# Dolan got another idiot running the Knicks



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

Chad Ford article and Walsh have to be two stupid people to not know that Mike D'Antoni need at least a year or two off after coaching the Phoenix "Marion" Suns for five years and making such a big Dum move for Shaq in the middle of the season that will follow his decision making as a coach for years to come. 
*Maybe he should have kept Kurt Thomas!* 

*I though we got rid of Layden & Isiah silly decision making but we did'nt we got them back in Walsh & D'Antoni.* 

*I'm waiting to hear all the optimistic Knick-Fans this offseason. LOL* :lol::azdaja: 
I cant believe Dolan found another idiot to run this Knick organization. It only took Layden, Isiah, and Walsh first moves in the organization to find out they are not the person for the job. 
*Ernie Grunfield, Knick-Fans miss you dearly...*


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Hey Kiyaman...*

Kerr got Shaq, not D'Antoni. I think we have to give the guy a chance before we too down on him. The roster is going to change alot and nobody is going to win until it does. I believe in Walsh and He must have heard some things he wanted to hear in the interview. I think D'Antoni did pretty well in Phoenix considering he really did not have the talent level of the teams he was trying to beat. Lets give it a chance before we start screaming. if it goes South, I'll be right there with you.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

I heard that it was Dolan's decision to hire D'Antoni, and that Walsh was leaning toward Mark Jackson or Avery Johnson. Oh well, I guess until Dolan either sells the team or get the boot, we are doomed.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

I have yet to hear a good reason why D'Antoni is such a bad fit, coach and so on.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

croco said:


> I have yet to hear a good reason why D'Antoni is such a bad fit, coach and so on.


Because his style doesn't mesh with a roster that'll be next to impossible to immediately overhaul. 

I think a coach's system not fitting with his roster is a pretty good reason.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

And Avery Johnson or Mark Jackson are better fits because they are known as either tough guys or defensive-minded coaches ? If you are a good coach you will find a way to win games and there is absolutely no doubt that D'Antoni has to rank right up there with several others after Phil Jackson and Gregg Popovich. 

D'Antoni wasn't hired to turn the Knicks into contenders, no coach could do that with that roster. It will take at least two years to get rid of all those bad contracts, you can't blame Walsh or him for that. The players on the rosters are long enough in the league to know that they aren't going to become solid defenders anymore.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I don't know what Mark's style would be, and Avery probably wouldn't have been a much better fit, but if D'Antoni wasn't hired to make them contenders, just what on earth does he see in that roster? 

Mark my words, both he and Nash are going to regret this move.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

The Mavs didnt care much about defense until Avery started coaching. So amybe he could have the same effect on the Knicks, too late for that now though


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

Considering Dolan's willingness to take on salary I don't think it's impossible to turn around the roster. People always overrate the impact of the cap and the luxury tax when it comes to teams that simply don't care about paying the price. People said Zeke couldn't turn the roster over but he managed to change damn near everyone (but he went too far). It's not impossible. Hell even Jordan managed to move ugly contracts in Juwan Howard, Mitch Richmond, and Rod Strickland when he took over the Wizards. It's possible.

Also I don't believe that D'Antoni has only one style he can play with. You don't accomplish what he has as a coach by not being able to adapt. Running might be the goal for the team, but I honestly believe he has an idea how to handle things while getting there.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Hey Kiyaman...*



alphaorange said:


> Kerr got Shaq, not D'Antoni.


Kerr pulled the trigger but only after several players as well as D'Antoni pushed for the move. It blew up in their faces, but I don't think they would've won anything significant if Marion was kept. Seeing how it turned out I think D'Antoni knew it was his last chance with the Suns so he made a move that he thought gave them the best chance and it failed. It happens.


----------



## DaRizzle (May 22, 2007)

croco said:


> D'Antoni has to rank right up there with several others after Phil Jackson and Gregg Popovich.


Ill be nice and just say, sir, you are mistaken...he is all gimmick


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

How's he going to turn that roster of overpaid malcontents into a good cap number or younger, talented players? You can do it once, but you're not going to flip an entire roster like this in less than 3 years.

