And I can't believe we are now retroactively comparing our team to CHI.
The ever changing goal post, to prove the dogged point that won't change (MDA sucks, MDA doesn't like defense, etc).
CHI was considered and predicted and deemed one of the most complete teams in the league, a level below the titans. And this before Rose's assurance to MVP/NBA Best Point Guard. And Deng re-assuming his game as a borderline all-star force.
We were deemed a fringe playoff hopeful. With no juice, nothing for any legit team to really fear.
ATL...wow...They have an NBA top center, and top PF. And an allstar 2. A 6th man of the year. We have two rookies, one of whom already playing out of position, and Amare playing with totally underwhelming offensive support and power by his side...That's why we need Melo, no?
Wait. I thought we had this MDA offensive juggernaut? No. We don't. We have a talented young team with a franchise w $$$, that in the translation of actual NBA wins mediocre team (a la MEM Grizzles). Predicated offensively and defensively by the players we have. All of whom are elevated by SSOL/MDA.
We should be even wore than his nahsayers (eroneously) said we were, bc of him not playing superstars Anthony Randolph, Mozgoz, and arguably our top two defensive players being injured the entire, or much of, the year (Azzy/Turia).
The man can only turn water into maniscevitz, not wine. MDA isn't Jesus. Guess he should make a public apology for only making us an offensive juggernaut this year?
I tried this in a demo of WhatIfSports (which basically you can pick any player for your team from any year and the system simulates it). It's a pay site but you can get a 10 game demo practice league for free. I basically had 1 shooter (one of AI's scoring years), a passer (Nash from one year where he average 10 APG), then a ton of low-cost rebounders with decent free throw percentages. My team went 10-0, which leads me to believe there is some backing in my thought.
I guess it is all relative...this is the NBA, a guy who can score will be around. You need guys to get rebounds and make their free throws (but they also have to get to the line). That is why I defend Gallinari, shoots a high FT%age and is seeming to get to the line more and more. You want to have guys that rebound and shoot a high percentage for their position. A guy like Biedrins or Ben Wallace (despite similar rebounding numbers) is jsut not as value as a guy who can shoot from the line. This is the NBA, there is no excuse for making less than 50% of your free throws. I personally would want my guys to be making in the 80% range, which I know is high but these should be FREE points.
If D'Antoni was really more defensive minded as you suggested, he wouldn't have Shawne Williams starting in that first Lakers game, and only play Ronny 6 minutes. He would have used Mozgov's size in games where we were simply out matched on the block (if nothing else than to be a big body).
And, from what I understand Azabukie has been scrimmaging and probably could play, but will most likely not see any playing time. And, we know that Ant Rand never plays (despite in the Mozgov Detroit game, having 5 offensive boards and one block in five minutes; and inexplicably getting no playing time after that performance).
So yes, there are defensive players on the roster, but they are underutilized. Ronny Turiaf being "sort of" an exception... but then again, there were stretches where he would have a great game, then play 7 minutes the next night.
It doesn't make sense to me. It just doesn't.
We, on the other hand, believe that we do play defence as points per 100 possessions indicate. It is just that we are not superior on the defensive end; not because of our coach but because, we believe that we do not have enough talent to compete with teams of two or more superstars. You believe that our talent is comparable to that of teams ahead of us. You see, we know what you are talking about and we hope that you know what we are talking about. The problem is this: individually this might even be correct (which I highly doubt). However our team is not yet well-constructed.
We have to play several players out of position. This is the case because some players did not perform as well as expected (Randolph) or better than expected (Fields). Others have been injured although they did not play heavy minutes (Turiaf). So several adjustments had to be made in order to develop talent (Fields), compensate problems (Turiaf & Randolph).
We have been going through two years during which the one objective was shedding salary. Last summer we started building and we have added two building blocks. Others are missing, e.g superior rebounders which create second chance points and take away second chance points from opponents in order to give them fewer shots.
Please don't act as if there were only one perspective on this, it makes you sound somewhat ignorant and overly emotional.
Further I pointed out that we went after 3 defensive players.
