Article On D'Antoni...SSOL = LOSS Dah!!!!

[Red]

This is from Bill Simmons ESPN Mag:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3797805&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos1

With the possible exceptions of Dr. James Andrews, Isiah Thomas and Dick Bavetta, as well as the inventors of SportsCenter, cocaine and the JumboTron, nobody randomly altered the course of NBA history quite like Mike D'Antoni. I realized this while watching the Knicks' Chris Duhon explode for a franchise record 22 assists recently. Here was a career backup suddenly looking like a cross between Bob Cousy, Magic Johnson and Scott Howard during the "I Don't Need to Be the Wolf for Us to Win" game … and I wasn't remotely surprised.

Thanks to D'Antoni's revolutionary "seven seconds or less" offense (SSOL, for short), Duhon's big game was perfectly logical. The mind-set is simple and brilliant. When you exert a seemingly chaotic run-and-gun pace, opponents invariably get caught up in that tempo—you know, because deep down every player really wants to shoot every seven seconds—and that's exactly what Coach Mike wants. He trains his teams to play that style and looks for players who make it work, giving him an inherent advantage every night. Like Mike Dunleavy with the the 2009 Clippers, only the exact opposite.

HAS ANYONE SEEN STEVE NASH LATELY?
Of course, SSOL also happens to be the reverse acronym for LOSS. D'Antoni's Phoenix teams were wildly entertaining, consistently successful—and always heading home before the Finals. D'Antoni didn't care that just about every NBA champ since the 1988-89 Pistons had won with defense; once teams slowed the Suns' tempo and systematically broke them down, their lack of commitment to D always surfaced. Always. They had a fatal flaw. It took us four years to realize it.

We spent so much time arguing SSOL's team merits that we never noticed its effects on careers. Remember what happened to Quentin Richardson when he left Phoenix? (Even Sugar from Survivor didn't disappear as quickly.) Have you seen Boris Diaw, Leandro Barbosa or Raja Bell this season? (Overpaid bench players, as it turns out.) Or Amaré Stoudemire? (Is he even an All-Star anymore?) Have you caught Al Harrington, David Lee, Nate Robinson and Duhon in the Knicks' version of the SSOL system? (Suddenly, they're gone in every fantasy league.) Most important, has anyone seen Steve Nash lately?

In case you forgot, the Consecutive MVP Club looks like this: Kareem, Bird, Magic, Moses, Jordan, Russell, Duncan, Wilt … and Nash. Gulp. Remember, I protested this vehemently at the time, padlocking myself to the front door of David Stern's office in protest (okay, not true) and even playing the Johnnie Cochran Memorial Race Card (true) in a failed attempt to argue that only transcendent point guards like Magic and Oscar should win MVPs. I thought we were turning our backs on 60 years of NBA history, legitimizing a table-setter as our lead alpha dog and turning the process into a popularity contest. Any time "he's fun to watch and, more important, I can't think of anyone else" becomes the criteria for deciding an MVP race, trouble will ensue.

Look, I love watching Nash and I remain grateful that he helped make the NBA entertaining again. But there are two objectives in basketball (score and defend) and over the years he was exploited defensively more times than Lindsay Lohan. That meant we were voting a DH as MVP. Twice. I voted for Shaq in 2005 and Kobe in 2006—well, in my mind I did—and Nash didn't make my top four either year. Begrudgingly, I grew to accept Nash's stature even if I disagreed with it: He made teammates better and made a seemingly frantic style work for a contender, and his numbers/percentages appealed to stat geeks everywhere (17 points, 11 assists, 51%-91%-44% FG-FT-3FG in his MVP years). Fine. In the big scheme, rewarding an exceedingly likable player twice didn't rank among the 200 worst sports atrocities of this decade.

Then D'Antoni left and Nash's numbers quickly and not-so-coincidentally dropped back to his pre-Phoenix numbers in Dallas. You know, when the Mavericks decided to let him leave after Mike Bibby torched him in the 2004 playoffs. Check it out:

Nash, 2003-04: 78 games, 14.5 PPG, 8.8 APG, 47% FG, 41% 3FG, 92% FT.
Nash, 2008-09: 24 games, 15.5 PPG, 8.5 APG, 48% FG, 42% 3FG, 94% FT.

