# Another Mike D'Antoni Discussion



## Helvius (Jul 4, 2006)

Mike D'Antoni puts the power in the hands of his players; he teaches his style and then steps back. He allows them to do what they want. There are assistant coaches who teach specific mechanics or who work on specific people (Dan D'Antoni on the Brazilian Blur) but the head coach works on his system and then lets them run wild. He gives authority to his players (although he does try to keep STAT/Nash as the centerpiece).

He lets players play with fouls, he lets the team run through the other team's scoring run and allows each player to make big game decisions. This allows players like LB, Raja Bell, James Jones and Shawn Marion to "win the game" whereas on other teams, the focus automatically shifts to "Who can we give it to - the Star -- the Dirks and the Wades?"

How many times does Nash shoot the game winning shot? You're thinking, ok this is obviously (should be) going to Nash and then all of a sudden the ball is in LB's hands, or Raja Bell's or Shawn Marion's. And they come through most of the time. He builds confidence NOT BY designing plays but letting them play basketball through his system. He isn't yelling like a retarded ***-monkey (Avery) every time someone commits a foul or they get into a lull. The team chemistry becomes amazing.

While he does this, a VERY well-coached team plays as though the coach is superfluous.

Can you imagine how nerve-wrecking it must be to a coach that has to relinquish that type of freedom to anyone? If the players fail, *the coach is often blamed for his lackadaisical approach or his "lack of discipline"*. Read that again, then re-read the various posts on this board concerning D'Antoni in a negative light. Then read this: *if the players succeed, they believe the coach is unnecessary and he may lose some of his authority, or an outsider may imagine how much greater the team would be with more control and direction*.

How would they *even be there in the first place?* Ask yourself that. D'Antoni empowers everyone and now that we've tasted the Western Conference Finals two years in a row with small players, rejects and players who would be in the D-League without D'Antoni, it's time to can D'Antoni. That's what the attitude is, isn't it?

This isn't the Dallas Mavericks. This isn't the 96 Chicago Bulls. This isn't the Lakers Dynasty teams, 80s version or 00 version. You may think we're like the Run'N'Gun Lakers but we're not. We're not anything except the Phoenix Suns, composed of a starting five in Nash, Marion, Bell, Stoudemire and Diaw when he's healthy.

Everything works on the level that it works. If defensive stops come, it's because of Marion and Diaw or whoever else who stepped up because of the freedom to be whatever is required in the system. You can't expect Nash to be the glove, you can't expect anyone else to be something they're not because they weren't half the player they are now and they're still improving under the system.

If you want Mavericks basketball, watch Mavericks basketball and salivate as Avery Johnson stamps his personal presence all over their team. If you want Spurs basketball where everything is methodical between a big team of players who dominate consistently, follow the San Antonio Spurs and grin from ear to ear as you always have great odds in the playoffs. 

But if you're a Phoenix Suns fan, quit *****ing about a coach who's helped deliver an impossibility. I'm getting sick and tired of it, because sooner or later, maybe next year or even this year if we come up short, all the nay-saying is going to build up and a bunch of idiots who are fairweather fans of D'Antoni and the Suns may cry wolf loud enough to have the management listen.

And most of all: quit ****ing knee-jerking. Our record is fine and when the playoffs start, the Suns play differently. Knee-jerking is fine for ten minutes a game or after a game or maybe even a day but I'm getting tired of these Mavericks replicas who've been knee-jerking since the All-Star game.


----------



## ¹²³ (Jan 8, 2003)

You wrote a nice piece, Helvius. I share a lot of your ideas. :clap2: 

D'Antoni has my full support.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Helvius said:


> Can you imagine how nerve-wrecking it must be to a coach that has to relinquish that type of freedom to anyone? If the players fail, *the coach is often blamed for his lackadaisical approach or his "lack of discipline"*. Read that again, then re-read the various posts on this board concerning D'Antoni in a negative light. Then read this: *if the players succeed, they believe the coach is unnecessary and he may lose some of his authority, or an outsider may imagine how much greater the team would be with more control and direction*.