AR is not getting time because he is not ready in spite of a nice showing in garbage time. Do you honestly think D'ant does not want a player like what AR is supposed to bring? Of course he does! He obviously does not see that he is ready in practices and scrimmages.
This is the 3rd time you made the point about Turiaf in that one game against the Lakers. It's anecdotal at best and doesn't even begin to address the possibility that he limited his minutes because Turiaf was not 100%.
I mean you are acting like a former COY winner doesn't understand that rebounding and defense are important. You are ascribing child like attributes such as him caring less about winning over playing his favorite players. Where is the proof of any of this? Marbury not playing? Nate not playing? Where?
Last edited by TR1LL10N; Feb 15, 2011 at 16:11.
Amar'e and Felton were good pick-ups, and the best available, but because they picked up the best available does not mean that the coach is all of a sudden "defensive minded."
Your points have only shown why D'Antoni isn't defensive minded. The three "defensive players" you refer to don't player... albeit one because of injury (who should have been back by now).
That Laker's game isn't the only game Turiaf has only played under ten minutes, either. It's just a perfect example of how D'Antoni doesn't like guys who can't shoot the rock from 15 feet or more away from the basket. I could honestly see D'Antoni benching Tyson Chandler or Javale Mcgee.
MDA did this to Darko last couple years as well. Not saying Darko is the best player in the world, but the kid can play some ball. You can't teach size...
MDA showed his stubbornness with Nate as well. The kid did something stupid for sure, but he missed a full months worth of playing time for shooting at the wrong basket....
Many players have complained about D'Antoni playing favorites... not getting a reason for why they were being benched. But, this is a whole other topic (and just one mroe reason why I can't wait to see him go).
Please do me the favor, though, of answering whether or not you truly believe we can win a championship with Mike D'Antoni as coach?
Is it possible that D'Antoni didn't play Turiaf because he knew the only way they could possibly even come close to beating the Lakers would be by trying to out-run them?
Let's be honest, Ronny Turiaf is good but he's not going to stop Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum and Lamar Odom at the same time.
Timofey Mozgov has potential but he's not going to stop the Lakers' size just yet.
I'm going to say that D'Antoni knows that his big men are not as good as the Lakers' ones just yet, which is why he's not trying to put them against them.
It's what makes the Lakers so tough to beat, and we're still severely outmatched in size even if we play Turiaf or Mozgov.
I think the size discrepancy was so large (no pun intended) that D'Antoni, in his mind, realized that there was nothing he could do other than put his best offensive players on the floor and hope that the Lakers missed shots. He wasn't being defensively-minded then, that's true, but one could argue that there was no way that our team could come close to defending the Lakers' size well, which is why D'Antoni went for the small lineup.
I'm not saying that I totally agree with that, but there's rationale behind that too.
Now with that being said, this last game we played the Lakers, we actually out boarded them. Mozgov and Turiaf both played. Still lost, but it was at least a small victory.
Which leads me to my next point about his system... it is completely dependent on hitting outside jump shots. It's nothing new, but when you play a good team that can defend the three point line, the game will be more often than not lost.
We can beat any team in the league, if we hit a ridiculous number of threes, but that rarely happens. At least with a team like Orlando, they still have some inside presence -- which will give them a much better chance at going deep into the play-offs.
But, I don't think any system should live and die by the three ball. It's too risky.
^^ The Perfect Post.
It's like I said before...At least once a day, someone from the pringles gallery says someone so absurdly false/emotional, n such a stretch.
Entire debate has become circular as all nuance, and fluidity with reality has given us takes a backseat.
Part of the problem is you haven't seen threads popping up all the time,
Mike D'antoni Should Be Pre-HOF Inducted
Mike D'antoni Deserves 10yr Contract
MDA: The Hidden Defensive Genius and Elite In-Game Coach
Is any wonder the threads at the opposite spectrum, which DO pop up...Almost always morph into Isiah Thomas defense and rationalizations, or the absurd equivalent?
This is really just ppl being against SSOl, and mda as a person...Well, he isnt going anywhere, this season has been a success to date, and we stand to only improve as a team.
90% of criticisms being dissected from this season -- are a paper machete backdrop to just politik through and say you don't like MDA until he wins a chip in ny.