Here's where you say, "Come on, he's 34, it's inevitable he would slow down." Is it? It doesn't bother you that his 2008-09 numbers don't differ from his 2001-04 Dallas averages? Or that every other NBA legend—seriously, all of them—peaked statistically between 25 and 29. Or that Nash jumped a level from borderline All-Star to two-time MVP at 31-32? Logically, it never made sense. You can have late bloomers in the NBA, but not late superstar bloomers. If such a leap occurred in baseball, we would have cracked 10 million HGH/syringe jokes. In the NBA, we ignored the obvious reason (SSOL) and talked ourselves into it.

NASH WAS EXPLOITED DEFENSIVELY MORE TIMES THAN LINDSAY LOHAN.
Which brings me to my point, and I swear I have one: Of the four major sports, only in basketball is the historical fate of everyone from borderline All-Star to borderline superstar determined entirely by his situation. Baseball is an individual sport; you are who you are (although ballparks can skew this to varying degrees).

In hockey, you can ride someone's coattails for big numbers (think Jari Kurri), but we know when it's happening.

In football, we sometimes see great players trapped on abominable teams (Barry Sanders, Archie Manning) and good players hitting the team lottery (Jim Kelly, Franco Harris), but we can usually tell either way.

Well, what about basketball? The best thing that ever happened to Malone was Stockton, and vice versa; So, what if the Bullets hadn't screwed up and had picked Mailman one spot ahead of Utah instead of taking the immortal Kenny Green? How would you remember Dominique's career if the Lakers had picked him over Worthy? What if Pippen never played with MJ? What if McHale never played with Bird? What if young Kobe had gotten stuck on an expansion team instead of the Lakers? What if KG found a great team before he turned 30? What if Tim Duncan landed on the 1997-98 Celtics instead of the 1997-98 Spurs? In a league where you can play only five at a time, the fortunes of every good player are irrevocably tied to those of his teammates and coach. For better and worse.

That's why you can play the what-if game all day with the NBA. Just make sure to include Mike D'Antoni, the Coors Field of coaches, the guy who screwed up our beloved offensive numbers a little too much, swung consecutive MVP votes and turned a borderline All-Star into an NBA icon. Had he taken Chicago's job last summer, we'd be calling Derrick Rose "Magic 2.0" and Ben Gordon would be averaging 29 a game on his way to juggling monster free agent offers next summer. Play a few seasons of SSOL ball, and people will eventually believe that you're better offensively than you really are. Coach Mike has the magic touch. Not for everyone—yes, I'm pointing at you, Jerome James and Eddy Curry—but for some.

One of those players was a forever-grateful Nash, who was slightly better than Mark Price and now goes down for eternity as an all-time great. Another is Duhon, who gets to hold his own record in something. There are a few others in the past and present and more coming in the future. I just hope one of them isn't named LeBron. Why? Because I don't have enough brain cells to properly calibrate his first triple-double Knicks season. Could he average 36-13-13 every game with Coach Mike? What about a 40-15-15?

(My head hurts. I have to go.)

 

[pat]

I can see his point of view. But honestly, its nothing new that SSOL bloats up players' stats sheet. However, the aim in basketball was and is to score more points than your opponent. That is exactly D'Antoni does (not often enough at the moment, but I guess that is something we have to live with for now).

Where Bill Simmons messes up big time is here: first he says that the Suns never won anything playing SSOL. He tells us that the guys he played weren't really that talented (refering to Nash, Diaw, Bell, Stoudemire). Then he tells us how important team mates are in basketball (referring to Kobe, Garnett, etc.).

That means that SSOL made the Suns go deep into the playoffs with a mediocre team! The question now is this: what happens if the Knicks manage to sign a big time free agent willing to buy into SSOL and role-players that fit both the future Knicks superstar and SSOL?

Maybe this is what made coach D sign with the Knicks and not with the Bulls: Donnie giving him a guarantee to do anything to sign a big free-agent in 2010 and messing up big time in 2008/2009 (as you can see right now) to get a decent draft pick in 09.

 

[Red]

I can see his point of view. But honestly, its nothing new that SSOL bloats up players' stats sheet. However, the aim in basketball was and is to score more points than your opponent. That is exactly D'Antoni does (not often enough at the moment, but I guess that is something we have to live with for now).

Where Bill Simmons messes up big time is here: first he says that the Suns never won anything playing SSOL. He tells us that the guys he played weren't really that talented (refering to Nash, Diaw, Bell, Stoudemire). Then he tells us how important team mates are in basketball (referring to Kobe, Garnett, etc.).

