Would he not get roasted here by KO's (anti)MDA crew?

His patented offense, not unlike D'antoni's, is predicated upon:

*a free flowing offense

*set plays being very rare

*having smart players who can make heady decisions, particularly when it comes to passing

*having certain "Phil Jackson" players as a necessity

Additionally, on the subject of D'antoni "needing" some all-star roster of players -- Phil Jackson essentially demands a loaded roster, complete with Jackson-approved players. Or he won't even consider it.

Arguably, Jackson would not have undertaken the PHO Suns the year D'antoni came aboard -- and ended up winning Coach of the Year, for the team's epic reversal -- as the roster wasn't yet "good" enough.

And surely, Jackson would never have touched this Knick team at any point during the past several years, as it wasn't fit for his assurances of success and having the type of players he demands.

Yet another similarity is D'antoni owing his success to Nash (never mind that Nash went from fringe all-star to lock HOF and multiple MVP under him), just as Phil Jackson surely owes an even larger chunk of his successes to Kobe Bryant...or is it Shaq?

Phil Jackson = one of the smartest, counter-popular opinion, cutting edge basketball minds

Mike D'antoni = one of the smartest, counter-popular opinion, cutting edge basketball minds

I'm sticking to this.

Whether he should be replaced because our team simply doesn't fit his "system"....Well, that may be the case, and it could reach a point where that is necessary, however

That reflects a poorly assembled roster, more than anything else.

Any team with Amare Stoudemire, at a max deal, at his age, demands to be built upon a free flowing offense, helmed by a quality PG who can make smart decisions. Same goes for important players like Fields; and as we will find out more and more, making Shumpert as effective as possible, too.

Or we can pretend a new coach of defensive and half-court brilliance -- maybe Larry Brown can come back -- will transform what is into what isn't.

No need to dissect any perceptions of what MDA does and doesn't do right in any given game, or what his flaws are -- plenty of good threads and posts already on that. Persuasive ones, even, some of which I can't even disagree with....in a vacuum.

In the context of what I ultimately see -- my Phil Jackson parable, eg -- I just don't believe it actually condemns MDA as a terminally, fatally flawed coach.

When we signed Amare we were considered a 50/50 team to even make the playoffs in a weak division, based off our pure talent and roster. Professional analysts and KO members alike are on record as having this perception (at best).

Of course, we became an increasingly dangerous, playoff bound team. Especially when our once mediocre PG got into a sync and became an all-star quality facilitator, making Amare into the otherworldly force he can be.

This was all expressly under D'antoni. And I argue he specifically added value to our team last year, pre-Melo, more than any other coach in the league, save perhaps Thibs.

Yes things look ugly. Yes D'antoni looks ugly. But let's not forget context and underlying issues, which have profound consequences when it comes to the perceptions of coaches in this league, and how fluid a perception of a coach can change.