And per D'Antoni's accomplishments, people act like he's Auerbach. He ran with a great PG and talented finishers and had 4 very good years, but did relatively little come playoff time. 

I'm not about to be as confident as some that a coach who ran and ignored defense for years is some godsend.

He's a good offensive coach, I'd even imagine if Randolph, Marbury and Curry weren't so selfish, he could build something around them, but he pays no attention to defense. Therefore, even if the Knicks do turn it around with a nice roster, he's not the answer. 

I guess some people are just content with nice regular seasons as a sign of turnaround.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

croco said:


> And Avery Johnson or Mark Jackson are better fits because they are known as either tough guys or defensive-minded coaches ? If you are a good coach you will find a way to win games and there is absolutely no doubt that D'Antoni has to rank right up there with several others after Phil Jackson and Gregg Popovich.


That is completely false, Phil and Pop are winners, D'Antoni hasn't won jack. He is just another coach who is going to have a heart attack when the NY media and the diehard fans like myself eat him alive for being a passive non-defensive minded coach and allowing his players to run him. Defense wins ball games. Like I said in the other thread if Walsh can move about 80 percent of this roster, which will be very difficult based on the salaries, work ethic and overall character of some of these players, then we aren't going to accomplish a damn thing. Lastly, if he was so good, then Nash would have had a ring already. Just another overrated coach in the west coast who couldn't cut it. I will continue to say, until proven otherwise, he is a terrible hire.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

It's kinda hard to win a ring when three out of the four years you face San Antonio in the playoffs. The one year they didn't play them they faced the Mavericks and Amare was out with the knee injury. They simply didn't have enough horses to pull it out.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

It doesn't matter. You play basketball to win titles, so in this era, if you're a veteran team, unless you're the Spurs, you're a failure. I'm not about to be excited by someone who consistently loses when it matters.

If I was a Knicks fan, I wouldn't be excited about 55 win, ringless seasons, which is all D'Antoni will bring you. Relative to what they have now, I'd be impressed, but it's about titles.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Nash wasn't trying to play defense when he was in Dallas, once he tried harder he was still bad, but he was giving effort and that was enough to get past anyone than San Antonio. The Spurs exploited the inferior ability of Nash to defend to death which was the biggest reason why they couldn't beat San Antonio. 

The Suns have been a mediocre defensive team in all of D'Antonis years, they have never been good, but they have also never been bad. Their defensive efficiency ranked 13th, 16th, 15th and 16th in the league, it's not like they didn't play D. I just hate when people say that you are a loser if you haven't won a championship. 29 coaches lose every year, it's absolutely unfair and mind-boggling to call anyone but Jackson and Popovich losers. At the end of the day in 95 percent of the years teams with legendary players win a ring, there just isn't that much parity in the NBA. 

D'Antoni's system is not chaotic and Steve Nash is not the only reason why it works. Like I said before, good coaches will find a way to adapt their system (which he did every single year) and win games. Yes, he has never won a championship, but the Suns have been a Top 3 team in the league the last four years and that is also an accomplishment.

Also, the reasoning that he can't work with the players the Knicks have is just false. No coach in the history of the NBA could win jack with the current group, you can't blame him that this roster is misconstructed and the payroll overloaded. D'Antoni will reenergize some of the players, the Knicks will slowly, but surely make some moves, it is not going to happen in a matter of weeks or months. This process will last a few years and the fans need to have patience, diehard or not.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> How's he going to turn that roster of overpaid malcontents into a good cap number or younger, talented players? You can do it once, but you're not going to flip an entire roster like this in less than 3 years.


You don't have to trade everyone. There are other ways to get rid of and acquire talent than to move players off the roster.



> And per D'Antoni's accomplishments, people act like he's Auerbach. He ran with a great PG and talented finishers and had 4 very good years, but did relatively little come playoff time.


He helped turn Phoenix into a contender. He deserves as much credit for that turn around as Nash. In the four years they had too trips to the WCF.



