Reply With Quote
I agree son
Kurt "I'm in re ed" Rambis was saying yesterday D'antoni would be a horrible fit but Sloan would be a good fit. Why? Sloan is just like D'antoni....low post scorers are useless in his offense, his teams are always mediocre at defense, the SG is always in a completely complementary role, and his teams always under achieve in the playoffs. It's a given how bad of a candidate D'antoni would be, but Sloan would be just as bad.
I agree son
Why would anyone under any cir stances ever consider hiring D'antoni? He can't coach D or motivate players.. The Lakers O might get on track but nobody would respect him in the locker room..
because he is a great coach I guess..
^Everyone already knows that about D'antoni and no one is trying to debate it. Sloan, largely because his teams always had tons of "blue collar" white players, and for whatever other reasons, has developed the reputation of a coach who's teams are hard nosed, play great defense, execute very well in the half court, and do very well in the playoffs, when that isn't the case at all. Sloan's teams have been up tempo PG-oriented teams that run nothing other than pick and rolls in the half court, play mediocre defense, can gimmick their way to 50+ wins every year, then get out-toughed in the playoffs. He's a glorified Mike D'antoni.
I think that being pnr freaks is the only thing you can relate d'antoni with sloan..
great regular season success compared to repeated playoff failures, being incapable of getting their teams to consistently play D, and always letting low post scorers go for career highs on a regular basis. The similarities go far beyond the fact their "offensive genius" consisted of whoring the pick and roll and never running any other plays in the half court.
I don't consider an nba final a failure, at least when you're never the favourite to begin with.. Sloan created an environment of success, somewhere where you don't need to stat pad to be cool, and he did not consider playin D as a shame, so no, I don't consider them similar by any means.. And really I don't consider Sloan an offensive genius either. Anyway, the pick would be really stupid, I mean, let the old man with a leg in the grave leave in peace, he's really really old, like really old not like old for sports..
That's a strong opinion to say he's an underachiever when his best teams were running into Phil and MJ and the teams post Stockton/Malone weren't on a championship level talent-wise. He always had the team playing physical ball. This Lakers team on paper should have a good defense.
I disagree a lot about D'Antoni for LA. I think the upside there is tremendous and to me he should be the coach that is hired.
maybe he IS the one guy LA needs, tbh
Good is relative... He'd maximize Nash/Gasol/Howard with pnr, likely get a lot out of the frontcourt by emphasizing rebounding, and mediocre defense is better than no defense. Relative to D'Antoni or others, he's a good hire.
dun matter, looks like Phil gon come back since he meetin wit lakers this morning. foo was like in another state yesterday so he wanna coach again. hope he got energy ta coach dis team again
I thought his offenses always revolved around a good p'n'r game. Wouldn't a Nash-Howard p'n'r be awesome? The real reason Sloan wouldn't work is because he's old school and screams at his players like they are backup JV guys. He was able to get away with that for so long in Utah because of his tenure and he had the support of Larry Miller. Today's players won't put up with that kind of treatment. I think he's a good coach but there's no way he could coach like that anymore. Management would side with the players over him once he started riding their asses.
Why is D'Antoni a bad hire? The talent on LA is perfect for D'Antoni. He had built a solid team in New York until he was gutted by the Carmelo trade. Carmelo being too selfish to give up his "let me go iso every ing possession" offense shouldn't be D'Antoni's fault. Management put D'Antoni in a weak position by going over his head with the trade, then giving Carmelo all the power. At that point there was nothing else D'Antoni could do, except bench Carmelo, which would have gotten him fired anyways.
The only problem in LA would be Kobe's love of going iso too, but he's not nearly as reliant on that as Carmelo. Kobe can find his shots within the flow of a real offense too. D'Antoni to the Lakers makes even more sense than Phil coming back.
It's sad that the league has changed in this direction where players are too proud to be coached.
It would be entertaining for sure... and there's enough talent on the Lakers to do what Phoenix never was able to accomplish and get to the finals.
I always viewed D'Antoni's success in PHO as something that should've been largely (mostly) attributed to Nash's skill set. Maybe Carmelo ruined what Mike wanted to do in NYK, but then you could question as to how he would gain the respect of Kobe and Dwight if he couldn't get it from Melo.
To be fair, with that, it's not just the players... the screaming coaches have been all but phased out at both the college level and the NBA, due to compe ion from coaches who can motivate and get players to buy in without treating them like ...
I don't think it was a matter of respect with Melo as it was a matter of clashing basketball philosophies, neither guy being willing to bend. Carmelo just signed a huge extension and became the face of the franchise, so obviously he was going to win that battle, and he knew it. He didn't have that leverage with George Karl, plus Karl was willing to bend more to fit Carmelo's style.
I see what you're saying about the NYK situation. I guess he and Nash possibly coming together again gives him an advantage in getting the Lakers to buy into what he wants to run... not that I see any of them having a problem with running up and down scoring all those points.
Prior to the Melo trade, he built a mediocre 45-50 win team in New York with a ceiling that was a 2nd round playoff appearance. If the Lakers' goal with their current team is to build a "solid team" that at best is gonna win one playoff series, then yeah, D'antoni is their guy.
The 1997 and 1998 Jazz would have lost to other Eastern Conference teams too, people have revised history and now pretend the 1997 and 1998 Jazz were a level above every team in the NBA other than the Bulls. The reason they made the finals was because of how weak the West was those 2 years. The Spurs and Lakers hadn't emerged yet while the Suns, Rockets, and Sonics teams that dominated the 90s had all peaked and/or been dismantled.
Please. Malone and Stockton are two of the biggest stat s the NBA has ever seen. Stockton would have open layups that he'd pass out of to inflate his assist total.
His teams were always mediocre defensively. It's more revisionist history to pretend his teams were always good at defense. With the exception of a few years, they never were. They were always middle of the pack.
It'd be as awesome as the Nash-Amare p'n'r was. It would probably win as many championships too. I'd argue it would be worse since Nash is a s of his old self and Howard is easier to defend as a p'n'r threat because Amare was a better shooter and had much better hands (before anyone turns this into a strawman argument where I'm saying Amare > Howard, I'm saying Amare > Howard as a p'n'r threat, which he is).
The fact people are suggesting they bring in a coach who will build the offense around Nash pick and rolls is hilarious. He's been irrelevant the last two years, him being able to stay healthy without Phoenix's training staff is a total unknown, his pick and rolls have always required great spacing which the Lakers don't have at all, and he turns 39 in February. Nash inspires more backwards logic and stupidity than any other athlete I've ever seen.
a)
so you could basically say that they overachieved..
b)
I won't argue with that, I'm talking about the role players not needing to post a double double per game just to get playing time
c)
Well, that's what I've been sayin, mediocre is far better than shameful.
a)
I'd say they were comparable to the 2007 Cavaliers. Maybe they overachieved, but them running into a team capable of exposing their flaws was inevitable, even if the only teams that could weren't in their conference.
b)
I'm not sure what your point is here at all. Your recycling the, "He knew the game went beyond stats! He's an old school guy!" rhetoric people use with Sloan because there isn't any substance to back up the claim his teams were gritty teams that played well in the half court. His teams were up tempo teams that won games by out shooting the other team.
c)
So you're admitting he was a mediocre coach defensively. Good, glad we're clear on that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
