Mike forced to conform. Adding DEFENSIVE asst.

Great news.

Great, great, great news.

The offence will benefit from it too, in the form of the fast break. We were underachieving in that area from our poor defence all season, IMO.

Wonder who'll get the nod?

Clyde & The Pearl said:

Lets just put it like this. MOA has the ultimate control over who plays. I dont trust him to play the right players at the right times, because he's never had to do it before. He doesnt have the experience necessary to make offensive and defensive switches to end games. I just watched how Lionel Hollins did just that to close out SA. Switching in Mayo & Allen and vice-versa. Know why Hollins knows this is the thing to do. He played hard fought games in the NBA playoffs. Has Mike? Would Mike be willing?

As far as the roster everyone thinks that this roster needs some upgrades. Heck I thought Walsh did an excellent job upgrading this past year. We wouldnt know it because a few of the players never saw any burn.

Fellow Knick fans you actually trust MOA to do the right thing as far as playing time when it comes to bigs?

I DONT...

Click to expand...

I hear you.

We still have roster issues, let alone rotation and overall strategic decisions that are controlled by Mike. And he has demonstrated his propensity to base these decisions on his flawed approach i.e. Not valuing Randolph etc...

So I get it. A defensive assistant really can't help without an overhaul in philosophy and approach by Mike.

I think the positive aspect is, this is an indication that the primary decision makers (Walsh & co.) know what the deal is. This may be either a prelude to the end of Mike, or can be a strategic move knowing he might not accept it in the first place.

But yeah if Mike disagrees he can still subvert our goals in many ways as he's done since his arrival- directly or indirectly.

Clyde just spent the last year saying the roster doesn't need an overhaul. In fact there was a long debate with Trillion, I believe, about how the roster still needed a ton of work and Clyde stated that if a coach preached defense this roster could work and play better defense...

Now the roster DOES need an overhaul, despite the fact that we are getting a coach in who apparently will preach defense?

It's obvious what's going on here...

KBlack25 said:

Clyde just spent the last year saying the roster doesn't need an overhaul. In fact there was a long debate with Trillion, I believe, about how the roster still needed a ton of work and Clyde stated that if a coach preached defense this roster could work and play better defense...

Now the roster DOES need an overhaul, despite the fact that we are getting a coach in who apparently will preach defense?

It's obvious what's going on here...

Click to expand...

it is.. that oantoni is know for lack of defensive strategy... stop blaming it on the players when we had good defensive players and the oppurtunity to get defensive players.. but didnt because they didnt fit his system of not playing defense..

it that simple.. he is only tryin to change for and extension...but doent mean he can

KBlack25 said:

Clyde just spent the last year saying the roster doesn't need an overhaul. In fact there was a long debate with Trillion, I believe, about how the roster still needed a ton of work and Clyde stated that if a coach preached defense this roster could work and play better defense...

Now the roster DOES need an overhaul, despite the fact that we are getting a coach in who apparently will preach defense?

It's obvious what's going on here...

Click to expand...

You do realize since I had that discussion we've lost:

Moz
AR
Felton
Chandler

I thought each brought different defensive intangibles. This roster is entirely different. Your argument isnt fair...

Red said:

I hear you.

We still have roster issues, let alone rotation and overall strategic decisions that are controlled by Mike. And he has demonstrated his propensity to base these decisions on his flawed approach i.e. Not valuing Randolph etc...

So I get it. A defensive assistant really can't help without an overhaul in philosophy and approach by Mike.

I think the positive aspect is, this is an indication that the primary decision makers (Walsh & co.) know what the deal is. This may be either a prelude to the end of Mike, or can be a strategic move knowing he might not accept it in the first place.

But yeah if Mike disagrees he can still subvert our goals in many ways as he's done since his arrival- directly or indirectly.

Click to expand...

Hopefully you're right. MOA isnt needed at all we actually need an entirely new coaching staff with a totally new philosphy. Having MOA making the in game decisions doesnt help the Knicks at all. No matter who the defensive assistant is...

KBlack25 said:

Agreed - his acceptance (as opposed to taking the other side of the ultimatum) shows his desire to adapt and to attempt to win with this team that he has now, and improve himself as a coach.

I don't see how this is a negative, at all, on MDA...

Click to expand...

I'm curious why it took him 3 years in NY to accept his own shortcomings & bring in a defensive assistant to help him out? The fact that he was a horrible defensive coach was known to everyone but the most ardent apologist fans of his. Accepting your own failings is the first step in improvement. This is a good thing but should have happened a lot sooner. The fact that he would let his own stubborn pride get in the way of doing what was obvious & right is why many people have a problem with this coach's approach towards his decision making process.

AmareForPresident said:

Lol i could picture MDA going to Golden State and running the SSOL with Curry, Ellis, and Lee.

Click to expand...

That would be great news for us... Let them have all of the problems he brings. Maybe we can trade our garbage guys to Antoni for some of their bigs he plans on outcasting...

suprising that he had a chance to have thibbs be a assistant and chose not to.i wonder how a defensive coach would even fit to adjust mike's system of jacking up shots/up-tempo.

Our players have the athletic ability, so with
a few defensive principles we could definitely
have a better squad maybe a 55 win team
If you compare us to Chicago our players
build are similar but they have 2 more big men
then us. Our biggest gaping hole is at the C
if we get a guy like Dalembert/Camby to
bang down there and make it ugly for opposing
teams we will easily be contenders. We all no
offense is no problem but we need at least a top 12
or better defense to make ECF. I wish it was Mike D
who was the assistant and we were hiring a defensive
Head Coach.:gony:

STAT1 said:

I'm curious why it took him 3 years in NY to accept his own shortcomings & bring in a defensive assistant to help him out? The fact that he was a horrible defensive coach was known to everyone but the most ardent apologist fans of his. Accepting your own failings is the first step in improvement. This is a good thing but should have happened a lot sooner. The fact that he would let his own stubborn pride get in the way of doing what was obvious & right is why many people have a problem with this coach's approach towards his decision making process.

Click to expand...

You do realize it's a bit unfair - yes it took him a while to accept a defensive coach - but at the end of the day he did what people on this board were begging him to do. But now that he did it, some still aren't happy. It's obvious what's up...Mike D'Antoni could have this team the #5 defensive team in the league, and people would be on here complaining that we weren't #1, just to see him fired. As soon as Mike gives the answers some people want, they change the questions.

Fact is, he's done now what many have clamored for all season - now people are mad he didn't do it sooner. This coming from the same people who, when talking about a SINGLE GAME, said you couldn't "look at things in hindsight"...

I think there's a difference between the people who were satisfied with Mike's offense but said that he needed a defensive assistant, and then those who were unsatisfied with Mike's system, lack of accountability, mismanagement, and lack of adjustments based on what was presented in front of him (put on full display in our loss at home to the Pacers on a Friday, and then a loss to the same team, in the same fashion, worked over by the same 2 players, 2 days later on Sunday.)

Those who are box score watchers and living "retweeters" of what they see and hear in newspapers, ESPN, and internet forums might say "hey, a defensive assistant and a center will solve all of our problems" then there are those who are wondering why an NBA coach can't properly utilize timeouts late in a game, or even draw up a play inside the 3 point line when coming out of a timeout and going into a critical late game possession. Hell, he shouldn't even have to draw one up...those plays should be worked on ad nauseum and installed, and be able to be referred to should that situation come up. The drawing it up should be a refreshing of the memory...but for some reason, our Knicks look just as lost after a timeout as they did before the timeout and the execution is piss poor...on a consistent basis.

I dunno how a defensive assistant is gonna solve that...but ok I guess. My stance on this has never changed. MDA is not the right guy for the job. Personally I don't understand how it's going to work. His philosophy is literally to create extra possessions within the game and use those possessions to outscore the opponent...but good defense starts with limiting your opponents' possessions. I want an entire coaching staff that's on the same page, and my preference is a game built around defense, not offense. It's not enough to just throw a defensive assistant on a team and say "make this defense better." This is not football where separate units are used for the different stages of the game. Our offense has to go hand in hand with our defense. Based on what MDA has shown thus far (not wins and losses, this has nothing to do with records and everything to do with philosophies and tendencies on the sidelines) he doesn't seem to be that guy.

I'd rather try to find someone who's already in that mold and see if he works as opposed to hoping that a guy who won 2 Italian League Titles with this style and philosophy will change it to accommodate his newly acquired defensive assistant.

I've already pointed out someone who is disappointed with this news who also said having a guy preach defense day in and day out would fix our issues...

Your point being?

You can't understand why some people would have one viewpoint on a topic, and then later change their mind on said topic?

Instead of attacking this person for....changing their mind...why not find out why they changed their mind. It's insanely easy to watch the Knicks lose games to bad teams, or even win games against the Nets and Raptors, where both teams were above 110 points and say "wow, we need a defensive assistant" - only to look at how MDA was inept in areas of management and game planning, that would also be present even if we got a defensive assistant, and then come to the conclusion that we'd be better off with a new coach altogether.

Plus, a head coach preaching defense day in and day out is different from an assistant doing it. Because the head coach still has power over minutes distribution and substitutions, he HAS to be on the same exact page as his assistant or it will not work. I don't know if this person said "preaching D day in and day out will work" or "we need a coach who will preach D day in and day out" because those aren't exactly the same situations given who our coach is right now and what his philosophy is.

Because it's pretty clear to me why the person changed his mind in 3 months.

KBlack25 said:

You do realize it's a bit unfair - yes it took him a while to accept a defensive coach - but at the end of the day he did what people on this board were begging him to do. But now that he did it, some still aren't happy. It's obvious what's up...Mike D'Antoni could have this team the #5 defensive team in the league, and people would be on here complaining that we weren't #1, just to see him fired. As soon as Mike gives the answers some people want, they change the questions.

Fact is, he's done now what many have clamored for all season - now people are mad he didn't do it sooner. This coming from the same people who, when talking about a SINGLE GAME, said you couldn't "look at things in hindsight"...

Click to expand...

if you count his years as a suns coach.. it took him more than a while to even consider....

to date he hasnt done anything yet as far as agreeing to a defensive coach on his staff... i wont believe it til i see it...

im sure he threw a temer tantrum when even suggested.. id do it too for 6 mil a year a coaching job in ny and a possible extension.. only a fool would say no twice...

KBlack25 said:

Because it's pretty clear to me why the person changed his mind in 3 months.

Click to expand...

Dude...if you said three days or 3 hours, that's one thing. Three months is 90 days, about one half of the NBA season...how is three months not enough of a sample size for someone to go from "let's get a defensive assistant" to "let's get a new coach in here."

Lol...three months? You're acting like that's some sort of snap decision.

Three months ago the Knicks were like 28-27 and we didn't have Carmelo Anthony...

What is this...I don't even...

nuckles2k2 said:

Dude...if you said three days or 3 hours, that's one thing. Three months is 90 days, about one half of the NBA season...how is three months not enough of a sample size for someone to go from "let's get a defensive assistant" to "let's get a new coach in here."

Lol...three months? You're acting like that's some sort of snap decision.

Three months ago the Knicks were like 28-27 and we didn't have Carmelo Anthony...

What is this...I don't even...

Click to expand...

It's not enough to change something he vehemently argued for months and months and months before hand...not to mention it is a tad bit suspicious when his opinion all of a sudden changes from one thing to the complete opposite simply so both times he can be against MDA being here...changing his basic, vehemently held dogmatic views on a topic to the complete opposite raises at least an eyebrow of suspicion, no?

KBlack25 said:

It's not enough to change something he vehemently argued for months and months and months before hand...not to mention it is a tad bit suspicious when his opinion all of a sudden changes from one thing to the complete opposite simply so both times he can be against MDA being here...changing his basic, vehemently held dogmatic views on a topic to the complete opposite raises at least an eyebrow of suspicion, no?

Click to expand...

If his vehemently held views was that we need a coach in here who preaches and teaches defense....those still seem to be his views...

Now he's just weighing the pros and cons of that man being an assistant who has to answer to the head coach as opposed to finding a head coach who will do all of those things and has a philosophy to match.

In three months you can watch a team get blown out because of defense, tighten up their defense a little bit, and then lose games because of coaching mismanagement and a flawed philosophical belief. I'd argue that the mismanagement and philosophical flaws were there from the very beginning, but there were other more blatant excuses readily available that kind of masked them. Now that those blatant excuses are gone, it's easier for some to see what the underlying issues really are. Not everyone is detailed oriented and that's fine.

Those who are have been fussing about the misuse of timeouts, the early shots in the shot clock late in the game with a lead, the puzzling rotations, terrible substitutions, those people have been around for a while. If some finally see it because we got Melo and were able to take a few leads into the 4th, only to end up losing the game because of everything I just listed....well they'll go from thinking we need a certain type of assistant, to thinking we need a head coach with the qualities we want this assistant to have.

I can totally understand how someone can look at those situations unfold and go from "we can keep him, just get an assistant" to "let's just get a new coach." Now if I were to just argue him changing his mind and not WHY he changed his mind...well then I would be puzzled, confuzzled, and perplexed.