> I'm not about to be as confident as some that a coach who ran and ignored defense for years is some godsend.


No one said he's a godsend, but at the same time he's not a square peg in a round hole. If you look at the Suns teams they never had the personnel to play great team defense in the first place. Does some of the blame belong on his shoulders definitely, but I don't think it's 100% like it's made out. He had guys who no matter the effort wouldn't be good defenders (Nash).



> He's a good offensive coach, I'd even imagine if Randolph, Marbury and Curry weren't so selfish, he could build something around them, but he pays no attention to defense. Therefore, even if the Knicks do turn it around with a nice roster, he's not the answer.
> 
> I guess some people are just content with nice regular seasons as a sign of turnaround.


This isn't completely related, but I'm just curious.. was the same criticism heaved on Rick Adelman for not being able to get by the Lakers while coaching the Kings?


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

croco said:


> I have yet to hear a good reason why D'Antoni is such a bad fit, coach and so on.


*Why did he take the job? Must be the MONEY$$$$*

Could anyone blame Larry Brown for going after the money? NO! 
so you cant blame Mike D'Antoni for going after the money either. 

Will D'Antoni help the Knicks? just as much as Larry Brown helped himself with the Knicks. 

After Larry Brown coached Detroit he needed a year or two vacation to get his head clear for the next team that he coach (Detroit was the best format Winning team Brown ever coached in the NBA). 
Larry Brown just had two years off from coaching so he will have the right head into putting the Bobcats team into the playoff picture next season. 

Mike D'Antoni needs a very long vacation after the Phoenix Suns. 
How many rosters in the league have a MVP PG-Nash, underratted All-Star SF/PF-Marion, and an Super Star PF-Amare Stoudamire, that consistently play on the "SAME-PAGE", game after game and year after year for several seasons. When you have super-stars that play on the same-page in practice and on the court, that makes the rest of the roster follow their lead. 
How will D'Antoni get over that? it will take D'Antoni years to get over the best NBA roster D'Antoni ever had as a coach. 
Larry Brown had problems getting over having the best co-existing dynamic chemistry same-page unit of PG-Billups, SG-RIP, SF-Prince, and PF-Rasheed Wallace, the best unit he ever had as an NBA Coach. 
The only Knicks that plays on the same-page is the Knicks six young raw players which may have to be traded this offseason. 

*Walsh is just as much a BIG FOOL as Isiah (thats why he wont let Isiah go)...*


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

^ Word Kiya, tell it like it is!


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Instead of worrying about D'Antoni, the question is whats Walsh going to do. No coach can take this team as presently constituted to a championship talk less 2nd round in the playoffs. The fact that the Pacers are still mired in mediocrity should be cause of concern for the Knicks.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Coatesvillain said:


> You don't have to trade everyone. There are other ways to get rid of and acquire talent than to move players off the roster.


How will Randolph, Curry, Marbury, and Richardson, off the top of my head get off the roster? Even if they do manage to draft good players, their growth will be stifled as long as those aforementioned players are there. 



> He helped turn Phoenix into a contender. He deserves as much credit for that turn around as Nash. In the four years they had too trips to the WCF.


Two fruitless trips. As a Mavs fan, I've learned to not care about anything but a title. D'Antoni could very well turn them around, but once they are an elite team, they won't be able to win because they most likely won't be a good defensive team, and that European style D'Antoni plays doesn't win. 

People talk about smallball being the future, but I haven't even seen a running team even in the finals yet.



> No one said he's a godsend, but at the same time he's not a square peg in a round hole. If you look at the Suns teams they never had the personnel to play great team defense in the first place. Does some of the blame belong on his shoulders definitely, but I don't think it's 100% like it's made out. He had guys who no matter the effort wouldn't be good defenders (Nash).


I never implied it's 100%, but I've never seen him make an effort, or even publicly acknowledge the defense. He had pull in the front office, why didn't he push for a better defensive team earlier? The Shaq trade was the first time they acknowledged that defense was a major problem. 



> This isn't completely related, but I'm just curious.. was the same criticism heaved on Rick Adelman for not being able to get by the Lakers while coaching the Kings?