That means that SSOL made the Suns go deep into the playoffs with a mediocre team! The question now is this: what happens if the Knicks manage to sign a big time free agent willing to buy into SSOL and role-players that fit both the future Knicks superstar and SSOL?

Maybe this is what made coach D sign with the Knicks and not with the Bulls: Donnie giving him a guarantee to do anything to sign a big free-agent in 2010 and messing up big time in 2008/2009 (as you can see right now) to get a decent draft pick in 09.

I took it as SSOL wont work (except for padding stats) towards the ultimate goal of winning a championship without playing Defense. And D'Antoni stresses SSOL too much and playing D too little. You win by "scoring more than your opponent", You score more [than them] by playing DEFENSE. Not attempting to hoist up a shot quickly (D'Antoni phil. is more fg attpts. or made will wear down the other team...actually it has the worn down his team).

 

[DontForgetDerekHarper]

yea dude I dunno, thats a very biased article and it breeds bias like a political marketing scheme. Mike D's track record of winning and excellence extends well beyond his days in Arizona, and people forget that the team was on the verge of beating the spurs and lost their 2 best big men in DIAW and AMARE to ridiculous suspensions. Also Game 1 of the other series they lost nash in the last 3 minutes to a broken nose. THe suns in the WEst remind me of mid ninetys knicks in the east, a championship team with a championship coach who always ran into that one team who had that one or two players who made the shots they didnt, both had a series were suspensions ****ed them (knicks-heat) and both had heart breaking losses ( tim duncans three) ( Patrick ewing finger roll) point being people like to rip down MIke D because he is coaching in NEW york, if he had gone to another other team to coach you would never even hear about the guy, but the market of new york calls for scrutiny and he is getting it. The suns had to go through the spurs on a title run, the mavericks on a title run, beating both the mavericks and the lakers and running through every other team, except the spurs, if people are going to knock MIke D for not getting past the spurs ( they need to get their head examined) not allot of teams down the spurs, in fact 3 out of the 5 years that Mike D coached in Pho ( no one has). point is Mike is a sick coach SSOL or whatever you want to call it, the man is the real deal, he just needs players ( like every other great coach ) Phil jackson ( jordan) Popavich( DUncan) Rivers ( KG, RA, PP)
you want to talk about every team since 88-89 you can almost argue that every one of their best players was essentially a better all around player than nash, therefore you can argue that only because of MIke D was nash MVP material, if that combined with my previous arguments on behalf of the suns tough western conference play off runs only bolsters my believe in MIke D. Truth Be told the man can flat out coach.

 

[clumsy]

To Quote Jay Bilas

"Adam Morisson Couldn't guard a bank with a machine gun"

same applies Nash and Amare

 

[rollingstone]

LOL @ "Nash was exploited defensively more times than Lindsey Lohan"
hahaha gotta love Bill Simmons

I think we all now realize much better that D'Antoni has enormous influence on players stats, than we did back at the start of his tenure in Phoenix
That said - when we judge his success in Phoenix, we must realize that all of his players weren't really that good. He just made them look good. Frankly, most of them look like bums now, including Marion. Probably no coach in NBA would've won a title with those players.

I think even current Jazz (with Deron+Boozer+Kirilenko+Okur+Millsap+Kyle Karver) got as much talent (if not more) as D'Antoni's Suns did in 2006-2007. And nobody is blaming Jerry Sloan if they don't win the title, like they blamed D'Antoni.

Give D'Antoni real players like LeBron + Bosh, guys who dont need him to be superstars, then we'll see if 7-seconds-or-less can win titles.

 

[knicklover]

Most sophisticated stats are adjusted for the pace of play.

 

[rollingstone]

It's not just about pace though. Players in D'Antoni system look better even if they come from other fast pace systems.
Look at Harrington. He just came from GSW, and now he looks like an All-NBA player all of a sudden

D'Antoni always had pretty short list of players playing for him, based on who's performing best in his system. Players with most suitable skills+heavy minutes+fast pace+having fun and motivation --> end up looking like All-NBA talents

 

[TR1LL10N]

I think Mike D is a gifted coach and I predict a playoff birth this year. I think we are on the verge of playing really good ball and should go on a run real soon.

Mike D got the most out of mediocre talent in Phoenix and is doing the same here. Are we going to win a title or go very deep in the playoffs? Probably not. We are lacking a 1st option superstar that is necessary to win in the NBA. Once we get that we should be good to go.

 

[Blas]

Simmons forgets an important point about the four years of D'antoni and the Suns.