Heaven forbid that Suns fans comtemplate life without D'Antoni.
I think it's very reasonable to think how good this team would be with a more strict coach.
Someone who takes pride in defense. And don't give me that crap about not having defensive 
players. Look at the Rockets for God's sake, they have alot more offensive-minded players
but Van Gundy makes them make the correct rotation and it works. Suns are never going to
be a great defensive team, but they have the ability to be a solid defensive team if the
time and work was put into it. After all, aren't the Suns going for a title? What's the 
worse that can happen from going over defensive rotations and game plans?



> How would they *even be there in the first place?* Ask yourself that. D'Antoni empowers everyone and now that we've tasted the Western Conference Finals two years in a row with small players, rejects and players who would be in the D-League without D'Antoni, it's time to can D'Antoni. That's what the attitude is, isn't it?


This is how I'm going about it. If the Suns lose anywhere in this years playoffs, and it
wasn't by a missed last shot, or something of that nature, I'm going to be very mad at
D'Antoni. He has way too much talent on this team for them not to succeed.



> But if you're a Phoenix Suns fan, quit *****ing about a coach who's helped deliver an impossibility. I'm getting sick and tired of it, because sooner or later, maybe next year or even this year if we come up short, all the nay-saying is going to build up and a bunch of idiots who are fairweather fans of D'Antoni and the Suns may cry wolf loud enough to have the management listen.


If the Suns don't reach the Finals in the next two years, why the hell would they keep
D'Antoni? This is by-far the most talented team to ever play in Phoenix. And I mean that 
with all respect towards the past teams. But if you cannot get this team to the Finals in
the next two years, there's something wrong with your coaching.



> And most of all: quit ****ing knee-jerking. Our record is fine and when the playoffs start, the Suns play differently. Knee-jerking is fine for ten minutes a game or after a game or maybe even a day but I'm getting tired of these Mavericks replicas who've been knee-jerking since the All-Star game.


I agree. Suns will be ready when the playoffs come.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Damn man, you're only 16, you aren't even old enough to remember the 92-93 team! KJ was every bit as good as Nash, maybe better. Barkley was better than Amare on his best night. Cederic Ceballos (yes the guy on the MC during Suns games) was like a more physical version of Marion. Majerle was a better defender and 3pt shooter than Bell. Tom Chambers was one of the first big men to have an outside shot along with an inside game. Oh, Richard Dumas.... he is easily the biggest waste of talent due to drugs in the history of the NBA. 

The 92-93 team was WAY superior to these Suns and IRONICALLY, they had Paul Westphal who was a relaxed coach! 

To be a great defensive team... look at SA, HOU, and DAL. What do they all have in common? Oh I KNOW! They All have at least TWO 7'0 players! In fact, Houston has the tallest team in the league! (Battier, Hayes, and Howard aren't offensive minded players btw) 

It's not this "amazing" defensive minded coach who has "discovered" a way to play great defense, the same defensive schemes have been employed since the game started in the 1950's. It's pretty damn tough to win it all. In fact, most teams don't even taste the NBA CF but once or twice. There have been 50 NBA Champions, Phil Jackson has 20% of them. Red Auerbach has 20% of them. The Suns have come close, twice, but have always lost to a more talented team.

The Suns need to take it one game at a time and I'm there as a fan through thick and thin. We are the best team (historically) in the NBA to never win a championship. Sink your teeth on that!

Oh and check out when we had Skiles as our head coach... not that great.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

IceMan23and3 said:


> Damn man, you're only 16, you aren't even old enough to remember the 92-93 team! KJ was every bit as good as Nash, maybe better. Barkley was better than Amare on his best night. Cederic Ceballos (yes the guy on the MC during Suns games) was like a more physical version of Marion. Majerle was a better defender and 3pt shooter than Bell. Tom Chambers was one of the first big men to have an outside shot along with an inside game. Oh, Richard Dumas.... he is easily the biggest waste of talent due to drugs in the history of the NBA.
> 
> The 92-93 team was WAY superior to these Suns and IRONICALLY, they had Paul Westphal who was a relaxed coach!



