Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56

Thread: MIKE D plays DEFENSIVE Players so STOPPP THE NONSENSE.

  1. #31
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    county of the kings
    Posts
    1,120
    Rep Power
    9

    Media

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    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

  2. #32
    Veteran Clyde & The Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,463
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by iSaYughh
    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...

  3. #33
    Veteran Clyde & The Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,463
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    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.
    So we average close to 120 now? Would it be safe to say that you're WRONG?

  4. #34
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    So we average close to 120 now? Would it be save to say that you're WRONG?
    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..

  5. #35
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    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 by ronoranina; Jan 16, 2011 at 17:57. Reason: to make my shat clearer

  6. #36
    Super Moderator RunningJumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,040
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    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.

  7. #37
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by RunningJumper
    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..

  8. #38
    Super Moderator RunningJumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,040
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    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..
    I think he would. He starts Turiaf afterall.

    The bigger question would Dolan allow this to happen.

  9. #39
    Veteran Clyde & The Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,463
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    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...

  10. #40
    Veteran Clyde & The Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,463
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by RunningJumper
    I think he would. He starts Turiaf afterall.

    The bigger question would Dolan allow this to happen.
    He starts Turiaf out of necessity. Gallo is out.

  11. #41
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Lets also try to remember, this is the beginning of our turn around. We can't get everything over night. Lets get Melo, that should be our next biggest goal. If we secure that imp piece, then we get the smaller, but some what equally imp pieces.

    Or, maybe Moz surprises us, and starts to contribute. Theres still time for that. Maybe Earl barron. But we are still infants on the rise. Of course we'll have needs.

  12. #42
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    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...
    Oh.. my bad.

    I slacked a little and didn't go look up the exact numbers. I'm tryin to watch the Jets so you'll have to excuse me..

    The point is tho that our team is obviously putting in some work defensively or else we'd have a worse deferential, ie -- even, or us giving up more than we score on average.

    There's really nothing to argue on this issue.

  13. #43
    Super Moderator RunningJumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,040
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    Originally Posted by Clyde & The Pearl
    He starts Turiaf out of necessity. Gallo is out.
    Well, yeah, but I do think he likes Turiaf to play him those minutes.

    He's made some decisions where he might have not played him enough though.I dunno.

  14. #44
    Veteran Clyde & The Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,463
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    Lets also try to remember, this is the beginning of our turn around. We can't get everything over night. Lets get Melo, that should be our next biggest goal. If we secure that imp piece, then we get the smaller, but some what equally imp pieces.

    Or, maybe Moz surprises us, and starts to contribute. Theres still time for that. Maybe Earl barron. But we are still infants on the rise. Of course we'll have needs.
    OK maybe I'm expecting a bit too much too soon, but I just want some obvious things corrected. I think if we do we'll be much better off in the playoffs this year and next...

  15. #45
    Veteran Clyde & The Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,463
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    Oh.. my bad.

    I slacked a little and didn't go look up the exact numbers. I'm tryin to watch the Jets so you'll have to excuse me..

    The point is tho that our team is obviously putting in some work defensively or else we'd have a worse deferential, ie -- even, or us giving up more than we score on average.

    There's really nothing to argue on this issue.
    Big win for the Jets. I think they'll win it all now...

Similar Threads

  1. International Players More Hype than Hope
    By KnicksFan4Realz in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: Feb 20, 2009, 17:33
  2. Mike D
    By Crazy⑧s in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jan 01, 2009, 20:19
  3. Mike D interview...talks about players
    By Paul1355 in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Sep 28, 2008, 12:05
  4. Replies: 137
    Last Post: Jul 04, 2008, 20:35
  5. What players wont return next season
    By Kiyaman in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: May 20, 2008, 14:57

Posting Permissions

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