Not only was D'antoni winning with these so-called overrated players, but he was winning in the WEST. The powerhouse of the NBA during those years. Look at the teams they had to compete with to even get into the playoffs. Look at the East those years.

Also, in his theory if we do land 2 superstars their stats should be breaking every NBA record and we should be winning championships for the next 5 years because the system makes you that much better then you are.

This article isn't well written. It contradicts itself. A better argument would be, the quicker the possession the more chances for mistakes.

 

[rollingstone]

This article isn't well written. It contradicts itself. A better argument would be, the quicker the possession the more chances for mistakes.

I think this is true in pretty much all cases of fast ball, but in D'Antoni's case it's true to a lesser degree. Players end up with a better FG% and assist numbers when they play for D'Antoni, so that compensates for mistakes

That's where it really differs from other fast ball systems, like Don Nelson's. Take S-Jackson in GSW. While for the first 40 games in GSW he had pretty high FG%, he had pretty much same or worse FG % as in Indiana since, while turnover rate has jumped up significantly.

With D'Antoni, most rotation players end up with best FG% and assist numbers of their careers. Same is true with current Knicks guys, although they badly need a rest now and more players - or else they wont be able to lift a ball soon, let alone shoot it well

 

[pat]

I took it as SSOL wont work (except for padding stats) towards the ultimate goal of winning a championship without playing Defense. And D'Antoni stresses SSOL too much and playing D too little. You win by "scoring more than your opponent", You score more [than them] by playing DEFENSE. Not attempting to hoist up a shot quickly (D'Antoni phil. is more fg attpts. or made will wear down the other team...actually it has the worn down his team).

I know that this is what he is trying to point out, but I think you didn't get what I was saying: If Nash, Diaw, and Stoudemire are not as good as they seemed to be in an SSOL-offence, this means he hasn't tried it with the right people yet.

What I mean is: get a SUPERSTAR with a brilliant stats sheets and a decent winning record (in a "normal" offence like Princeton, UCLA, what have you ) and look what he can do in SSOL. D'Antoni never did that before and I believe this is why he came to New York.

 

[DanL]

Listen, it's possible to play a SSOL system and still defend. While Nash himself might not have been a good defender, the Suns WERE NOT a bad defensive team during D'Antoni's reign. They were a middle of the pack defensive team when you adjust for efficiency.

Pat Riley's Showtime Lakers, the precursors to SSOL were similarly an above average defensive team, even though they played a run and gun style.

It's all explained on this post, which is very insightful:

http://www.knicksfan.net/?p=108

 

[Kiyaman]

I really dont know where all this is comming from the Phoenix Suns has always been a "Run and Gun" seven to ten second team since the fast transition backcourt of "K.J. & Hornachek" illiminated the Majic Johnson & Riley Lakers in the playoffs.

Phoenix even did well making every playoff with Barkley, Finley, Ainge, Malorie, and injury prone K.J..

The Phoenix Suns master of the "run n gun style" was Jason Kidd with Mcdyess or Marion the Matrix.

The Super-Star run n gun lineup of Amare, Marion, Joe Johnson, and Nash, already made their mark in the NBA as run n gun star players before Dantoni became a headcoach in Phoenix.

 

[Kiyaman]

Listen, it's possible to play a SSOL system and still defend. While Nash himself might not have been a good defender, the Suns WERE NOT a bad defensive team during D'Antoni's reign. They were a middle of the pack defensive team when you adjust for efficiency.

Pat Riley's Showtime Lakers, the precursors to SSOL were similarly an above average defensive team, even though they played a run and gun style.

It's all explained on this post, which is very insightful:

http://www.knicksfan.net/?p=108

Nash was outstanding in leading Dallas to the playoffs every season with Finley and Dirk under coach Don Nelson.

Pat Riley had the first 6.9 PG in the NBA "Magic Johnson" with C-Kareem, PF-Silky Wilks, PF-Worthy, and the best defensive 6th-Man in the league Mr. Cooper. Adding defensive specialist Clark Kent aka Rambis and SG-Byron Scott did'nt hurt matters either.

The Trio of Amare, Marion, and Nash would've been great in coach Jax "Tri-angle" offense, or coach Don Nelson switch transition offense, or coach Byron Scott relentless run n gun offense at trapping the passing lane, or even young coach Carlise or Eddie Jordan offense/defense fast transition.
All these coaches established themselves in the run n gun technique when Dantoni was trying out for a coaching job in Denver.....and would've LUV to have a "TRIO" nucleus of Amare, Marion (two double-double players), and a quick pass-first PG-Nash...