Yeah, my age definitely messes with my knowledge of history. I'm guessing you don't listen
to historians very often, I mean after all, they weren't alive during those time periods
that they cover, so how on earth could they know what they're talking about?

I also found you saying Majerle was a better defender then Bell as a very nice piece of comedy. If I'm thinking of the same Thunder Dan, the guy who couldn't stay infront of a refrigerator, then I would go with Bell as the better defender. 

I want you to find 10 people who have been watching the NBA for more then 20 years, and ask
them what team is more talented. The 92-93 Suns, or this years Suns. I'd be shocked if more
then 4 people picked the '93 Suns.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Dr. Seuss said:


> Yeah, my age definitely messes with my knowledge of history. I'm guessing you don't listen
> to historians very often, I mean after all, they weren't alive during those time periods
> that they cover, so how on earth could they know what they're talking about?


historians? Who are these "historians" that have stated that this is the best Suns team? This isn't fact stating that this happened here and that happened there. This is a subjective argument that *YOU *are making and you have absolutely *NO *basis for making these claims. This is the best Suns team you have seen, sure, I'll give you that. To compare them to a team that went to the *FINALS *and say that they are better when, let's face it, the competition is much weaker now than back then. The Suns had to beat a Seattle team with Kemp, Payton, Ricky Pierce, and Eddie Johnson. They also had to beat SA who had Robinson, Avery Johnson, Sean Elliott, Antoine Carr, and Dale Ellis. 


Dr. Seuss said:


> I also found you saying Majerle was a better defender then Bell as a very nice piece of comedy. If I'm thinking of the same Thunder Dan, the guy who couldn't stay infront of a refrigerator, then I would go with Bell as the better defender.


NBA All Defensive 2nd Team 1990-1991 and 1992-1993. But yeah, other than that, he was a TERRIBLE defender, you're right, I know nothing about what I have witnessed myself.



Dr. Seuss said:


> I want you to find 10 people who have been watching the NBA for more then 20 years, and ask
> them what team is more talented. The 92-93 Suns, or this years Suns. I'd be shocked if more
> then 4 people picked the '93 Suns.


Why is the burden on me to prove that a team that went to the Finals and took arguably one of the best teams in NBA history to game 6 (and lost by one three point shot by Paxson in the closing seconds) is better than a team that exited in the WCF twice? Show me an area in which *THESE *Suns are better. Had they cared about getting a better record, the 1992-1993 Suns could have easily won 65 games! Barkley played 3 games in their final eight (and only played hard for one of them) and the Suns lost 5 of them!


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

IceMan23and3 said:


> historians? Who are these "historians" that have stated that this is the best Suns team? This isn't fact stating that this happened here and that happened there. This is a subjective argument that *YOU *are making and you have absolutely *NO *basis for making these claims. This is the best Suns team you have seen, sure, I'll give you that. To compare them to a team that went to the *FINALS *and say that they are better when, let's face it, the competition is much weaker now than back then. The Suns had to beat a Seattle team with Kemp, Payton, Ricky Pierce, and Eddie Johnson. They also had to beat SA who had Robinson, Avery Johnson, Sean Elliott, Antoine Carr, and Dale Ellis.


To tell me I can't have a say in it because of my age is very moronic.
That Spurs team is no where near the level of this current Spurs team. I also would go
with the Mavericks as a much better team then that past Sonics team. 



> NBA All Defensive 2nd Team 1990-1991 and 1992-1993. But yeah, other than that, he was a TERRIBLE defender, you're right, I know nothing about what I have witnessed myself.


Larry Hughes, All-NBA 1st Defensive team.

Case closed.



