Phx-Suns.Net

Pat Riley coached the Lakers and the Knicks very differently. Pop is constantly adjusting his style. His team last year vs. this year don't even play the same way. Carlisle is constantly adapting. Terry Stotts is running different stuff this year.

Coming in with a "style" almost never works.

Good examples but Riley also played to the talent he had. His preference was defense, but he had showtime (and Magic and Kareem) so he let them play. Pop has his system and style and it was only until that was perfected that he loosened things up and trusted TP to pick his spots to push the tempo.

I think MikeD was run out of town by the fans. We were all fed up and frustrated by his lack of adjustments, losing the same way to the same teams, not developing younger talent or playing the vets we signed (Giricek, Jumaine Jones, Jalen Rose). I think everyone involved, inside and outside the org, created this window of winning that created pressure to win. And when we didn't win, he took the blame. He was also probably defensive and sensitive with Kerr coming in and wanting to add defense to his style and felt like it was just a matter of time before Kerr put his own guy in there. Even he's admitted that he should've taken some time off and regrouped with Kerr and Sarver to try and work something out.

The next coach has to be willing to play younger players and develop younger players even at the expense of losing some games. DAntoni has never been willing to do that. You would see PJ and Tyson playing HUGE minutes. There will be 7 players he likes, and no one else will see the light of day. That's just how he rolls.

I think Mike D would hate Tyson because he can't shoot. He would def have liked the old PJ Tucker (kind of a bigger Raja Bell), but tough to say now with PJ's three pointer leaving him lately. I think he'd like Booker and Warren and maybe even Knight.

Dunno if he'd like Len at this point, and he might have the guy outside shooting 3s like Channing Frye.

I bet Mike D would love Leuer. His kind of player.

Mike D would hate Archie Goodwin.

I agree that he'd play only 7 guys, though. Ugh. Never liked that about him.

Mori Chu wrote:

The next coach has to be willing to play younger players and develop younger players even at the expense of losing some games. DAntoni has never been willing to do that. You would see PJ and Tyson playing HUGE minutes. There will be 7 players he likes, and no one else will see the light of day. That's just how he rolls.

I think Mike D would hate Tyson because he can't shoot. He would def have liked the old PJ Tucker (kind of a bigger Raja Bell), but tough to say now with PJ's three pointer leaving him lately. I think he'd like Booker and Warren and maybe even Knight.

Dunno if he'd like Len at this point, and he might have the guy outside shooting 3s like Channing Frye.

I bet Mike D would love Leuer. His kind of player.

Mike D would hate Archie Goodwin.

I agree that he'd play only 7 guys, though. Ugh. Never liked that about him.

That just isn't true, though. There are plenty of things to complain about with him, but saying he only played 7 guys isn't one of them. He certainly played Nash too much at times, but the number of guys on his teams playing +30, +20, and +15 mpg look exactly like the Warriors the last couple years under Kerr, and deeper than the Bulls in their hey-day under Jackson, just for quick comparisons.

We are just a bunch of know it all fans that wanted to see more guys play... just like 90% of the NFL teams want to see their back up QB get more time.

Again, MikeDs system took off in NY with Lin, Landry, Billy Walker, Shump, Jared Jeffries (!?!), Novak and Chandler all getting minutes.

ShelC wrote:Again, MikeDs system took off in NY with Lin, Landry, Billy Walker, Shump, Jared Jeffries (!?!), Novak and Chandler all getting minutes.

Yeah, if he can make those guys look good he should be able to make a team with Bledsoe-Booker-Warren-Len/Chandler-Teletovic look alright. But if we're talking about sustained championship level growth then I'm not so sure.

BUT - it started with the point guard.

ShelC wrote:BUT - it started with the point guard.

Lin and Felton have both looked pedestrian (not terrible, but not great) since then. I feel like he could be just what Bledsoe needs. I 'm not saying we'll get a Nash-like performance out of him, but it'll be better offensively to some extent. Though defensively... I just don't know. I'm sad to not even see Thibs name on that premature list, which as I've sad before kind of sucks.

Indy wrote:

Mori Chu wrote:

The next coach has to be willing to play younger players and develop younger players even at the expense of losing some games. DAntoni has never been willing to do that. You would see PJ and Tyson playing HUGE minutes. There will be 7 players he likes, and no one else will see the light of day. That's just how he rolls.

