play guys who are over 6'8''. All I did was post clear evidence that is not the case..

And you find fault w that?? SMH

wasnt a personal attack on u...anybody that claims size is what drives our coach is a fool..wheter its u or cylde...

all im sayin is that isnt gallo 6-10...our coach wont even use him as a PF.. where as a plyer like ben wallace is 6-8 nd was one of the best defensive centers for many years...

its a skill level ant u can be 7-1 like bargnani and still be best used as a 3-4

chandler is best suited for the 3..so is gallo

amare is best suited for the 4

its that simple

turiaf is a 5...

dirk is a 4

AR is mostly a 3, occasional 4

jefferies is a 3

there a difference between good straight up defenders turiaf and good weakside defender..which is what AR is

oh yeah and sghot blocking stats are misleading especially whe ur giving up so many points in the paint
 
Dude...he had as much, if not MORE robust pt when Gallo has been entirely healthy!

Turiaf -- pretty athletic, can move, good heart, plays fast and hard, isn't a headcase or project, plays solid all around D.

All D'ant wants. And Turiaf is far from ideal; his total package wouldn't be starter worthy on many teams, he has worse offense than defense, and he isn't even a true center body.

Give him any quality starting C who doesn't move like a lumber Jack and he will play and be appreciated.

STAT is an all-star Center anyways...Al Horford "supposedly" was really more a 4 than 5...Pau Gasol was a lame 5 and really a 4...etcetc.

I doubt Hawk or LAK fans, or fans of other teams who employ hybrid 4/5's predominantly as starting NBA 5's moan and place such an emphasis that they don't have a stereotypical 5.

Well I have seen times Turiaf got no run. I dont know if he was injured or not. This is why I really cant pick up Mike D's tendencies with this guy.

Like I said in the other thread guys that move like lumber jacks have attributes that can help a team win also. This is my main problem with this coach and his system. Everything has to be just about perfect for us to win. There is no grinding it out victories when our shooters are off. See the Kings game for proof.

Sure STAT is an allstar center. Playing out of position. He'd be an even more productive starting PF...
 

ronoranina

Fundamentally Sound
So we average close to 120 now? Would it be save to say that you're WRONG? :teeth:

What would I be wrong about?? Can you be more specific?

I mean, yea , we average close to 120 or 120. My point is you can't expect for our points against average to be around or below a hundred. That is not disputable. Idk what you're getting at..
 

ronoranina

Fundamentally Sound
I would add that the statement from Money: "anybody that claims size is what drives our coach is a fool" is precisely what Clyde is arguing.

I agree that the skill, fit and trust worthiness of a big is what drives our coach much more than size outright.

Clyde on the other hand would have us play bigs that need more seasoning..

He wants to see AR smh.

He wants Moz to get minutes.

Even though they're not ready to play..


He's been saying this stuff all along.

Mike D is not biased towards defensive bigs either. IMO he feels they have their place.

He just has a bigger need in this system for a good two-way big that has some versatility and is not TO and foul-prone. The above guys don't fit these requirements, yet.


Moz is the prototype big for D'ants system tho.

The guy is 7'0'', 250, can run the floor, shoot it a little and run the P & R.

When he's ready, do you honestly think he won't play???
 
Last edited:

RunningJumper

Super Moderator
I agree with you in the sense that he does play players who lack offense. I thought of that before. He's just not a good defensive coach. If we had say Camby, our team could be drastically different defensively.
 

ronoranina

Fundamentally Sound
I agree with you in the sense that he does play players who lack offense. I thought of that before. He's just not a good defensive coach. If we had say Camby, our team could be drastically different defensively.


Yea, but if we had Camby don't you think Mike D would play him.

I certainly think he would.

This is the question we're debating..
 
What would I be wrong about?? Can you be more specific?

I mean, yea , we average close to 120 or 120. My point is you can't expect for our points against average to be around or below a hundred. That is not disputable. Idk what you're getting at..

Ron. We average 107-108 pts a game. Far from 120. We give up 105-106 a game. The point differential is below two. Us giving up 101-102 a game would mean we're putting some sort of concentration on the defensive end. Right now the teams primary focus is to outscore opponents only...
 
Top