> Why is the burden on me to prove that a team that went to the Finals and took arguably one of the best teams in NBA history to game 6 (and lost by one three point shot by Paxson in the closing seconds) is better than a team that exited in the WCF twice? Show me an area in which *THESE *Suns are better.


We'll start with Talent. 
Amare, Nash, Marion, Diaw, Kurt, LB, Jumane, Jalen and James Jones is a very talented team.
You also have depth, which this years Suns team beats the '93 Suns teams.
Then you have versatility, this team beats that one by far. Add in the two-time MVP over
a one-time MVP, and I would consider these Suns alot better.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Dr. Seuss said:


> To tell me I can't have a say in it because of my age is very moronic.
> That Spurs team is no where near the level of this current Spurs team. I also would go
> with the Mavericks as a much better team then that past Sonics team.


you can go with whatever team you want, but the fact still remains, those Suns went to the finals. You haven't seen them play! I will agree that the Spurs today are better than back then, but that Sonics team could have beaten the Suns that series, in fact, a lot of people think that they should have! 



Dr.Seuss said:


> Larry Hughes, All-NBA 1st Defensive team.
> 
> Case closed.


HE AVERAGED 3 SPG!!!!



Dr. Seuss said:


> We'll start with Talent.
> Amare, Nash, Marion, Diaw, Kurt, LB, Jumane, Jalen and James Jones is a very talented team.
> You also have depth, which this years Suns team beats the '93 Suns teams.
> Then you have versatility, this team beats that one by far. Add in the two-time MVP over
> a one-time MVP, and I would consider these Suns alot better.


Barkley didn't get a second MVP in a row because Hakeem was getting 27.3ppg/11.9rpg/3.6apg/3.7bpg I don't think Nash would have been considered against barkely or Hakeem. Barkley on the other hand, had 25.6ppg/12.2rpg/5.1apg /1.6spg. Now if you were to compare Nash to these guys, would he win the MVP in your opinion? 

But let's address that team of '93. You had Majerle who could guard 1-3 positions, KJ who could guard any team's opposing PG, Barkley who would guard anyone from Shaq to Drexler, Cederic Ceballos could guard 2-4 but generally guarded 3's and 4's, and then they had Chambers who could play true center as well as guard the 4 or 5. ALL of these players could step back and hit the 3pt shot. Then on the bench, because you wanted depth. They had Ainge, a great 3pt shooter and wily defender, Dumas who could jump higher than Marion(Dumas had a 50" vertical) and defended like Joe Johnson, Frank Johnson as backup PG and two backup centers in Oliver Miller and "Big Daddy" Mark West. 

So that is 9 guys getting solid rotation minutes as opposed to 7-8guys getting rotation minutes. So I believe that the Suns of '93 were deeper, and more versatile then these Suns of 06-07. I won't argue about individual players because Marion is one of the most versatile players in the league's history, but the TEAM is not very versatile. They have one style in which they can really win and that's by running, they can't muscle teams. Oh, and the '93 Suns were faster than these Suns (they averaged 113ppg).


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

IceMan23and3 said:


> you can go with whatever team you want, but the fact still remains, those Suns went to the finals. You haven't seen them play! I will agree that the Spurs today are better than back then, but that Sonics team could have beaten the Suns that series, in fact, a lot of people think that they should have!


Getting ahead of ourselves are we? Yes, I have seen those Suns play.




> HE AVERAGED 3 SPG!!!!


Defense isn't measured by stats. Iverson averages around 2spg, and he's not a good defender.



> Barkley didn't get a second MVP in a row because Hakeem was getting 27.3ppg/11.9rpg/3.6apg/3.7bpg I don't think Nash would have been considered against barkely or Hakeem. Barkley on the other hand, had 25.6ppg/12.2rpg/5.1apg /1.6spg. Now if you were to compare Nash to these guys, would he win the MVP in your opinion?


