Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35750 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:17 pm Post subject: Better coach between D'Antoni and Luke?
D'Antoni is about to win Coach of the Year while Luke has guided the Lakers to the worst record in the Western conference. D'Antoini's 27-55 record in 2013-2014 was also superior to the current pace for this season despite the fact that he had less talent to work with. Is it time to admit that either D'Antoni wasn't that bad or that Luke isn't that good? (Or both). _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Even during his time here, he got the best from most if not all of our players even when their skill sets did not fit his system at all. And even then, a team with Nick Young as our best player was a 27 win team.
The irony is that this is the roster that Dantoni would have loved here. DLO would be a near triple double machine with Dantoni here and the 3 point shooting would be way more improved than what what we are seeing this year.
D'Antoni may have accomplished more thus far, but Luke is only in his first season. D'Antoni's best teams benefitted from having an allstar roster (e.g., Suns) and/or an MVP-caliber player. Luke is coaching a team of players that have very little NBA experience. I realize this is similar to the argument made about Phil, but the difference is D'Antoni hasn't won (bleep). I think it is highly probable that Luke will accomplish more than D'Antoni in his coaching career.
As another poster said, I would LOVE to see what MDA could have done with our guards. Definitely would get more out of them than Luke has. Like still doesn't know whether to play DLo at 1, off the bench, or at the 2.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90299 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:13 pm Post subject:
Kind of silly to compare a rookie to a vet in terms of who is better right now. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35750 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:14 pm Post subject:
BadGuy wrote:
D'Antoni may have accomplished more thus far, but Luke is only in his first season. D'Antoni's best teams benefitted from having an allstar roster (e.g., Suns) and/or an MVP-caliber player. Luke is coaching a team of players that have very little NBA experience. I realize this is similar to the argument made about Phil, but the difference is D'Antoni hasn't won (bleep). I think it is highly probable that Luke will accomplish more than D'Antoni in his coaching career.
Nash was not a real MVP level player-- he just looked like one in D'Antoni's offense, which generally makes people look around a level better than they really are. (So a scrub like Kendall Marshall looks like a legitimate starter, a fringe starter like Jeremy Lin looks like an All-Star, and a mid-level All-Star like Nash looks like an MVP).
Amar'e was one of the most overrated players of this generation. _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
D'Antoni got a raw deal, but comparing him to a first year coach is not reasonable. Playing down multiple MVP award winner Steve Nash's prowess to make your point is weak. Anyone who watched him play knows better.
D'Antoni may have accomplished more thus far, but Luke is only in his first season. D'Antoni's best teams benefitted from having an allstar roster (e.g., Suns) and/or an MVP-caliber player. Luke is coaching a team of players that have very little NBA experience. I realize this is similar to the argument made about Phil, but the difference is D'Antoni hasn't won (bleep). I think it is highly probable that Luke will accomplish more than D'Antoni in his coaching career.
Nash was not a real MVP level player-- he just looked like one in D'Antoni's offense, which generally makes people look around a level better than they really are. (So a scrub like Kendall Marshall looks like a legitimate starter, a fringe starter like Jeremy Lin looks like an All-Star, and a mid-level All-Star like Nash looks like an MVP).
Amar'e was one of the most overrated players of this generation.
His system help players stats but to down play how good Steve Nash was is crazy.
The guy was a sharp shooter who could drop a dime on any defense. The guy was a top 3 offensive player in the NBA. In my mind he was the best player to never win a ring
He was lucky to find a team with some pretty good defenders. In my eyes he's crap. Nobody will talk about Antoni in a few years. _________________ White guy to white guy alley oop
Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 10772 Location: Hoosier Nation
Posted: Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:16 am Post subject:
Apples and oranges but I went with Luke simply because he will be better at working with the ingredients he has once he gets more years under his belt. Dantoni is great when he has the right combination of players to run his system. If he doesn't he's screwed. Time will tell but I feel much better going forward with Luke. _________________ Not a legend
D'Antoni may have accomplished more thus far, but Luke is only in his first season. D'Antoni's best teams benefitted from having an allstar roster (e.g., Suns) and/or an MVP-caliber player. Luke is coaching a team of players that have very little NBA experience. I realize this is similar to the argument made about Phil, but the difference is D'Antoni hasn't won (bleep). I think it is highly probable that Luke will accomplish more than D'Antoni in his coaching career.
Nash was not a real MVP level player-- he just looked like one in D'Antoni's offense, which generally makes people look around a level better than they really are. (So a scrub like Kendall Marshall looks like a legitimate starter, a fringe starter like Jeremy Lin looks like an All-Star, and a mid-level All-Star like Nash looks like an MVP).
Amar'e was one of the most overrated players of this generation.
His system help players stats but to down play how good Steve Nash was is crazy.
The guy was a sharp shooter who could drop a dime on any defense. The guy was a top 3 offensive player in the NBA. In my mind he was the best player to never win a ring
To be fair too, Nash was never "Nash" without MDA. He was still good, but never quite the level of "Nash". Neither was Lin. And neither Harden.
I didn't think anyone expected Luke to be better than MDA this season. This is almost not even a serious question. Luke is 36 years old and just three years removed from his own playing career. MDA has coached for 20+ years internationally and the NBA, and ran the offense that influenced the direction the league eventually moved towards. If we wanted to win more games now, the obvious choice would be Mike. If we wanted a coach that could potentially grow into a great coach along with our current players (and beyond), then Luke could be the guy.
As for whether or not MDA was actually not as bad as his critics (many of whom reside here), the answer has been yes since 2014. He walked into a situation where people were unwilling to give him a chance because his name wasn't Phil Jackson, an older team that didn't fit his vision beyond the PG and had the worst injury luck any team can have. He's definitely a bit too unadaptable with his system and didn't handle the media or the Pau situation well, but he's a very good coach. Luke is currently average (at best) in regard to implementing his own vision and getting players to execute it.
Last edited by KBH on Thu Mar 23, 2017 8:33 am; edited 1 time in total
D'Antoni may have accomplished more thus far, but Luke is only in his first season. D'Antoni's best teams benefitted from having an allstar roster (e.g., Suns) and/or an MVP-caliber player. Luke is coaching a team of players that have very little NBA experience. I realize this is similar to the argument made about Phil, but the difference is D'Antoni hasn't won (bleep). I think it is highly probable that Luke will accomplish more than D'Antoni in his coaching career.
Nash was not a real MVP level player-- he just looked like one in D'Antoni's offense, which generally makes people look around a level better than they really are. (So a scrub like Kendall Marshall looks like a legitimate starter, a fringe starter like Jeremy Lin looks like an All-Star, and a mid-level All-Star like Nash looks like an MVP).
Amar'e was one of the most overrated players of this generation.
His system help players stats but to down play how good Steve Nash was is crazy.
The guy was a sharp shooter who could drop a dime on any defense. The guy was a top 3 offensive player in the NBA. In my mind he was the best player to never win a ring
To be fair too, Nash was never "Nash" without MDA. He was still good, but never quite the level of "Nash". Neither was Lin. And neither Harden.
But D'Antoni's system can only be given so much credit. Like any good offense, it put Nash at a greater position to succeed. You still have to have the skills to execute it. And he had already showcased his sharpshooting and elite vision prior to playing for D'Antoni. Nash-quarterbacked teams were ranked no. 1 in offense for nine years straight. That spans before and after D'Antoni. There's a reason he was still able to be an effective player and made an All-Star team at 39 without D'Antoni.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 1 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum