Good thing we aren't ****ING TALKING ABOUT COLLEGE BASKETBALL, A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GAME TO ANYONE WHO KNOWS THE SPORT! A game where development of young, 18 year old KIDS, is more important, and the team game is emphasized to a much greater extent.
I didn't know you were in the practice, in the huddles, and at game day meetings where you hear his lack of preaching defense. Because when he is Mic'd up I hear him stressing defense consistently. But go ahead, continue to ignore things like "facts" and "reality" to make your point
Why do you think we were able to do that? The answer, to me, seems obvious. Besides STAT loving the spotlight, he came back to be back in the system (Mike D'Antoni's) where he played his best basketball...Mike D was a big reason STAT came here, if not THE reason STAT came here...and vicariously, if Carmelo comes here to play with STAT, Mike D'Antoni is a big part of us getting Carmelo.
Again, I literally think I might be going crazy. I can't be the only one that gets this, so I will post it AGAIN:
So, to use your football analogy (by the way, football is a much different sport...and look at the TWO teams remaining, in the Super Bowl...they have the QBs who played the best, Aaron Rodgers is having a ridiculous playoffs and Ben Roethlisberger made some absurd plays last week. But of course you ignore the QB play):
If you have a team whose offense relies on the quick strike and deep play threats, the offense spends much less time on the field. That means the OTHER offense spends much MORE time on the field, and the more time you spend on the field the more chance you have to put up points. The Saints last year were criticized for having not a great defense, but that was because there offense was quick-strike vertical down the field. This resulted in quick scoring drives, not like the ones the Steelers had, ensuring the defense would be back out on the field quickly (and vicariously, the other offense) giving them a chance to score more points.
I don't understand why this is so hard to comprehend.
Sorry Black but you failed.
In football teams who run the ball and present balance on offense tend to lead in "time of possession" something critical to winning
The Saints D led the league in take-aways when they won the SB (a defensive stat)
Agreed, more possessions may (somewhat) explain the increased opponents scoring, but you neglect the whole picture. You must consider that the case in point is:
Faster shots means extra possessions, but when combined with the "FACT" that fatigue is an inevitable factor, along with having a squad that isn't sound defensively, this strategy can prove to ultimately be counter productive as a lack of defense added to more possessions equates to an inability to compete efficiently on both ends, which is what is happening.
By mentioning the 2 SB teams you actually made the point, btw both are TOP 5 in the league and bost 2 HOF defensive coordinators. Bad analogy because football embodies the term "defense wins games"... just check the Jets.
So in conclusion, theoretically you may win a few by running teams into the ground who can't keep up, but when that same team isn't prepared defensively to thwart the very threat perpetuated by engaging in such a strategy...
Well you become the reason for your own demise.
I don't think MDA should be fired midseason it wouldn't make a difference. But if we can really become a defensive team this offense wouldn't be so detrimental
But many realize, the defensive inefficiency IS PARTLY DUE TO THE OFFENSIVE APPROACH used by coach. Its that simple, we sacrifice defense and intangibles for offense, and its not consistent and its hard to have confidence in that approach.
All this approach needs is tweeking but coach refuses to adhere. We were clearly better with better defenders in the lineup thus scaling bck on the sacrificing. We are clearly in need of the USE of size, but no. We clearly can compete when we play our natural positions and do the fundamental things right such as stop chucking and WORK for high% shots, but no consistent change.
Rebounds or lack there of too are a by product of the system. So to be fair I can agree on what some MDA supporters think but fairly speaking
The philosophy of taking the "open 3" quick before the defense sets has to have issues, unless everyone would do it... do you agree? There is a reason why the previous 20 champions don't emplore this strategy, because something doesn't equate.
All the MDA non-supporters would like is for us analysts to be fair and see the short comings of this system. It helps explain things which are not so obvious and I don't see why we can't agree. Every system has limits when we can agree and realize maybe that's why we don't rebound well, or maybe that's why we can't sustain possibly due to fatigue, or maybe that's why we've had MANY servicable bigs but don't use them effectively, then we can all move on and discuss "how can we improve",
But when u blindly root and are subjective, then glaring things aren't recognized and you fantasize. We support our team, but we see the writing on the wall. Our systems limits, ancillary effects, and unwillingness to change and incorporate fundamental proven strategies will be our downfall, and no one here wants that.
I and some gave MDA props when they were due, I just wish for once an MDA supporter can list what exactly is a "weakness" of this approach to be fair. If they did things would make much more sense.
eace: He doesnt play matchups. I've seen layup lines to the basket before games that offer more defensive resistance than the Knicks do during the game. No one steps in to take a charge. No one cuts their mans path off to the basket. Giving up the baseline has ALWAYS been a no-no in basketball, but we do it regularly. But hey if these cats think we can win with this coach more power to them. Just let it be known when we're ringless and Mike D is gone I'll be the first to tell you I TOLD YOU SO...
