The new HC of the Knicks is...

[TFoA]

Mike D'Antoni.

I kinda expected this. If it came down to a bidding war between the Bulls and the Knicks, the Knicks would win. They won, and D'Antoni has the unenviable job of turning the Knicks into Suns East. Good luck with that, seeing as how the East is basically all about defense.

[Starchild]

Terrible, terrible, terrible signing. I said it from the day he "fired" Isiah Thomas, only to keep him on in whatever bull capacity Dolan told him to come up with... I want Walsh gone. His first move was already the wrong one, and hiring D'Antoni is just as bad. The guy is 100% offense, 0% defense and just doesn't have the determination to succeed in New York, especially when you're basically known for winning 50-something games and never advancing to the Finals. That may be fine out in Phoenix, but here in NY, you're measured by winning when it counts (or at least getting into the Finals and giving it whatever you've got) and by how well you can deal with the scrutiny and constant calls for your head. If the buzz in Phoenix got to him with Steve Kerr wanting him to bump up the D and all that, how the hell is he going to succeed in NY giving the roster, the cap situation, the idiotic owner, the fans, the media, etc.

Looks like another 4 years of torture. Figure I'd be used to it by now after 22 of them...

[officeglenn]

Seems to me that D'Antoni will either be a tremendous success or a monumental failure in New York ? there will be no middle ground. The Knicks want him to turn their team into, as TFoA said, the Suns East, and either they will be so different from the rest of the Eastern Conference that they excel, or they will get buried by their defence-oriented opponents. The wild card in the whole thing is if Walsh can provide him with the same sort of players that Steve Kerr and, before him, Bryan Colangelo were able to. But with the deep pockets of Dolan ? as evidenced by the money they shelled out for D'Antoni himself ? that shouldn't be a problem.

[NJTank]

I agree bad choice he knows nothing of defense and New York when it wins uses defense.

[Coast2CoastAM2006]

i still think avery johnson would have been the better coach. He did a fairly decent job with the mavs, especially shoring up the defense.

[NJTank]

i still think avery johnson would have been the better coach. He did a fairly decent job with the mavs, especially shoring up the defense.

And he has the perfect personality for New York

[The Nation]

Let's see how good D'Antoni really is....I have a feeling this will be one of those times where a offensive guru comes in and becomes known as a defensive genius. I.E. Brian Billick going from Minnesota to Baltimore, or vice versa with Marvin Lewis Baltimore to Cincy.

[TFoA]

Let's see how good D'Antoni really is....I have a feeling this will be one of those times where a offensive guru comes in and becomes known as a defensive genius. I.E. Brian Billick going from Minnesota to Baltimore, or vice versa with Marvin Lewis Baltimore to Cincy.

Those were both football examples. I can't think of a situation where that happened in basketball.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Let's see how good D'Antoni really is....I have a feeling this will be one of those times where a offensive guru comes in and becomes known as a defensive genius. I.E. Brian Billick going from Minnesota to Baltimore, or vice versa with Marvin Lewis Baltimore to Cincy.

Those were both football examples. I can't think of a situation where that happened in basketball.

Not a perfect example, but the Showtime Lakers scored a lot of points per game, which the Riley teams in Miami and New York were much more defensive-minded.

[Saint Zephyr III]

The Knicks are everything that the Suns weren't. And it'll be TWO YEARS before D'antoni could even change the roster to his style of play because of how crappy the financial situation is over there.

Money wins, but as the pocket-burning Knicks have shown during the Isiah Era, money gets you very few things.

[nyk]

Imma die hard Knicks fans and I agree with all when I say this is a HORRIBLE deal for both parties involved. The Knicks need a defensive, get up in you face kind of coach. Mike D'Antoni is not that guy and should have went to Chicago. This is not the situation for him and he will get eattin alive here in New York City. I much perfered (1)Tom Thibadou, (2)Mark Jackson, or (3)Avery Johnson.

[Starchild]

Let's see how good D'Antoni really is....I have a feeling this will be one of those times where a offensive guru comes in and becomes known as a defensive genius. I.E. Brian Billick going from Minnesota to Baltimore, or vice versa with Marvin Lewis Baltimore to Cincy.