I wasn't following basketball heavy back then, but yes, I would've said the same thing about him. If you're not putting yourself in a position to be the best, and not just very good, forget about it. 

The Suns went at it with pretty much the same team every year but this year. There's some kind of notion in the NBA that just because you're close means you'll magically jump over the bar. Instead of being stubborn, the Suns should've looked at what they did wrong the first time and improved then. 

I've never been a fan of just being a contender. Keep working at it until you're the best. At least try, don't stand pat.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

*Who think that Steve Kerr would have pulled the Shaq deal for Marion without checking on Mike D'Antoni feelings on such a move?* 

Phoenix Suns Jason Kidd and Marion was giving the Spurs problems when Steve Kerr was a Spur player. The Kidd for Marbury trade set the Suns back. Now the Marion for Shaq trade will really set them back.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Once again, 29 teams do not win a championship every single year. Just because one team does, it doesn't mean that the winner did everything right and the others did everything wrong.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

We're not talking one year. We're talking sustained periods of time, in both situations. 

The Spurs have pretty much been a model franchise every year, the Suns have ran and ignored defense every year. This isn't some one time deal.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

Ya know, I do think Spurs management is overrated to a certain extent. Tim Duncan pretty much saved that franchise, free agents or those over the top players they seem to keep getting obviously flock there because of their winning record. I want to see how the Spurs will keep competing after Duncan is gone. How long with it take Buford and co. to get that team back to championship status?


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Dre™ said:


> We're not talking one year. We're talking sustained periods of time, in both situations.
> 
> The Spurs have pretty much been a model franchise every year, the Suns have ran and ignored defense every year. This isn't some one time deal.


You are ignoring the fact that the Suns have never been a horrendous defensive team. Go through the history of championship teams and the best players on those teams in the last 25 years, the list is very short.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

What's your point relative to what I was saying?


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

It's hard to say they're overrated when they've done a good job finding players that are completely under the radar. This goes for FAs as well as draft picks. Also they had a point where between titles they flipped over most of their roster.

Duncan makes a lot of things easier for them because he does so many things so well that you can build off of. But at the same time you need to find players that are good enough to play off of that. Getting steals like Ginobili, and Parker (they should've kept Scola though) are huge. They have a pretty good scouting department.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Dre™ said:


> What's your point relative to what I was saying?


My point is that D'Antoni is a good coach, period.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

croco said:


> You are ignoring the fact that the Suns have never been a horrendous defensive team.


No, but they've never been good enough. You'll have to do better than "not horrendous" to be a championship team.



> Go through the history of championship teams and the best players on those teams in the last 25 years, the list is very short.


So? Does that mean you don't work to improve yourself because you don't have the best player in the league?



> My point is that D'Antoni is a good coach, period.


Wasn't referring to you.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

No, it means that winning a championship is incredibly difficult and usually the team with a Top 3-5 player in the league wins the title.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Ok, well if you don't have a top 5 player (Nash in his peak was arguably a top 5 talent), then you try another approach or blow it up and start over. 

There's no sense in winning 60 games and doing nothing in the postseason, when your flaws are as evident as they were with the Mavericks or Suns.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Dre™ said:


> It doesn't matter. You play basketball to win titles, so in this era, unless you're the Spurs, you're a failure. I'm not about to be excited by someone who consistently loses when it matters.
> 
> If I was a Knicks fan, I wouldn't be excited about 55 win, ringless seasons, which is all D'Antoni will bring you. Relative to what they have now, I'd be impressed, but it's about titles.


Then you might as well quit rooting for the Wizards and the Mavericks, because neither team is winning jack for years to come.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I dont think the Knicks are in it to win the championship


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

HB said:


> I dont think the Knicks are in it to win the championship


Nope, the goal is to be competitive year after year and go for it, when the opportunity presents itself. As any sports franchise should.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

I think they are more concerned about profits


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

HB said:


> I think they are more concerned about profits


Being competitive is how they remain profitable. The Knicks brass, while disappointed they didn't win a title during the Ewing era, were very happy to be in the realm of contenders for a solid decade. That's what the Knicks want. Simply to have sustained excellence. The Lakers want to win titles, but sustained excellence will also serve their purpose.

