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.
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.
No. And disagreeing with the philosophy of your bosses doesn't make you a loser. For a loser, his teams sure won a lot of games the past few years--and helped make watching the NBA fun again. I hope Phoenix hires a grind-it-out coach, averages 88 ppg and loses 50 games. It's what they would deserve for messing with a good thing.
Well, to be fair, the Suns did lose to the Spurs, arguably the best team along with the Lakers this decade.
If he's a loser, basically about 28 out of 30 coaches in this league right now are losers. The Suns have been a pretty good team under him, they just can't get past the Spurs.
I mean, if you look around the league and look at the coaches out there and ask the same questions, there are no "winners". Is Jerry Sloan a winner? His team lost to the Spurs too albeit a round later last year. They are lucky that they might lose to the Lakers and that will eliminate the chance of losing to the Spurs again this year. And Pat Riley, is he a loser with his team being the laughing stock this year and he might retire from coaching with this perhaps being his last effort? Don Nelson has to be a loser too. He couldn't get it done with the Mavs, went to the Warriors and beat his old team but everyone knew that the Warriors had no chance of winning the championships. Avery Johnson is also a loser, he doesn't even have a job now.
The list goes on. People tend to criticize someone without looking at the people around whom they are criticizing. Only 1 team can win every year and just because someone doesn't win after several tries doesn't make them a loser. For every dominant team like the Spurs there are bound to be several teams that only comes close but can't get over the hump.
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.
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.
And Kerr wants Amare to get more plays but D'Antoni disagrees.
Well, to be fair, the Suns did lose to the Spurs, arguably the best team along with the Lakers this decade.
If he's a loser, basically about 28 out of 30 coaches in this league right now are losers. The Suns have been a pretty good team under him, they just can't get past the Spurs.
I mean, if you look around the league and look at the coaches out there and ask the same questions, there are no "winners". Is Jerry Sloan a winner? His team lost to the Spurs too albeit a round later last year. They are lucky that they might lose to the Lakers and that will eliminate the chance of losing to the Spurs again this year. And Pat Riley, is he a loser with his team being the laughing stock this year and he might retire from coaching with this perhaps being his last effort? Don Nelson has to be a loser too. He couldn't get it done with the Mavs, went to the Warriors and beat his old team but everyone knew that the Warriors had no chance of winning the championships. Avery Johnson is also a loser, he doesn't even have a job now.
The list goes on. People tend to criticize someone without looking at the people around whom they are criticizing. Only 1 team can win every year and just because someone doesn't win after several tries doesn't make them a loser. For every dominant team like the Spurs there are bound to be several teams that only comes close but can't get over the hump.
they've lost to the spurs 3 times in the past 4 years... and have you seen the suns play defense? they were so bad with pick and rolls, there's no way you can win playing that kind of defense.
jerry sloan in my opinion is a winner because he gets his teams to play on both ends of the court. i don't think i ever implied that d'antoni wasn't a good coach because he hasn't brought the suns a championship. even if you coach for 20 years and don't get a title, it doesn't mean you're not a good coach.
the suns have been good the past 5 years or so, and the suns offense is good... but how often have you seen an offense-only team winning the championship? the best bad defensive team was probably the kings, and they were much better than the suns are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by luther
No. And disagreeing with the philosophy of your bosses doesn't make you a loser. For a loser, his teams sure won a lot of games the past few years--and helped make watching the NBA fun again. I hope Phoenix hires a grind-it-out coach, averages 88 ppg and loses 50 games. It's what they would deserve for messing with a good thing.
that wasn't my point. my point was that he doesn't want his teams to focus on anything that resembles defense (Kerr and Sarver requested this, and he declined to abide). there is no way you are going to win anything playing the kind of defense that the suns play.
yeah, don's a loser too.. he's good at coaching offense, but he'll never win anything with his style. teams that win championships are good on both ends of the floor.
they've lost to the spurs 3 times in the past 4 years... and have you seen the suns play defense? they were so bad with pick and rolls, there's no way you can win playing that kind of defense.
And the Spurs won 2 championships in those 4 years, what is your point again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by afobisme
jerry sloan in my opinion is a winner because he gets his teams to play on both ends of the court. the suns have been good the past 5 years or so, and the suns offense is good... but how often have you seen an offense-only team winning the championship? the best bad defensive team was probably the kings, and they were much better than the suns are.
And how many rings have Sloan won? Remember those years with Malone and Stockton and how they lost to pretty much every good team in the early 90s and then losing to the Bulls 2 straight years? Afterwards they lost to the Spurs/Kings as well? How does that make Sloan a winner according to your standards. Even now the Jazz with Sloan haven't gotten over that hump. If D'Antoni has problem getting over that same hump, Sloan has been trying for about 20 years now with 2 separate cores. And that makes him a winner?
Again, I'm not calling Sloan a loser because I don't agree with your assessment. But it's pretty ridiculous for you to consider Sloan a winner and then turn around and call D'Antoni a loser when the both of them have as many championship rings as I do.
Winning a championship in the NBA isn't something as simple as you are trying to describe. If there is a "Winning type" of basketball then everyone would be doing it and everyone would be winning. Every team has a style that will maximize that team's chance of success. If it was up to D'Antoni himself I'm sure he would trade Amare for Duncan and Raja Bell for Kobe. But when it comes down to it there are many different factors that contribute to the Suns being the team that they are today and D'Antoni isn't the only one responsible. His job is to maximize his roster's performance and for the most part he has done that and the team has been amongst the best in the league for many years.
The only way that I would consider a coach a loser is if he has lost the focus and respect of his team and himself being the reason that the team is underachieving. D'Antoni does not fall into this category by any stretch of the imagination.
And the Spurs won 2 championships in those 4 years, what is your point again?
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by seifer0406
And how many rings have Sloan won? Remember those years with Malone and Stockton and how they lost to pretty much every good team in the early 90s and then losing to the Bulls 2 straight years? Afterwards they lost to the Spurs/Kings as well? How does that make Sloan a winner according to your standards. Even now the Jazz with Sloan haven't gotten over that hump. If D'Antoni has problem getting over that same hump, Sloan has been trying for about 20 years now with 2 separate cores. And that makes him a winner?
Again, I'm not calling Sloan a loser because I don't agree with your assessment. But it's pretty ridiculous for you to consider Sloan a winner and then turn around and call D'Antoni a loser when the both of them have as many championship rings as I do.
Winning a championship in the NBA isn't something as simple as you are trying to describe. If there is a "Winning type" of basketball then everyone would be doing it and everyone would be winning. Every team has a style that will maximize that team's chance of success. If it was up to D'Antoni himself I'm sure he would trade Amare for Duncan and Raja Bell for Kobe. But when it comes down to it there are many different factors that contribute to the Suns being the team that they are today and D'Antoni isn't the only one responsible. His job is to maximize his roster's performance and for the most part he has done that and the team has been amongst the best in the league for many years.
The only way that I would consider a coach a loser is if he has lost the focus and respect of his team and himself being the reason that the team is underachieving. D'Antoni does not fall into this category by any stretch of the imagination.
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.
Is Mike D'Antoni a loser?