 

[KING~POETIQ]

This is from Bill Simmons ESPN Mag:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?section=magazine&id=3797805&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab3pos1

With the possible exceptions of Dr. James Andrews, Isiah Thomas and Dick Bavetta, as well as the inventors of SportsCenter, cocaine and the JumboTron, nobody randomly altered the course of NBA history quite like Mike D'Antoni. I realized this while watching the Knicks' Chris Duhon explode for a franchise record 22 assists recently. Here was a career backup suddenly looking like a cross between Bob Cousy, Magic Johnson and Scott Howard during the "I Don't Need to Be the Wolf for Us to Win" game ? and I wasn't remotely surprised.

Thanks to D'Antoni's revolutionary "seven seconds or less" offense (SSOL, for short), Duhon's big game was perfectly logical. The mind-set is simple and brilliant. When you exert a seemingly chaotic run-and-gun pace, opponents invariably get caught up in that tempo?you know, because deep down every player really wants to shoot every seven seconds?and that's exactly what Coach Mike wants. He trains his teams to play that style and looks for players who make it work, giving him an inherent advantage every night. Like Mike Dunleavy with the the 2009 Clippers, only the exact opposite.

HAS ANYONE SEEN STEVE NASH LATELY?
Of course, SSOL also happens to be the reverse acronym for LOSS. D'Antoni's Phoenix teams were wildly entertaining, consistently successful?and always heading home before the Finals. D'Antoni didn't care that just about every NBA champ since the 1988-89 Pistons had won with defense; once teams slowed the Suns' tempo and systematically broke them down, their lack of commitment to D always surfaced. Always. They had a fatal flaw. It took us four years to realize it.

We spent so much time arguing SSOL's team merits that we never noticed its effects on careers. Remember what happened to Quentin Richardson when he left Phoenix? (Even Sugar from Survivor didn't disappear as quickly.) Have you seen Boris Diaw, Leandro Barbosa or Raja Bell this season? (Overpaid bench players, as it turns out.) Or Amar? Stoudemire? (Is he even an All-Star anymore?) Have you caught Al Harrington, David Lee, Nate Robinson and Duhon in the Knicks' version of the SSOL system? (Suddenly, they're gone in every fantasy league.) Most important, has anyone seen Steve Nash lately?

In case you forgot, the Consecutive MVP Club looks like this: Kareem, Bird, Magic, Moses, Jordan, Russell, Duncan, Wilt ? and Nash. Gulp. Remember, I protested this vehemently at the time, padlocking myself to the front door of David Stern's office in protest (okay, not true) and even playing the Johnnie Cochran Memorial Race Card (true) in a failed attempt to argue that only transcendent point guards like Magic and Oscar should win MVPs. I thought we were turning our backs on 60 years of NBA history, legitimizing a table-setter as our lead alpha dog and turning the process into a popularity contest. Any time "he's fun to watch and, more important, I can't think of anyone else" becomes the criteria for deciding an MVP race, trouble will ensue.

Look, I love watching Nash and I remain grateful that he helped make the NBA entertaining again. But there are two objectives in basketball (score and defend) and over the years he was exploited defensively more times than Lindsay Lohan. That meant we were voting a DH as MVP. Twice. I voted for Shaq in 2005 and Kobe in 2006?well, in my mind I did?and Nash didn't make my top four either year. Begrudgingly, I grew to accept Nash's stature even if I disagreed with it: He made teammates better and made a seemingly frantic style work for a contender, and his numbers/percentages appealed to stat geeks everywhere (17 points, 11 assists, 51%-91%-44% FG-FT-3FG in his MVP years). Fine. In the big scheme, rewarding an exceedingly likable player twice didn't rank among the 200 worst sports atrocities of this decade.

Then D'Antoni left and Nash's numbers quickly and not-so-coincidentally dropped back to his pre-Phoenix numbers in Dallas. You know, when the Mavericks decided to let him leave after Mike Bibby torched him in the 2004 playoffs. Check it out:

Nash, 2003-04: 78 games, 14.5 PPG, 8.8 APG, 47% FG, 41% 3FG, 92% FT.
Nash, 2008-09: 24 games, 15.5 PPG, 8.5 APG, 48% FG, 42% 3FG, 94% FT.