Would Bill Russel win against these guys? If you're going by stats, and not overall importance to the team, then Barkley and Hakeem would win. Nash would have a chance, but now we are just being hypothetical.



> But let's address that team of '93. You had Majerle who could guard 1-3 positions, KJ who could guard any team's opposing PG, Barkley who would guard anyone from Shaq to Drexler, Cederic Ceballos could guard 2-4 but generally guarded 3's and 4's, and then they had Chambers who could play true center as well as guard the 4 or 5. ALL of these players could step back and hit the 3pt shot. Then on the bench, because you wanted depth. They had *Ainge*, a great 3pt shooter and *wily defender*, Dumas who could jump higher than Marion(Dumas had a 50" vertical) and defended like Joe Johnson, Frank Johnson as backup PG and two backup centers in Oliver Miller and "Big Daddy" Mark West.


I'm not going to attack you, but you've got to be joking.




> So that is 9 guys getting solid rotation minutes as opposed to 7-8guys getting rotation minutes. So I believe that the Suns of '93 were deeper, and more versatile then these Suns of 06-07. I won't argue about individual players because Marion is one of the most versatile players in the league's history, but the TEAM is not very versatile. They have one style in which they can really win and that's by running, they can't muscle teams. Oh, and the '93 Suns were faster than these Suns (they averaged 113ppg).


You're going to base depth by how many people are used? May I remind you that idiotoni only
uses an 8-man rotation. And that has nothing to do with depth. Even that, those 8 guys 
off the bench probably make up in it with talent then the '93 Suns.

Kurt, Amare and Marion in a lineup and the Suns couldn't play tough? Again, Idiotoni likes
keeping his bigs at the high-post, it's not that Amare couldn't take anyone in the post and
battle 'em.

I will give the '93 Suns more respect, because they went to the Finals. But a different time means different competition. I think the Suns have tougher opponents ahead of them then those '93 Suns would ever face. (except for the Bulls)


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Dr. Seuss said:


> Getting ahead of ourselves are we? Yes, I have seen those Suns play.


Then you should be able to see the similarites between the two teams. That's why I think that D'Antoni may get fired, but it'll take a player getting him fired because, let's face it, you don't fire your coach when you're winning and the players aren't grumbling.



Dr. Seuss said:


> Defense isn't measured by stats. Iverson averages around 2spg, and he's not a good defender.


Well, is it hard to believe that Cleveland had a reason to sign him to such a (retrospectively) ridiculously large contract? The guy can play defense, and does. Mike Brown (Al Rokers) is just such a crappy coach that no one looks good on that team except for LeBron.



Dr. Seuss said:


> Would Bill Russel win against these guys? If you're going by stats, and not overall importance to the team, then Barkley and Hakeem would win. Nash would have a chance, but now we are just being hypothetical.


All I am saying is that voting was much different back then. If your team didn't do as well as the previous year or better, then you weren't MVP again, but don't be fooled, Barkley was still putting up MVP numbers in the two other seasons that he wasn't MVP.



Dr. Seuss said:


> I'm not going to attack you, but you've got to be joking.


I never said lockdown defender, but he definately was decent. It's not like he was a Van Horn.



Dr. Seuss said:


> You're going to base depth by how many people are used? May I remind you that idiotoni only
> uses an 8-man rotation. And that has nothing to do with depth. Even that, those 8 guys
> off the bench probably make up in it with talent then the '93 Suns.
> 
> ...


No, I'm going by 3 Cs, 2 PGs, 2SFs, 2 SGs, and 2PFs. These Suns Have 1PG, 3SGs, 1SF, 1PF, and 2 Cs that can really play.



Dr. Seuss said:


> I will give the '93 Suns more respect, because they went to the Finals. But a different time means different competition. I think the Suns have tougher opponents ahead of them then those '93 Suns would ever face. (except for the Bulls)


Those Sonics were pretty damn good. But if these Suns have to face BOTH the Spurs and the Mavs, then yes, they'll have a tougher road to the finals than the '93 Suns. (but that's the price you pay for not being No. 1)


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

IceMan23and3 said:


> Then you should be able to see the similarites between the two teams. That's why I think that D'Antoni may get fired, but it'll take a player getting him fired because, let's face it, you don't fire your coach when you're winning and the players aren't grumbling.