Years in the lottery just don't fly in either city.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*So much whining and crying...*

You talk as if the Knicks would be great if only they played good defense.......right. D'Antoni won a title in Europe and he did it without a running athletic team. Anyone responding that is was only Europe should take a look at some of the best players in the league and where they come from. The same people here that *****ed that Nash was overrated are now saying he is the reason the Suns won so much. Which is it? Whether or not Shaq was a good move is not really the question. The bigger picture was that the Suns as constructed were not going to get by the Spurs (and Duncan) and their window of opportunity was shrinking quickly. They took a shot. 

For those that remember the Lakers of "Showtime", they were coached by Pat Riley who was not known for defense. In fact he was hired to bring Showtime to NY. Couldn't do it with the players he could accumulate and changed to a grabbing, plodding, defensive team that would be cooked the way the game is being called today. Good coaches adapt just like good players adapt. Anyone claiming to know what D'Antoni's potential is, is just blowing smoke. The Suns may not have been a defensive juggernaut but they didn't really have the players to be. They had horses, so he ran them. 

For all the accolades bestowed on Riley and Jackson, neither won a title without guys named MJ, Magic, Shaq, or Kobe on the teams. Great coaches but without MJ and Shaq, Jackson is still looking for#1. Riley won with bigtime talent. D'Antoni came close to a title with an old pg, an up-and-coming star, and not much else.

Hey Kitty..define soft.


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: So much whining and crying...*



alphaorange said:


> You talk as if the Knicks would be great if only they played good defense.......right. D'Antoni won a title in Europe and he did it without a running athletic team. Anyone responding that is was only Europe should take a look at some of the best players in the league and where they come from. The same people here that *****ed that Nash was overrated are now saying he is the reason the Suns won so much. Which is it? Whether or not Shaq was a good move is not really the question. The bigger picture was that the Suns as constructed were not going to get by the Spurs (and Duncan) and their window of opportunity was shrinking quickly. They took a shot.
> 
> For those that remember the Lakers of "Showtime", they were coached by Pat Riley who was not known for defense. In fact he was hired to bring Showtime to NY. Couldn't do it with the players he could accumulate and changed to a grabbing, plodding, defensive team that would be cooked the way the game is being called today. Good coaches adapt just like good players adapt. Anyone claiming to know what D'Antoni's potential is, is just blowing smoke. The Suns may not have been a defensive juggernaut but they didn't really have the players to be. They had horses, so he ran them.
> 
> ...


Amen.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

But with these Knicks teams as constituted, all they can do is replicate a Suns type offense


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

BTW did D'Antoni ever coach Marbury in PHO?


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

HB said:


> BTW did D'Antoni ever coach Marbury in PHO?


Yeah. Frank Johnson was fired after the rough start to the season, and D'Antoni took over. It wasn't for long though as Marbury was traded early in January and D'Antoni took over around mid-December.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: So much whining and crying...*



alphaorange said:


> Hey Kitty..define soft.


Look it up in the dictionary.


----------



## Oldmangrouch (Feb 11, 2003)

I'm sorry, but some Knick fans really crack me up.

You guys just got a huge upgrade in the coaching department....and you are unhappy about it? Yeesh!


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Come on, Kitty*

You are the one that throws that term around here more than anyone. I'm interested in what you consider soft to mean. I know we have some soft players but you seem to think anyone that doesn't play like Oakley is soft.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

HKF said:


> Then you might as well quit rooting for the Wizards and the Mavericks, because neither team is winning jack for years to come.


I don't think I've been excited about either team in awhile. That doesn't mean I can't have preference or "root" for them.