Here's where you say, "Come on, he's 34, it's inevitable he would slow down." Is it? It doesn't bother you that his 2008-09 numbers don't differ from his 2001-04 Dallas averages? Or that every other NBA legend?seriously, all of them?peaked statistically between 25 and 29. Or that Nash jumped a level from borderline All-Star to two-time MVP at 31-32? Logically, it never made sense. You can have late bloomers in the NBA, but not late superstar bloomers. If such a leap occurred in baseball, we would have cracked 10 million HGH/syringe jokes. In the NBA, we ignored the obvious reason (SSOL) and talked ourselves into it.

NASH WAS EXPLOITED DEFENSIVELY MORE TIMES THAN LINDSAY LOHAN.
Which brings me to my point, and I swear I have one: Of the four major sports, only in basketball is the historical fate of everyone from borderline All-Star to borderline superstar determined entirely by his situation. Baseball is an individual sport; you are who you are (although ballparks can skew this to varying degrees).

In hockey, you can ride someone's coattails for big numbers (think Jari Kurri), but we know when it's happening.

In football, we sometimes see great players trapped on abominable teams (Barry Sanders, Archie Manning) and good players hitting the team lottery (Jim Kelly, Franco Harris), but we can usually tell either way.

Well, what about basketball? The best thing that ever happened to Malone was Stockton, and vice versa; So, what if the Bullets hadn't screwed up and had picked Mailman one spot ahead of Utah instead of taking the immortal Kenny Green? How would you remember Dominique's career if the Lakers had picked him over Worthy? What if Pippen never played with MJ? What if McHale never played with Bird? What if young Kobe had gotten stuck on an expansion team instead of the Lakers? What if KG found a great team before he turned 30? What if Tim Duncan landed on the 1997-98 Celtics instead of the 1997-98 Spurs? In a league where you can play only five at a time, the fortunes of every good player are irrevocably tied to those of his teammates and coach. For better and worse.

That's why you can play the what-if game all day with the NBA. Just make sure to include Mike D'Antoni, the Coors Field of coaches, the guy who screwed up our beloved offensive numbers a little too much, swung consecutive MVP votes and turned a borderline All-Star into an NBA icon. Had he taken Chicago's job last summer, we'd be calling Derrick Rose "Magic 2.0" and Ben Gordon would be averaging 29 a game on his way to juggling monster free agent offers next summer. Play a few seasons of SSOL ball, and people will eventually believe that you're better offensively than you really are. Coach Mike has the magic touch. Not for everyone?yes, I'm pointing at you, Jerome James and Eddy Curry?but for some.

One of those players was a forever-grateful Nash, who was slightly better than Mark Price and now goes down for eternity as an all-time great. Another is Duhon, who gets to hold his own record in something. There are a few others in the past and present and more coming in the future. I just hope one of them isn't named LeBron. Why? Because I don't have enough brain cells to properly calibrate his first triple-double Knicks season. Could he average 36-13-13 every game with Coach Mike? What about a 40-15-15?

(My head hurts. I have to go.)

:lol: look what I found...



The bolded area tells me all I need to know...



Damn, Red, you were on this since way back.

 

[Red]

:lol: look what I found...



The bolded area tells me all I need to know...



Damn, Red, you were on this since way back.

Yo Sly... LMAO at this, I totally forgot about this. I hope my opinions are consistant. All I can say is damn... Coaching is much more than a system. From what I see, lack of defense, consistency, game planning, motivation, player evaluation, rotational logic, communication, subvertiveness and much more leads me to believe we can do without Mr. D'Antonis double talk undisciplined, flawed game plan. Don't you think (rhetorical)?

 

[Red]

In the words of the immortal Tony Montana, "I never liked him" ***guy gets hung from chopper

 

[mafra]

To be fair, D'ant's Suns had 2 shots to win it all. One year Joe Johnson got hurt. The other year they were robbed when Horry threw Nash out-of-bounds. That corrupt ref (TD) went on record saying the refs wanted the Spurs to win that series.

SO, tell that NY-hater Bill Simmons to shut up.

 

[LJ4ptplay]

To be fair, D'ant's Suns had 2 shots to win it all. One year Joe Johnson got hurt. The other year they were robbed when Horry threw Nash out-of-bounds. That corrupt ref (TD) went on record saying the refs wanted the Spurs to win that series.

SO, tell that NY-hater Bill Simmons to shut up.

Exactly. He's won already with his system. With the right players, he can win in NY.

Not to mention, his system (or at least a hybrid of it) won the Gold in the Olympics. Granted it's not the NBA but Spain's National team is very good and could beat any team in the NBA.