I do see the similarites. But not winning a championship in the next two years is losing
in my eyes. I doubt the Suns get rid of D'Antoni, because they will always win as long as
Marion, Amare and Nash are playing there.




> Well, is it hard to believe that Cleveland had a reason to sign him to such a (retrospectively) ridiculously large contract? The guy can play defense, and does. Mike Brown (Al Rokers) is just such a crappy coach that no one looks good on that team except for LeBron.


He can play the passing lanes. That's it. If that's great defense, I'm King Kong.




> All I am saying is that voting was much different back then. If your team didn't do as well as the previous year or better, then you weren't MVP again, but don't be fooled, Barkley was still putting up MVP numbers in the two other seasons that he wasn't MVP.


I agree.



> I never said lockdown defender, but he definately was decent. It's not like he was a Van Horn.


You're being really kind. Ainge was not and never was a good defender, at any aspect.



> No, I'm going by 3 Cs, 2 PGs, 2SFs, 2 SGs, and 2PFs. These Suns Have 1PG, 3SGs, 1SF, 1PF, and 2 Cs that can really play.


Who has the more talent? This years Suns does, and it's not even close. 
You also have to take in that D'Antoni plays small ball, so that makes more sense.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Dr. Seuss said:


> Who has the more talent? This years Suns does, and it's not even close.
> You also have to take in that D'Antoni plays small ball, so that makes more sense.


The Suns play small ball, just like the other Suns did with KJ, Majerle, Cederic Ceballos, Richard Dumas, and Barkley, but they were also versatile enough to go big, which they did often with KJ, Majerle, Barkley, Chambers, and West/Miller. These Suns can't go big is why I am saying that they aren't as versatile. Sure, Marion has more talent than any of the other SFs on that team, Majerle was better than Bell, KJ is comparable to Nash, Barkley was better than Amare(right now), and Chambers was better than Diaw. I will concede the chemistry on this team is better than on the '93 team and that is enough for a less talented team to beat a more talented one. 

But that is my problem with this team is that I don't see them as talented enough to win it all. Amare still doesn't have nearly a complete game, Bell is streaky, Diaw is hot and cold, Barbosa is fazeable. Marion and Nash are the only two with complete games but Marion sometimes pulls a houdini and disappears in the playoffs.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

IceMan23and3 said:


> The Suns play small ball, just like the other Suns did with KJ, Majerle, Cederic Ceballos, Richard Dumas, and Barkley, but they were also versatile enough to go big, which they did often with KJ, Majerle, Barkley, Chambers, and West/Miller. These Suns can't go big is why I am saying that they aren't as versatile. Sure, Marion has more talent than any of the other SFs on that team, Majerle was better than Bell, KJ is comparable to Nash, Barkley was better than Amare(right now), and Chambers was better than Diaw. I will concede the chemistry on this team is better than on the '93 team and that is enough for a less talented team to beat a more talented one.


Someone is stuck in '93...........you obviously have an unfair biases towards that '93 Suns
team and continuing this coversation would be a waste of time.

Some of the stuff you have claimed seems very biased.


----------



## Aylwin (Jan 29, 2007)

So is this a D'Antoni discussion or a '93 Suns vs. '07 Suns discussion? 

For what it's worth, I like D'Antoni's style of basketball. Strangely though, I don't think he's very flexible. I wish he'd experiment more by playing more guys or by trying different match-ups. Putting a more defensive 5 on the floor once in awhile might be good too.

As for the '93 Suns vs. the '07 Suns, I think this year's Suns are more fun to watch. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## bircan (Jul 17, 2005)

First of all, if it isnt for Nash signing with the Suns, i seriously doubt this team would have prospered like it does now. Nash keeps dantonis ship from sinking, no question about that. 