I'll bet my life that doesn't happen.

D'Antoni has has several years to tweak his scheme toward being more defensive... each year they win 50-plus games and get bounced prior to the Finals. Nothing. No tweaking. Nothing. Just more of the same. No thank you.

On top of that, nobody on this team fits with EITHER form of basketball. Nobody on this team is suitable for D'Antoni's run-and-gun system. None. On top of that, even if D'Antoni focused more on defense, nobody on the team is committed to playing defense either! I could've put a hamster as coach, it won't make a difference until the roster is turned over. Problem is, D'Antoni won't be around to see that come to fruition. I HIGHLY doubt he lasts all 4 years, hell, I doubt 2 of them. And it's going to take minimum 3 years to turn that roster around.

I was at least hoping the organization would bring in the proper personality to turn the culture around. You may not be able to WIN now, but you certainly can start building a winning CULTURE and foster a new, more positive environment for everyone. But, of course, that's not happening. Walsh pushed hard that he had complete autonomy to run the franchise... yet his first two moves, his most CRUCIAL of moves REEK of James Dolan. There's not a chance in hell that Walsh willingly signs D'Antoni after preaching hard for a defensive system and lobbying hard for Mark Jackson in Indiana, or with Avery Johnson and Tom Thibodeau on the table (TT potentially, at least).

[dfwabel]

I agree bad choice he knows nothing of defense and New York when it wins uses defense.

Don't you mean the following?

I agree. He knows nothing of (or about) defense and when New York wins, it uses defense.

And about Avery's personality. You want to take "country mouse" and immediately place him into the role of "city mouse"? Good luck. See 2006 NBA Finals following game 3.

Avery Johnson meltsdown during NBA Finals

You want this meltdown in a coach? The team was never the same after that game two years later and the question was from a Dallas reporter! What will occur in NYC with a team with less talent and higher expectations? He cannot be "Bob Knight" for 82 games a year.

As for PHX, that team had to be blown up last year as they could not beat the Spurs and to get to the Finals, they would most likely play the Spurs. The one year they did not see the Spurs, Dallas beat them in 6. They were not built for a championship and are not build for one currently, but they are damn exciting.

D'Antoni will be the Rick Pitino with a better pro style. High tempo which will keep fans interested, but will not win a title.

[Starchild]

I agree bad choice he knows nothing of defense and New York when it wins uses defense.

Don't you mean the following?

I agree. He knows nothing of (or about) defense and when New York wins, it uses defense.

And about Avery's personality. You want to take "country mouse" and immediately place him into the role of "city mouse"? Good luck. See 2006 NBA Finals following game 3.

Avery Johnson meltsdown during NBA Finals

You want this meltdown in a coach? The team was never the same after that game two years later and the question was from a Dallas reporter! What will occur in NYC with a team with less talent and higher expectations? He cannot be "Bob Knight" for 82 games a year.

As for PHX, that team had to be blown up last year as they could not beat the Spurs and to get to the Finals, they would most likely play the Spurs. The one year they did not see the Spurs, Dallas beat them in 6. They were not built for a championship and are not build for one currently, but they are damn exciting.

D'Antoni will be the Rick Pitino with a better pro style. High tempo which will keep fans interested, but will not win a title.

See, I don't get that. Where did this idea of "the Suns are exciting" come from? I never got a good argument from someone... hopefully you, or someone here can shed some light on this because I'm totally missing something.

The team routinely scores upwards of 100 points... their opponents also tend to score in bunches because of their poor defensive abilities, as everyone states without a problem. So where is the excitement? Let's say you've got a final score of like 150-120? Is that exciting, watching two teams score that much yet STILL get BLOWN OUT by like 30 points? That game is presumably over by like the 3rd quarter at worst. Is watching second-string guys light up the scoreboard exciting?