The Wizards are still on the comeup however, I couldn't group them with the Suns. I edited my original post after I thought it over.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

croco said:


> And Avery Johnson or Mark Jackson are better fits because they are known as either tough guys or defensive-minded coaches ? If you are a good coach you will find a way to win games and there is absolutely no doubt that D'Antoni has to rank right up there with several others after Phil Jackson and Gregg Popovich.
> 
> D'Antoni wasn't hired to turn the Knicks into contenders, no coach could do that with that roster. It will take at least two years to get rid of all those bad contracts, you can't blame Walsh or him for that. The players on the rosters are long enough in the league to know that they aren't going to become solid defenders anymore.


How do you throw D'antoni with the Zen Master and Popovich? D'antoni has not won a world championship, a 50+ win coach is where the comparisons end. Bad contracts don't equate to bad players, sure we have some overpaid players, but at least some are worth their money.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

Gotham2krazy said:


> How do you throw D'antoni with the Zen Master and Popovich? D'antoni has not won a world championship, a 50+ win coach is where the comparisons end. Bad contracts don't equate to bad players, sure we have some overpaid players, but at least some are worth their money.


I never put him into that group, those two are the best coaches in the league. After them he has to rank right up there though, but it's a relatively large gap to Jackson and Popovich.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

croco said:


> I never put him into that group, those two are the best coaches in the league. After them he has to rank right up there though, but it's a relatively large gap to Jackson and Popovich.


There are plenty of other good coaches out there, I simply don't think D'Antoni would rank right after Poppovich and Jackson, considering that guys like Flip Saunders have at least gotten to the finals.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

*I like coach Doc Rivers but I would not give him much of the credit for the Boston Celtics 66-16 winning record this season.* Or if they make it to the FINALS. 

The Phoenix Suns were a good playoff team in 2002-3 untill Marbury kept playing selfish ball in that Spurs vs Suns Postseason series which made the Suns players vote him out of Phoenix the next season, the same way rumors say the Knick players voted against Marbury this past season. 

*So what did D'Antoni really do in Phoenix?* when the Phoenix organization took Marbury money and signed one of the NBA Top-3 PG-Steve Nash uptempo passing game to go alongside of All-Star players SG-Joe Johnson, SF-Marion, and PF-Amare. 

We B-Ball Fans should know that SG-Joe, SF-Marion, and PF-Amare equal a Postseason team. When you add Steve Nash with those players you automatically are making Nash a MVP player. Isiah Thomas could've coached that team to winning seasons just as well as D'Antoni...


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

There is something funny about the hiring of D'Antoni. Especially with all the publicity that was given to Mark Jackson, rather than Herb Williams, Mark Aquire, and Hann. 

*Is Walsh having problems trading the contracts that goes past 2010? so he is hiring coach D'Antoni to put some trade value in these long contract players this comming season?* 
that is what it looks like. 

Lets not forget the 2003-4 Phoenix Star Players voted Marbury & Q.Richardson out of Phoenix. Which D'Antoni seem happy about. 
So that is two Knick players that will not prosper under D'Antoni's system (back injuries). 

This Knick team has been forced to run 95% of their offensive plays in a halfcourt offense with *Marbury* walk the ball up court style came on board in the 2003-4 season. 
Players like *Crawford* 10 second dribbling, *Q.Richardson *stand still motion without any slashing talent, *Curry & Zach *slow pace movement that dont know how to throw a decent 10 foot pass after they rebound, *Jefferies* never being able to draw a defender on offense missing layup after layup making his little defensive skillz just another Knick turnover. When you add a defensive role player *Malik Rose *who keep adding himself into every offensive play you understand why the Spurs traded him 4 seasons ago. And my favorite Knick player *Jerome James *who number one skill in practice and on the court is how to show no emotions while chilling on the bench. 

*Those are the Knicks eight (8) money players inwhich has this Knick Team way above the salary cap with their expensive contracts which several are longer than Walsh 2010 so-call plan.* 
The top Knick Brass want these players receiving playingtime, which alot of us know from listening to Mark Jackson talk about players with winning attitudes will not give any of these Knick players any playingtime when it comes to defense. 