Does dantoni do a good job of coaching? Well im sure hes decent, but truth is that his game plan should change a little bit, just running and gunning is very predictable, and even then running and gunning is no garauntee for a win. We are lackadistical on defense, for sure, otherwise our offense is fine.

I agree, these Suns should reach the finals, being in the top 3 of West teams. 
They are right when they say defense wins championships. Well, im not asking for us to go San Antonio, but i am asking our coach to be strict when it comes to Defense, after all, defense is the other HALF of the game. 

If we were controlled into playing much better team Defense, then can you imagine how that would allow us to continue shooting and scoring on the offensive end?

Come on dantoni, play your BENCH ffs, we dont want to tire our players, we want every player to feel involved and perform come playoffs.

So in summary, great talent, great offensive basketball, but failure to win crucial games comes generally from our poor defense, and terrible, TERRIBLE use of our bench players, they are rotting over there. Tho he did play rose last game, play ROSE, GOD, JUMAINE, BANKS even too, on a regular basis, pretty please..............


----------



## TGC (Apr 29, 2006)

Do you guys even know NONE of the suns players are like in the top 30 for MPG?

I think nash is like 50 something. I dunno i have to look it up...

EDIT: sorry after looking it up, marion and bell are both pass 15. Marion(38.4 MPG) at 15 and bell(37.6) at 23 . Nash(35.5) is at 57 while Amare(32.9) is 83rd. Dirk and Howard both play ~36 each, Terry a close 35.5 behind them.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

Aylwin said:


> So is this a D'Antoni discussion or a '93 Suns vs. '07 Suns discussion?
> 
> For what it's worth, I like D'Antoni's style of basketball. Strangely though, I don't think he's very flexible. I wish he'd experiment more by playing more guys or by trying different match-ups. Putting a more defensive 5 on the floor once in awhile might be good too.
> 
> As for the '93 Suns vs. the '07 Suns, I think this year's Suns are more fun to watch. That's all I'm saying.


I'm sorry about that, but I do find that these two teams are similar to each other. But it's the past, and should stay there.

Anyways, as for THIS team's defense... they allow 1.19 points per shot. That is Better than Dallas (1.21) and tied with Detroit. The only teams that allow fewer points per shot are San Antonio and Houston. So I think that the Suns do play pretty good defense... especially since they also have the 3rd highest point differential in the league. I just don't get this hatred of D'Antoni and I guess it won't go away because he isn't a traditional coach.


----------



## bircan (Jul 17, 2005)

that doesnt tell all the story coz as low as that number may be, we give up more shots probably that other teams, especially coz points scored against us is over 100. Oh, second chance opportunities against us are high i believe? opposite teams get many offensive rebounds against us. 

I dont think its hatred of the coach, no, but probably wanting to see some changes in the suns how ever that may be, trying to be more flexible as we've mentioned before.


----------



## Seuss (Aug 19, 2005)

Mike kept Marion in when he picked up his 4th, and then two seconds later Marion picked up his 5th.


D'Antoni is driving me insane...........Atleast he did play KT and Amare together for a good length of time against the Lakers.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Yeah, maybe he learned his lesson against the Spurs. Kurt actually did a pretty good job on Thursday. But sat most of the 3rd, and I think all of the 4th. Made no sense.


----------



## Hyperion (Dec 5, 2006)

bircan said:


> that doesnt tell all the story coz as low as that number may be, we give up more shots probably that other teams, especially coz points scored against us is over 100. Oh, second chance opportunities against us are high i believe? opposite teams get many offensive rebounds against us.
> 
> I dont think its hatred of the coach, no, but probably wanting to see some changes in the suns how ever that may be, trying to be more flexible as we've mentioned before.


Points scored for us is over 110. enough said. As for the offensive rebounds.... look at their FG%, there's more to grab.


----------

