[kidd2rj]

D'antoni has won many europe championships and he has the suns winning year after year since he took over. For a team at the bottom of the league like the knicks or bulls, they could do ALOT worse than Mike D'antoni.

[luther]

Originally Posted by afobisme

you can be sarcastic and all, but be sarcastic against what i say. i find it funny because you're using sarcasm to prove my point. i'll repeat myself so maybe you can understand...

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.

[Seuss]

It's sad that D'Antoni is willing to leave a very high potential team like the Suns, just because he isn't open to incorporating the necessary things to actually win a title.

I like Kerr or Avery to replace him. (Doubt it though)

[aznzen]

Originally Posted by afobisme

I'm beginning to think so, if the reports are correct.

Seems like Kerr/Sarver want him to emphasize a little more on defense (I think they're being reasonable too). Seems like they only asked him to focus a little more on defense (instead of neglecting it), yet he doesn't seem to want to comply..

yeah because nash, shaq and grant hill are capable defensive players at this point ....

Originally Posted by afobisme

Then they want him to develop their bench/young guys a little more. It doesn't seem like too much to ask for - just rest your main guys a little more during the regular season. Yet he doesn't want to comply. People who say he doesn't have a bench to develop... are right. But wasn't he the GM who traded away all those talented prospects the suns had (for nothing in return)?

If I were a GM, I wouldn't even think about hiring this guy.. he sounds like a whiny set-in-his-ways loser coach.

yeah but we are talking about what he has NOW! now what trades happened in the past. they have no young talents to develop at this point. all the players they have all peaked in terms of abilities.

[afobisme]

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.

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.

[IceMan23and3]

Originally Posted by afobisme

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.

No. He was the GM in the summer of 2006. That's it. He gave Barbosa a contract extension, Diaw a contract extension, and traded Rondo for Boston's pick last year (which Kerr sold). Sarver ordered that. He also refused to pay Johnson $60 million for 5 years. Then he was going to begrudgingly pay him $70 million when JJ said, "Nah man, I don't like you and I don't like Amare." Hill can play great defense, so can Bell. Amare is probably one of the worst team defenders in the NBA and a mediocre/bad one on one defender. He misses defensive rotations like Shaq misses fts (i.e. you celebrate when he remembers to rotate) Not only that, but many times he isn't even looking in the direction of the ball! Multiple times Parker got a layup over Amare's back! He didn't even see the play! Nash is a good team defender but is very limited in his mobility and therefore a bad one on one defender. Shaq can't switch and is not good at flashing out on the pick and rolls. Barbosa is useless on defense. No, it's not the coaching, they will never be great defenders. I don't care if you bring in a zombified Red Auerbach, you won't get great defense from them!

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.

They were actually a really good defensive team for the time he was with the Suns. They held opponents to less than 1.2 pps which is really good (top 5 in the league). The problem was that their offense stuttered because they didn't have any 3pt shooting and Hill's injury really hampered the Suns in that series. The biggest part of having Hill on the court is that he directs the defense beautifully. He tells his team what to do which really helped Amare. However, without him on the court, you saw the results.

Don't judge a team based on opponent FG% and PPG. The Suns limited FTs and turnovers which is what made them so dangerous. Also, they had Marion stealing the ball and wreaking havoc on the defensive end.

[luther]

Originally Posted by afobisme

so you resort to patronizing me. what are you, a fascist?

Congrats on what might be the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted. No, I wasn't patronizing you--that was sarcasm again. And as for the fascist ... well, frankly, that's just really, really stupid. Amazing, actually. Seriously. Congratulations. I can't read any more of this, so I regret to inform you that your great response--and cute little emoticons-are going to go to waste (at least on me). But I'm sure you'll enjoy them.

[seifer0406]

Originally Posted by afobisme

so you're saying the spurs are that much better than the suns? so much better that you don't expect the suns to beat the spurs at all? under that logic, how is d'antoni any good?

I'm not following this. If a team that isn't as good as the Spurs that means their coach is a loser? ok....

All I said was they lost to the best team in the league 3 times in a row (only 2 if you don't count the one where they didn't even have Amare). If you want to argue a point, start making some sense and make them connect.

Originally Posted by afobisme

again, let me explain this to you: there are too many variables to say that sloan is not a good coach because he hasn't won a title. you can't just put it all on sloan (the good AND the bad). you can't use results to fully gauge how good/competent somebody is (under your logic, most would agree that the lakers should have won the championship in the last 3 years... since kobe is the best player and all). this is the reason why you not only need a good team, but also some luck (staying healthy, good team chemistry, lucky bounces in close games, etc).

the way i judge a coach is what he does with what he has, and not necessarily whether he wins a title or not.

and i'll say it again: d'antoni does NOT want his teams to play anything that resembles defense. and i can't recall any of the championship teams in the past to ever have a bad defense.

Let me get this straight because it's getting more and more difficult following your logic, if there is any at all to begin with. You do not feel that Sloan is a loser eventhough the Jazz lost to almost every good team in the last 20 years, but you feel that D'Antoni is a loser because he lost to the Spurs for 3 times. ok....

I don't even know what to say about Kobe. Who is implying that the Lakers should have won those championships? The Lakers didn't have a good team until this year, who would expect them to do anything before now?

If you judge a coach by whether or not he maximize the potential of his team, D'Antoni has more than done so in his time with the Suns. You're talking about a team that has been amongst the best in the league in the past 3-4 years and arguably the team that has given the Spurs the most difficult time in those years. You're saying that the current Suns would be better if they use a defensive minded coach, what I'm saying is that with the players they have now, D'Antoni's style is the one that maximizes their performance. Again, I don't see how any of this would make him a loser when all he has done was lose to the best team in the league in all these years.

[seifer0406]

Originally Posted by luther

Congrats on what might be the dumbest thing I've ever seen posted. No, I wasn't patronizing you--that was sarcasm again. And as for the fascist ... well, frankly, that's just really, really stupid. Amazing, actually. Seriously. Congratulations. I can't read any more of this, so I regret to inform you that your great response--and cute little emoticons-are going to go to waste (at least on me). But I'm sure you'll enjoy them.

I seem to recall him debating with someone on whether or not you can divide by 0. You aren't exactly working with the sharpest tool in that tool box.