Tom Thibodeau is now 48-55 in playoff games as a HC

[tremonthustler1]

The flaws he has are flaws he refuses to address which might just cost him a ring. That's why people want him gone. The little things he does that frustrates people (like not benching the starters when the game is clearly in hand) causes fans to think he's not gonna fix other things.


The roster construction is on Leon Rose but also Gersson Rosas. Part of why even a fully healthy Mitchell Robinson will never play alongside KAT consistently in a starting lineup is because Rosas doesn't believe in that sort of roster construction. He's a 1-3-1 guy (1 point, 3 wings, 1 big).

 

[Po pimp]

THE bytch nikka
THAT DOVE INTO ROSE FOOT
EARLY IN THE 2012 SEASON IS
WHO RUINED ROSE CAREER.

HE DEALT WITH LOWER EXTREMITY INJURIES
ALL SEASON AFTER THAT.
(TURF TOE, ANKLE, GROIN)
HE KEPT COMING BACK AND
GETTING HURT AGAIN.

HE CAME BACK FOR THE PLAYOFFS
THEN THE ACL HAPPENED IN GAME ONE.

THE UNSTABLE ANKLE CAUSED
THE ACL INJURY


​

Anthony Tolliver. I remember that game. The Bulls were playing Minnesota. Ironically, they ended up being teammates in Minnesota.

Rose should’ve sat until his toe was fully healed, but I get him trying to be there for his team. If it happened in this era, it would be more accepted to sit. Also, I’ll never forget how Chicago cac sports media expected Rose to come back for the playoffs for the 2013 playoffs, talking about “he was CLEARED!”

 

[duckbutta]

What matchups was his team favorited in? Definitely nothing with the Wolves. They weren't picked to beat the Celtics this year either.

 

[EarlyEarly]

He knows he has to run the bench more now so I'd give him another year at least.

 

[Rasille]

He had guys playing 43 minutes in November

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

He knows he has to run the bench more now so I'd give him another year at least.

He had guys playing 43 minutes in November

Playing the starters too many minutes isn’t why they lost. They couldn’t get stops and a huge reason for that is that their best lineups have them playing 3 on 5 defensively. Firing him doesn’t change the fact that they’ll have to hide their 2 best players on defense.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Playing the starters too many minutes isn’t why they lost. They couldn’t get stops and a huge reason for that is that their best lineups have them playing 3 on 5 defensively. Firing him doesn’t change the fact that they’ll have to hide their 2 best players on defense.

It can certainly be attributed to why they ultimately lost.

I know there was a dominant narrative earlier in the postseason about how playing those guys all those minutes had them conditioned more than other teams, but we saw in the ECF that they ended up being less effective because they ran out of gas. You compare that to the Pacers who were able to keep up longer sustained runs (and defend more effectively) because they didn't just rely on such a restricted rotation.

It's why Indiana had the luxury of using Nembhard and Nesmith to pick up ball-handlers from 94ft and hound them in the halfcourt, because they weren't relying on them to also be constants everywhere else. They could primarily focus and conserve energy for those designated roles. You then compare that with the Knicks who essentially only had one player in that role [Hart], while also needing him to crash the glass, handle the ball, be a playmaker and be a talisman of energy.

Where the Pacers often extended their rotation to 9 players to spread the load, the Knicks often kept it to 6-7.

We then saw Thibs finally playing the likes of Shamet and Delon, who proved to be effective additions to the rotation (the former more than the latter), but it was too little too late. They should've been utilized more during the regular season and playoffs and it would've relieved a lot of burden from the main guys, allowing them to be more effective at what they do.

 

[Remote]

Talisman.
That’s a good word.

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

It can certainly be attributed to why they ultimately lost.

I know there was a dominant narrative earlier in the postseason about how playing those guys all those minutes had them conditioned more than other teams, but we saw in the ECF that they ended up being less effective because they ran out of gas. You compare that to the Pacers who were able to keep up longer sustained runs (and defend more effectively) because they didn't just rely on such a restricted rotation.

It's why Indiana had the luxury of using Nembhard and Nesmith to pick up ball-handlers from 94ft and hound them in the halfcourt, because they weren't relying on them to also be constants everywhere else. They could primarily focus and conserve energy for those designated roles. You then compare that with the Knicks who essentially only had one player in that role [Hart], while also needing him to crash the glass, handle the ball, be a playmaker and be a talisman of energy.

Where the Pacers often extended their rotation to 9 players to spread the load, the Knicks often kept it to 6-7.