Call me crazy, but I'd MUCH rather watch a brand of Pistons/Spurs basketball, and not just because it's a throwback to the old 90s Knicks style of physical, defense-oriented ball. Isn't a final score of like 80-78 INFINITELY more exciting knowing you've got a remarkably close score, physical play, emotions running high and a potential final shot (or perhaps multiple depending on the clock) situation? You'll never see one of those miracle shots with the game clock winding down in a Phoenix Suns-style game as often as you would the Spurs/Pistons, etc. Those kind of games not only are super exciting and must-see television in terms of the drama of sports, but builds tremendous character in the participating teams as well as their fan bases. That Phoenix/San Antonio Game 1 was a classic specifically for this reason, and as people saw, the Spurs - because of their brand of basketball - are better suited and more prepared to win those tight contests. The run-and-gun style is like watching a noob and a seasoned pro go at it in NBA Live... run up the score, blow out by 30, game over by halftime, which is when most people would say "screw this" and simulate to the end of the game and start something new.

Am I the only one that just doesn't see the rationale behind the "high-scoring blowouts" being dubbed more exciting than tightly contested games?

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Hate to call bias, but you're a Knicks fan. Of course you feel that way. You've spent the last ten years watching defensive games and learning to react accordingly. Some people like more offense, some more defense. I think that so much of that depends on your favorite team and whether they're winning or not. Traditionally, the Knicks have been a defensive-minded team. If you've only like the Knicks your whole life, you probably will of course like that style. That's all.

I've been a Bills fan since the 1999 season. When I first started watching, they were a defensive team. In fact, they had the number one defense that year. However, when Drew Bledsoe came aboard in 2002, they became an offensive team. Because I'm so hopelessly biased towards the things I like, I was willing to accept my team's playing philosophy as the best one, so long as it won games. And in 1999 and 2002, those different philosophies did exactly that.

[NJTank]

Hate to call bias, but you're a Knicks fan. Of course you feel that way. You've spent the last ten years watching defensive games and learning to react accordingly. Some people like more offense, some more defense. I think that so much of that depends on your favorite team and whether they're winning or not. Traditionally, the Knicks have been a defensive-minded team. If you've only like the Knicks your whole life, you probably will of course like that style. That's all.

I've been a Bills fan since the 1999 season. When I first started watching, they were a defensive team. In fact, they had the number one defense that year. However, when Drew Bledsoe came aboard in 2002, they became an offensive team. Because I'm so hopelessly biased towards the things I like, I was willing to accept my team's playing philosophy as the best one, so long as it won games. And in 1999 and 2002, those different philosophies did exactly that.

Even in the Knicks glory days defense was the style. In the 70s the Knicks had the best defensive teams year in year out with DeBuschere, Reed, and Fraizer.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Well, yeah. That's what I'm saying.

[The_Admiral]

I don't see why New York has to win with defense. There's nothing about Madison Square Garden or the city of New York that necessitates playing defensive basketball. It's not like baseball, where park conditions at home and around the league dictate a certain style of play. They can just tear everything down and start over as a run-and-gun team. It might not be "Knicks basketball," but in this decade, that's a good thing.

[TFoA]

I don't see why New York has to win with defense. There's nothing about Madison Square Garden or the city of New York that necessitates playing defensive basketball. It's not like baseball, where park conditions at home and around the league dictate a certain style of play. They can just tear everything down and start over as a run-and-gun team. It might not be "Knicks basketball," but in this decade, that's a good thing.

They will win some games, trust me, if they can get the right personnel in there.

Problem is, this team goes against everything D'Antoni stands for as a coach. It's not just a mentality, it's just that he doesn't have the players for this style of play. His guys in Phoenix, with the exception of Shaq and a couple of other guys, were tailor made for this. Eddy Curry is not going to run up and down the court, Stephon Marbury is not going be the Steve Nash of this team. It's just a bad situation.

