they don't have any players to develop because he traded many of them away while he was the team's GM. grant can still play decent defense. shaq can be decent too. nash sucks.
but you're talking about individual defense, while im talking about team defense (rotating). im also not saying they should be a good defensive team, only a decent one. if amare and barbosa learned how to play defense, they would definitely move from "sucky" defense to "decent" defense.
besides, d'antoni wasn't in phoenix just this year.. he was there for what, 3 more seasons? and yet they couldn't play a lick of defense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luther
Thank you, wise one. I appreciate you sinking to my level. But first of all--and this may be shocking to you--there is more to the question of "Is Mike D'Antoni a loser?" than "what does afobisme think, and how can I refute his individual positions? (possibly by the excruciating practice of fully quoting everything, then responding virtually word-for-word, a practice so tedious it's no wonder people lose interest.)" My answers are not necessarily entirely based on you. Shocking, no?
And second, if your definition of success is doing well with what he has, then is it not amazing that he took so players cast off from previous stops--Joe Johnson and Boris Diaw immediately come to mind--and also raised the productivity of others (Steve Nash) from their previous stops and it led not only to individual statistical success, but wins? That is bad coaching indeed--certainly not getting more out of what you're dealt.
|
so you resort to patronizing me. what are you, a fascist? i can't argue my point? i guess i should just be quiet, because you want me to.
i rest my case sir.