There's a huge elephant in the room following our OKC game. Then therr are several other elephants already in the room. Lets tackle this once and for all.

*Felton and Amare combined for 0/4 in their last three possessions, including Felton's 0/3 as our final three shots.

*Amare had multiple technical fouls and continued the trend of not being fresh and consistently dominant, especially to close out games.

*Durant iced a ridiculous game winner from the 3 after being blanketed by Gallo.

This is why we *lost* the game vs a very good team. You could pick any one of these, let alone correcting multiple ones, and our loss is a WIN.

We gave the game away from specific players executing horrendously in specific spots, and a sick shot from Durant to finish.

Most of the time Felton and Amare don't lay enough bricks to build a house and fold like a $10.99 suit under pressure. Durant won't always hit that shot. In fact, most of the time he won't.

Many are being fooled my randomness. OK'd was a good game for us. We rebounded with our effort. That was the #1 thing D'ant could have gotten our team to do, what he said he would do, and what we chiefly expected after the complacency and effort we had been seeing in the games prior.

Let's just bring in Melo for ****s sake. Felton won't be taking the final three shots of this game. And even if he theoretically would, it wouldn't matter bc Amare wouldn't be playing like he should be icing his knees towards the end of games bc Melo will allow him to be the dominant finisher he is and was, prior to natural wear of how thin our team's premier talent really is, with zero reliable offensive force aside from STAT.

Our plan was getting 2 premier talents. We got 1. That's a huge incompletion on an already incomplete roster.

*Turiaf is a defensive backup big. Yet has been a consistent player if not starter for us.

*Williams is/was a troubled player who D'ant had to vouch for, while fighting against many -- including most of KO -- to even get a roster spot (how we forgot how badly we lambasted him/Walsh then bc precious "Ewing" nomenclature wasn't on our lineup card.)

What was that about godson's and favoritism?

*Fields is a 2nd round rookie who doesn't score much.

So when we wonder why an undrafted 7ft Russian rawer than a butchershop (who already had time AS our starter) and a positional tweener who already has little clue and is a de facto project after still having been in the league for years...aren't instrumental players on an already veteran/consistency/production-starved team,

Plz let's not go the extra step of inanity and talk about hating of defense, youth, bench players, etc.

Come up with new conspiracy'esque theories. That D'ant is simply a temperamental douche with a quick pimp slap to ppl he doesn't like is more than adequate and actually pretty logical.

Btw, Gallo marching towards those 2nd Season Dirk numbers and our record and playoff seeding still exceeds even the most rigid of even the most anti-D'ant season expectations and predictions.

And this is before we get the reinforcements that are coming this season/offseason. Which very likely will include a blue chip player.

1 Word Summation: chill.

Multi-Word Summation: Griping about D'ant in a game thread of a game that if anything *most clearly* shows our issues in finishing good teams has much less to do with him as a coach, than simply bringing in some basic talent and pieces that any good/very good team *must* have.

The fact is D'ant won't be vindicated here until he wins a championship, regardless. If we went to the conference finals this yr and lost in a dogfight there would be much of the same complaints by many of the same people.

Now. People talk about these "championship coaches"; the real coaches that we could only dream D'ant to be.

The Pops, the Jacksons....They're ultimate success (the sealing of the deal, fighting thru the adversities of randomness and luck of games and the game) to win and be Champions. It has **** to do with their style -- whether you want to call it conventional, or in our favorite word "unconventional".

It had to do with having All-Time greats and/or multiple premier all-stars.

D'ant had a few really good players. Amare, who developed from his NBA birth under him; and Nash, who owes D'ant his legacy and ascent to maybe-great to Greatness. Combine a few other career underachievers, tweeners, and no-names who D'ant gave life to, and that was his PHO team.

Does anybody seriously think that if the Suns didn't win a lottery crapshoot or procure a Kobe or Gasol...get the Shaq, Duncan, or Robinson big...that they don't assrape the entire playoffs and get past even all-time great Spurs prime dynasty years?

The Suns were never known for their great players, at least not like most every other good team is known for its players; especially before D'antoni got his hands on them...they didn't have juggernauts on the team, or once every 5yrs, 10yrs draft successes. They did draft Amare, who incidentally suffered playoff injury and bogus suspension in a Spurs series/title shot they were favored and looking to likely win....

Regardless, the Suns were know for, they were propelled by and ascended by one thing above all else: their style, their way of play, their execution of offense. And Nash, a career tethered to a coach more than maybe any other in NBA history. In a word: D'antoni.

Why is it we are winning, exceeding expectations, beating teams patently better than us, have a signature style on a team of otherwise disparate parts, and incomplete parts. The same word.

Even Phil Jackson's LAK...ya, Triangle offense; firstly, it's built off specific juggernaut players and a certain pg. Speaking of systems that *actually* are truly dependent on really good, or really specific players.

Secondly, his teams and championships are known and propelled by a few distinct things: Kobe and Shaq, and later Kobe and a legion of all-star level players. Sure, a good coach can get his guys best able to seal the deal, when his guys are already great.

A great coach makes guys who aren't great, great; and makes teams that aren't great able to compete and be able to beat those that are.

Am I saying D'ant is great? Idk, but let's refute any of this, and if we really can't or can't definitely do so, consider the notion that he may be.
Conclusions: we are overachieving; even the words and predictions and expectations of D'ant haters and skeptics have been and are being *exceeded*. We are winning because with a modicum of talent and time to gel.

D'ant is getting career-type years out of:


While reviving the career of Williams.

And giving a limited 2nd round rookie spotlight and ROY discussion.

Final Conclusion: the bar will be raised on whim and at convenience for D'ant as he continues to meet or exceed expectations, as has happened; and his value will only be deemed good if he wins a championship, with *anything* short of it being indicivtive of him being a forever-hack who should be an assistant coach.