I think Mike D would hate Tyson because he can't shoot. He would def have liked the old PJ Tucker (kind of a bigger Raja Bell), but tough to say now with PJ's three pointer leaving him lately. I think he'd like Booker and Warren and maybe even Knight.

Dunno if he'd like Len at this point, and he might have the guy outside shooting 3s like Channing Frye.

I bet Mike D would love Leuer. His kind of player.

Mike D would hate Archie Goodwin.

I agree that he'd play only 7 guys, though. Ugh. Never liked that about him.

That just isn't true, though. There are plenty of things to complain about with him, but saying he only played 7 guys isn't one of them. He certainly played Nash too much at times, but the number of guys on his teams playing +30, +20, and +15 mpg look exactly like the Warriors the last couple years under Kerr, and deeper than the Bulls in their hey-day under Jackson, just for quick comparisons.

We are just a bunch of know it all fans that wanted to see more guys play... just like 90% of the NFL teams want to see their back up QB get more time.

I think it is true. DAntoni would play 6 guys 30 minutes plus a game and usually three of those (Marion, Nash Bell) 35 minutes plus. No one else would even get in the 20's. The drop off between his 6th and 7th guy on the roster was usually huge.

I think part of the reason was the steep drop off in talent. We didn't have deep teams those years.

dragickingdom wrote:I think part of the reason was the steep drop off in talent. We didn't have deep teams those years.

Which was, in part, due to Mike D'Antoni the GM.

Flagrant Fowl wrote:

dragickingdom wrote:I think part of the reason was the steep drop off in talent. We didn't have deep teams those years.

Which was, in part, due to Mike D'Antoni the GM.

For one season?

And we would all agree that Mike D was an awful GM but that doesn't negate the fact that we had some awesome starters, a few great subs and then the bench was made up of a bunch of terrible players.... our young guys were Tucker and Strawberry. Neither of them turned out to be NBA level players.

JCSunsfan wrote:

Indy wrote:

Mori Chu wrote:

The next coach has to be willing to play younger players and develop younger players even at the expense of losing some games. DAntoni has never been willing to do that. You would see PJ and Tyson playing HUGE minutes. There will be 7 players he likes, and no one else will see the light of day. That's just how he rolls.

I think Mike D would hate Tyson because he can't shoot. He would def have liked the old PJ Tucker (kind of a bigger Raja Bell), but tough to say now with PJ's three pointer leaving him lately. I think he'd like Booker and Warren and maybe even Knight.

Dunno if he'd like Len at this point, and he might have the guy outside shooting 3s like Channing Frye.

I bet Mike D would love Leuer. His kind of player.

Mike D would hate Archie Goodwin.

I agree that he'd play only 7 guys, though. Ugh. Never liked that about him.

That just isn't true, though. There are plenty of things to complain about with him, but saying he only played 7 guys isn't one of them. He certainly played Nash too much at times, but the number of guys on his teams playing +30, +20, and +15 mpg look exactly like the Warriors the last couple years under Kerr, and deeper than the Bulls in their hey-day under Jackson, just for quick comparisons.

We are just a bunch of know it all fans that wanted to see more guys play... just like 90% of the NFL teams want to see their back up QB get more time.

I think it is true. DAntoni would play 6 guys 30 minutes plus a game and usually three of those (Marion, Nash Bell) 35 minutes plus. No one else would even get in the 20's. The drop off between his 6th and 7th guy on the roster was usually huge.

You can think it's true all you want, but the data shows something different. Heck, his last season here 9 guys played over 20 mpg.

Absolutely, Indy. I've never bought that part of the black legend surrounding D'Antoni, and here is why:

04-05 backups: Jackson, Hunter, Barbosa, McCarty. There were a bunch of kids in Jacobsen, Vroman, Lampe and Zarko that didn't play with the exception of Casey, until most of them were used to acquire Jackson. No one had an illustrious NBA career, all but Jake were out of the league after their rookie contract.

Second year, 05-06: Nash-Bell-Marion, plus Diaw, Barbosa, Kurt Thomas, James Jones, Eddie House and then Jackson until waived plus Tim Thomas when signed. Longest rotation of his tenure at 9. Human victory cigar Pat Burke haha. No kids to be put in the doghouse unless you want to count Skita.

06-07: JJones, Kurth Thomas, Barbosa to make it an 8 man rotation. Banks was tried but sucked. No kids this season either. This is the year with Jalen Rose, Jumaine Jones, Piatkowsky and Nets GM Sean Marks, besides Burke.

07-08: First year of Steve Kerr. Grant Hill signed, Shaq trade. Seven 'starters' plus Skinner, Banks around 12mpg. Giricek played 20mpg when he was signed. Kids marginalized: Alando Tucker, DJ Strawberry. Era's shortest rotation.

...

So, who were all these kids and quality veteran backups deserving of playing time a title contender in its prime? Washed up Jalen Rose? Alando Tucker? Marcus Banks? Give me a break. All garbage.

The picks we sold, that's the blasphemy. Chicken or egg? Surely the HC had a role in that but it's hard to make Mike D the culprit when under now guru Steve Kerr the waste of picks got to an all time high.

Bit of a side note: Even tho MikeD was "GM" for a year, it was David Griffin doing the work. MikeD was GM in title only. It was Griffin running the FO ops and the one who targeted and signed Banks.

I think at that point my general frustration with the rotations was that Steven Hunter wasn't getting minutes even though he provided some semblance of rim protection and rebounding that we sorely missed. Later on in my general basketball appreciation I understood the spacing aspects of the game more. But I don't remember myself being *that* upset over the likes of Tucker and Strawberry (who's he?) not getting burn.

Tucker was awful and shouldn't have been drafted. DJ Strawberry was an athlete who was a 2nd rounder. Had some moments defensively but couldn't do anything with the basketball.

Steven Hunter could have and should have been getting more PT that first season, but he also couldn't catch the ball and had no bball IQ.

We definitely missed in terms of drafting during that stretch, either by trading away picks or taking "college vets" who would either help right away (they didn't) or be good lockerroom guys/practice players.

ShelC wrote:We definitely missed in terms of drafting during that stretch, either by trading away picks or taking "college vets" who would either help right away (they didn't) or be good lockerroom guys/practice players.

This was an issue that lasted for so long. Robin Lopez and Markieff Morris were selected supposedly because they were ready to go.

Indy wrote:

JCSunsfan wrote:

Indy wrote:

Mori Chu wrote:

The next coach has to be willing to play younger players and develop younger players even at the expense of losing some games. DAntoni has never been willing to do that. You would see PJ and Tyson playing HUGE minutes. There will be 7 players he likes, and no one else will see the light of day. That's just how he rolls.

I think Mike D would hate Tyson because he can't shoot. He would def have liked the old PJ Tucker (kind of a bigger Raja Bell), but tough to say now with PJ's three pointer leaving him lately. I think he'd like Booker and Warren and maybe even Knight.

Dunno if he'd like Len at this point, and he might have the guy outside shooting 3s like Channing Frye.

I bet Mike D would love Leuer. His kind of player.

Mike D would hate Archie Goodwin.

I agree that he'd play only 7 guys, though. Ugh. Never liked that about him.

That just isn't true, though. There are plenty of things to complain about with him, but saying he only played 7 guys isn't one of them. He certainly played Nash too much at times, but the number of guys on his teams playing +30, +20, and +15 mpg look exactly like the Warriors the last couple years under Kerr, and deeper than the Bulls in their hey-day under Jackson, just for quick comparisons.

We are just a bunch of know it all fans that wanted to see more guys play... just like 90% of the NFL teams want to see their back up QB get more time.

I think it is true. DAntoni would play 6 guys 30 minutes plus a game and usually three of those (Marion, Nash Bell) 35 minutes plus. No one else would even get in the 20's. The drop off between his 6th and 7th guy on the roster was usually huge.

You can think it's true all you want, but the data shows something different. Heck, his last season here 9 guys played over 20 mpg.

Yes, but guys like Gordan Giricek got minutes in only selected games. He only played in 22 games that season. His mpg look good but his total minutes are small. And two of those 9 were not on the roster at the same time (Shaq and Marion). So his functioning rotation in that season was only 7 deep. These are the total minutes for the season:

Nash 2780
Amare 2677
Marion/Shaq 2515
Bell 2646
Barbosa 2421
Diaw 2308
Hill 2222

The next closes guy in total minutes was Brian Skinner with 844. Anyway, no the talent of the depth was not that good. But I am not so sure that is not the way DAntoni wanted it. The main question, would be, is DAntoni the right guy for this team right now?

I don't think so. Its not even so much about the depth of the rotation. I just don't think he likes developing younger players. He likes coaching quality veteran teams who have the mustard to compete in the playoffs. I don't think he has the patience for what this team needs.

If we hired D'Antoni I would hate it mostly because I would have to listen to us constantly complaining about him until he was canned in a couple of years.