Donnie Walsh is no "Miracle on 33rd st." to trade all or half of the eight players above this offseason so to keep chaotic down in the Knicks front office and lockerroom it look like the only safe thing to do is hire coach Mike D'Antoni, who also cant pull a rabbit out of his hat with this bunch of guys. But for the money he is told to be patient with a 4 year contract, and take a couple of 30 win seasons. 

The only Knicks that I see that could play to D'Antoni uptempo transition for 10 straight minutes a quarter are Nate, Balkman, Chandler, Lee, and Morris. 
I would add Collins if Clyde Frazier become his trainer this offseason. 
Under coach D'Antoni the Knicks really need Derrik Rose or Mayo in this draft, plus need to invite Demitris Nichols out side shooting for D'Antoni's uptempo offense, Nichols out side shooting skillz is more dependable than Q.Rich & Crawford.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

*After I made this Post "Dolan got another idiot running the Knicks", I found out that I was not the only one thinking this way, alot of sports commentators and NBA advisors felt the same thing. I was getting e-mail from so many B-Ball Fans about Walsh hiring a coach that underachieved from last season postseason to this season postseason.* 

D'Antoni is not going to fix the Knicks because he will have Marbury & Malik Rose traded along with a couple of the Knicks young players ASAP to get the uptempo players he need. This will go against Walsh main plan to get under the salary cap by 2010.
This just happen to be the best season for the Knicks to keep Marbury & Malik Rose and all of their young players. 

*And to keep Marbury means you must trade Crawford in this 2008 draft.* While hiring the backcourt Trainers of exKnick Clyde & Monroe to train Collins & Nate throughout the offseason (That was announcer Mark Jackson plan as the Knicks head coach), to get complete control of the Knicks backcourt quarterbacks Nate & Collins with the SF help of Balkman & Chandler. It's a start in the right direction for players and coach looking to make more money in the future of their NBA career. That is why Mark Jackson was the best candidate for the Knicks head coaching job to establish an offense/defense format this season which has been missing throughout Isiah rain as President. 

D'Antoni will force Walsh to make trades for his type of players. And the players that Walsh will have to trade are going to be the Players the Knicks should keep. The Players the Knicks need to trade (Zach, Q.Rich, Jefferies, Crawford, and James) are all overpaid players that no team wants their contracts this season or next season without compensation. 

Knowing this is why you go with the cheaper coach who will play the cheaper players for the Win using the overpaid players as good role-player fill-ins. Yes! Walsh is an idiot for hiring a top name coach who lost his job for the same reason why Walsh got his Knick job. 
*NO DEFENSE!!!*


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Kiyaman said:


> *And to keep Marbury means you must trade Crawford in this 2008 draft.* While hiring the backcourt Trainers of exKnick Clyde & Monroe to train Collins & Nate throughout the offseason (That was announcer Mark Jackson plan as the Knicks head coach), to get complete control of the Knicks backcourt quarterbacks Nate & Collins with the SF help of Balkman & Chandler. It's a start in the right direction for players and coach looking to make more money in the future of their NBA career. That is why Mark Jackson was the best candidate for the Knicks head coaching job to establish an offense/defense format this season which has been missing throughout Isiah rain as President.
> 
> D'Antoni will force Walsh to make trades for his type of players. And the players that Walsh will have to trade are going to be the Players the Knicks should keep. The Players the Knicks need to trade (Zach, Q.Rich, Jefferies, Crawford, and James) are all overpaid players that no team wants their contracts this season or next season without compensation.
> 
> ...


Exactly! Didn't we learn when we had Ewing in his final year not to trade away for more salaries? We haven't done anything right since 2000! Coach D will not want a L's to be on his record that's why he will bring in his own players, but the difference is, we won't win jack! Plan for the future, not cut and paste everything! I want CHRIS PAUL!


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

USSKittyHawk said:


> I heard that it was Dolan's decision to hire D'Antoni, and that Walsh was leaning toward Mark Jackson or Avery Johnson. Oh well, I guess until Dolan either sells the team or get the boot, we are doomed.


WHY KITTY WHY?!!? I HATE DOLAN. He's all about making money. He doesn't give two ****s about the game.


----------

