There are limitations to every system. Do you think Phil Jackson would have had such success with Rip Hamilton in the triangle over MJ or Kobe? Of course not yet no one looks at Phil Jackson as overrated.
MDA's system is actually the antithesis of having one dimensional players and is actually predicated on two way players who can do multiple things. MDA does not neglect production in the paint. Amare has lead the league in points scored in the paint on several occasions and is number 3 in foul shot attempts this year.
I don't assume there is a system devoid of limitations. What I do notice is how the limits of this system cause ancillary effects throughout the team, fatigue and injury being an example.
Phil can't be considered over-rated because he has performed the best. Over rating assumes a player or coach isn't as good as thought of.
Scoring in the paint resulting from the P&R isn't the same as using bigs effectively on the block. So yes Amare who draws fouls may score in the paint- the limitation is illustrated in the offensive fouls he gets by having to be mobile and drive, and increases the likelyhood of injury.
On Kobe or MJ, there are ways to decipher a coaches accumen regardless of his personnel. This includes knowing how to save time outs and using them proprly or deciding to foul. These decisions have nothing to do with talent, and that's the issue, the decisions.
Now when you look at it, Mike's decisions are based on his approach and philosophy primarily, not his players. His approach and philosophy lead to many not so obvious decisions but when things go south, no one wants to attribute that to his approach.
This is illustrated in things like, drafting Gallo, or DNP'ing Randolph etc...
These were coaching decisions as was not fouling with one to give. Analyze this and it comes back to his approach.
Execution comes down to the players and when you don't have a floor general who can breakdown a defense and setup his teammates then they will struggle. Further Boston is #1 ranked offense this year and we have been shorthanded and effed by the refs each game. That is not to say MDA did not make any mistakes but to suggest had he coached perfectly that players would have automatically executed is nonsense.
I'M NOT SURE I DID THAT. You mention the ned for a floor general, but when it was pointed out that that is exactly what Billups is, you had other plans.
With defensive players and commitment we can defend just fine in this system. We have shown that much in games and under his tenure in Phoenix. Again, the Suns were an underrated defensive team and got mislabeled because of the high scoring averages that more possessions brings.
That's just it. On one hand you say with who we have we can defend just fine, but before you were saying we need more. Don't get me wrong, first I agree we need a true center, and really I'm not blaming coach for anything even though I feel he was outcoached, but middle of the road isn't a mislable.
Yes trend as in we were showing more and more defensive intensity even with injuries and a team filled with lackluster defenders. Further we have played superb defense so far against Boston.
I am not disregarding anything, it factually is a work in progress and our defense factually is dependent on the players who are responsible for defending.
I never said they won anything in February. You claimed that one can't conclude they exceeded expectations because no one knew we would get Melo. I merely pointed out that prior to Melo we did have a winning record and did hold the 6th spot. That was retained after a rough transition that I pointed out may have actually lead to more games lost than might not have happened had we not traded for Melo and Billups.
Chemistry, knowing your roster and understanding how the pieces work takes time which MDA has not had and does indeed limit mistakes once achieved. Again, TD is the longest tenured Knick!
Dude, are you honestly trying to say that complete roster does not effect the execution down the stretch? Especially against a veteran deep team that has played with each other for years like Boston. Come on man! Examples:
Had we a complete roster that would include a potential center that COULD have stopped KG's go ahead basket.
Had we a complete roster that would include a potential pass first PG it is possible that Melo receives the ball in better position then 5 feet beyond the arc.
Not to mention that in game 2 Boston would not have the luxury to bum rush Melo had Amare and Billups been there as scoring threats spreading the floor.
You cited players who have had success after MDA as some proof that MDA had nothing to do with their initial success. I was merely pointing out that SHaq had success after Phil Jackson but no one would attack Phil like you are trying to do with MDA over that fact.
What could we have had? I look at a core of Melo and Amare is second only to the Heat moving forward. We lack depth not because of MDA but as a result of the short term sacrifice needed to acquire those players. Any other players we may have had would certainly have been traded to get Melo so what is your point?
No but lets not pretend there isn't an alternative philosophy to fouling late because there is. Further, "fouls to give" is risky because often players anticipate the foul and draw a shooting foul with some acting. I'm not saying either is the right philosophy but again there are two schools of thought and either has the potential to win or lose a game depending on the outcome.
I look at our players and the only really competent players are being maximized. Melos numbers are up and Amare has been unstoppable. Shaun Williams and TD are having career years, Turiaf is doing what he does best(when healthy) so I fail to see your point.
You are undervaluing the impact that complimentary role players have on the success of a team. Further, I have made my case on Billups and even if you disagree with my points you can't ignore that Billups has been injured. Including him as proof we have a core to compete when he has been injured is dishonest.
Here's the best way I can put it.... first Mike isan't a bad coach, he doesn't suck, and really even if we get eliminated, I saw enough fight and potential to be satisfied, but...
There are a million ways to skin a cat, right? So here's an analogy:
If I said choose your best way to drive down a mountain, and there were bike paths, roads, and many obsticals to navigate; many different choices may be used. Many factors would be considered. Is this a race or time limit, is your vehicle equipped for off-road etc... (stay with me)
Then I said your fastest way to get down the mountain. Some might calculate driving time, biking time, can they climb etc...
Then I gave you historic stats saying MOST choose to drive even though its longer, but safer. Some have tried hiking but they took days, and no one has biked down without failure although its not impossible.
Well Mike is the one who chooses to bike it. Sure he may make it. But by the time he does, he and his bike are mangled to sh*t!
Mike doing things unconventionally can probably get there, but everyone who has done it didn't do it that way. A mistake here and there and it adds up.
For us I see squandered drafting opportunities, overuse injures, poor financial managment in terms of assets, lost winnable opportunities, reduction of player moral, etc...
All this plus more, all because he decided to bike down that mountain.
Now, some things actually worked out in our favor, thank goodness, can't complain. But what I can say is ok you chose the difficult route, and came out bruised and battered, but got somewhere.
As a decision maker (if I were), I would have the ultimate goal in mind. And I would know (like you) we ain't there yet, there's still work to be done, still more mountains to navigate. Knowing Mike is prevy to the difficult unconventional route, knowing there is little to no margin for error, why would I continue to emplore such techniques?
In business, you maximize your assets and returns. You do everything possible to reduce risk to promote maximum efficiency. This approach has too many risks involved, too many ancillary obstacles created and is not as proven as other methods. When we were desperate, we took desperate measures.
Currently we are in the black, and from a business standpoint that would dictate taking a less riskier approach. That's what I feel we need. Sure we get down the mountain with Mike, but bruised and battared and weak. When we have a chance to invest in a more efficient, responsible, reduced risk opportunity, that is what would be best.
No offense to Mike.