Even if they do adapt to taht style of play, it's not going to win them any championships in the East. Just because it's the East doesn't mean that a coach from the West is just going to come in and automatically win. It's not like D'Antoni really did much of anything, if you look at the big picture. Yeah, the media was enamored with the style of play his team played, but they didn't win much of anything, other than 50 win seasons on a consistent basis. They never got to the Finals, because they'd always run into a team that could play solid defense. And look at the top 2 teams in the East: The Celtics and the Pistons, especially. They are both at the top of the conference because they play outstanding defense. Until D'Antoni decides to add defense to his gameplans, he will win you some games and put a lot of butts in the seats, but he probably will never win a championship because the market probably won't give him enough time to tear everything down and start from scratch.

So it's not just a Knicks mentality, it's a winning mentality. Defense wins championships, and D'Antoni apparently doesn't believe in defense. So put two and two together, they will not win a championship, and the way their roster is now, they won't win too many more games, IMO.

[Starchild]

Hate to call bias, but you're a Knicks fan. Of course you feel that way. You've spent the last ten years watching defensive games and learning to react accordingly. Some people like more offense, some more defense. I think that so much of that depends on your favorite team and whether they're winning or not. Traditionally, the Knicks have been a defensive-minded team. If you've only like the Knicks your whole life, you probably will of course like that style. That's all.

You know, that's what I thought too. I always feel to the need to preface things by relating them to style of the old Knicks winning basketball that we all know.

But after giving it much thought, I still don't get it. Remove the Knicks from the equation. Let's say I've never cared about the Knicks and let's say I'm given a choice between watching two games:

Game 1: Pistons vs. Spurs, guaranteed to be a close contest, physical, lots of emotions colliding, tough defense, half-court offense and the potential for game-winning plays down the stretch.

Game 2: Suns vs. Nuggets, guaranteed to feature fancy passes, alley-oops, lots of up-and-down action, tons of shots, dunks and such and guaranteed to see a final score with both teams upwards of 100. However, both teams are sub-par defensive teams and thus, the potential for a gigantic blow out is there... one team is going to vastly outscore the other team at some point.

Now, I don't know about anybody else, but Game 1 seems better for spectators. You remain engaged, at least in my opinion. Game 2 just feels like an And 1 game with bigger names. I really feel like this whole "Suns are more exciting" argument is a biproduct of the SportsCenter highlights driven era in sports. The Sund provide a ridiculous amount of in-game highlights and "top play" nominees. The Spurs/Pistons do not. Today's fans just can't seperate true excitement in a sports event from exciting individual plays.

----

Admiral, the Knicks "have" to win using defense because, as previously stated by everyone, defense wins championships. And in NY, winning is the top priority. If a potent offense and sub-par defense was a recipe for championship success, believe me, NYers would be in favor of it. Win at all costs. However, it doesn't, it never has and it never will. If you can't stop the other team in a crucial spot, it doesn't matter how many points you can rack up. Also, you have to remember a NY state of mind and attitude... NY sports are often categorized by their heart, their intensity, their focus on winning, etc. (most recent history aside, of course). The great Yankees, Mets, Dodgers, Giants, Rangers, Knicks, etc. teams of the past all had combinations of those attributes (and more) and found success numerous times. Basketball is often called "the city's" game and as such, NYC style of basketball, contrary to all the streetball legends we've got and guys like Stephon Marbury and Sebastian Telfair as Coney Island "legends," NYC basketball is categorized by fundamentals, intensity and a hardworking style. You leave it all out there on the court, bring it for 48 minutes, 82 games+ per season. If someone gets in your face and pushes at you, you push back twice as hard. Stick up for your teammates. Execute when it counts. No easy layups. Etc. Mike D'Antoni's style of coaching and immediate legacy in Phoenix does not mesh with that mentality (and nor do any of the current players on the Knicks). He's the wrong coach for the job in as much as the roster is the wrong player personnel for the job as New York Knicks basketball representatives. Guys like Patrick Ewing, Charles Oakley, John Starks and Jeff Van Gundy (and for his time here, Pat Riley, may he burn in hell) understood this, embraced it, succeeded on the court with it and succeeded in bringing fans to the Garden consistently for years. Going to a Knicks game was a miracle if you weren't a season ticket holder. If that's going to happen again, you need to go back to that formula and bring in solid representatives for the on-court product.