We then saw Thibs finally playing the likes of Shamet and Delon, who proved to be effective additions to the rotation (the former more than the latter), but it was too little too late. They should've been utilized more during the regular season and playoffs and it would've relieved a lot of burden from the main guys, allowing them to be more effective at what they do.

It might have helped to some degree, but watching the pacers make a point to go after Brunson on defense all series long showed me there was a major weakness the Knicks had that you can only scheme around so much. Deepening the bench might help somewhat, but they still have the issue of their 2 best guys being traffic cones on defense which forces them to build the rest of the roster to cover up for that as best they can.

 

[MVike28]

His attachment to Josh Hart is infuriating.

 

[Remote]

His attachment to Josh Hart is infuriating.

So let’s say Josh Hart isn’t the answer for the Knicks.

What player…or what kind of player (if you don’t want to name a specific guy) do you think is missing that would take the Knicks to the next level?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

It might have helped to some degree, but watching the pacers make a point to go after Brunson on defense all series long showed me there was a major weakness the Knicks had that you can only scheme around so much. Deepening the bench might help somewhat, but they still have the issue of their 2 best guys being traffic cones on defense which forces them to build the rest of the roster to cover up for that as best they can.

It is true that Brunson's inability to defend was a thorn in his team's side. But that's only because the Knicks allowed him to be picked on as often as he was.

And the only way to not only mitigate that, but snuff out that flame from burning them is, playing more guys.

Playing someone who can operate solely as his bodyguard, playing guys that are of similar ilk to Nesmith/Nembhard who can disrupt opposing teams on offense before they have a chance to target him, playing guys who can take the load off him on offense so he does have a bit more energy to conserve for defense, playing guys who can spark them offensively to help dictate the nature and control of the game.

The Pacers were allowed to just go at Brunson because the Knicks didn't do anything on defense to break up their momentum. Since he'll almost always be the weak link in the lineup whenever he's on the floor, you have to limit the opportunities where the opposing team can expose that. And you certainly can not do that if you're playing 6-7 guys all the time.

It was easy for the Pacers to identify how to get at him and get into a rhythm of doing that, simply because the Knicks were too predictable, too one-dimensional and didn't have the energy to do anything else.

 

[Remote]

It is true that Brunson's inability to defend was a thorn in his team's side. But that's only because the Knicks allowed him to be picked on as often as he was.

And the only way to not only mitigate that, but snuff out that flame from burning them is, playing more guys.

Playing someone who can operate solely as his bodyguard, playing guys that are of similar ilk to Nesmith/Nembhard who can disrupt opposing teams on offense before they have a chance to target him, playing guys who can take the load off him on offense so he does have a bit more energy to conserve for defense, playing guys who can spark them offensively to help dictate the nature and control of the game.

The Pacers were allowed to just go at Brunson because the Knicks didn't do anything on defense to break up their momentum. Since he'll almost always be the weak link in the lineup whenever he's on the floor, you have to limit the opportunities where the opposing team can expose that. And you certainly can not do that if you're playing 6-7 guys all the time.

It was easy for the Pacers to identify how to get at him and get into a rhythm of doing that, simply because the Knicks were too predictable, too one-dimensional and didn't have the energy to do anything else.

Prefacing this by saying that Brunson is NOT Curry.

But Curry was perceived as a weak link in the Golden State defense, even in their dynasty years. How true that was…may be up for debate. But do you see any parallels or potential lessons the Knicks could take from the way the Warriors constructed their lineups to make Curry less of a liability and apply them to Brunson and their lineups?

 

[In The Zone '98]

It is true that Brunson's inability to defend was a thorn in his team's side. But that's only because the Knicks allowed him to be picked on as often as he was.

And the only way to not only mitigate that, but snuff out that flame from burning them is, playing more guys.

Playing someone who can operate solely as his bodyguard, playing guys that are of similar ilk to Nesmith/Nembhard who can disrupt opposing teams on offense before they have a chance to target him, playing guys who can take the load off him on offense so he does have a bit more energy to conserve for defense, playing guys who can spark them offensively to help dictate the nature and control of the game.

The Pacers were allowed to just go at Brunson because the Knicks didn't do anything on defense to break up their momentum. Since he'll almost always be the weak link in the lineup whenever he's on the floor, you have to limit the opportunities where the opposing team can expose that. And you certainly can not do that if you're playing 6-7 guys all the time.

It was easy for the Pacers to identify how to get at him and get into a rhythm of doing that, simply because the Knicks were too predictable, too one-dimensional and didn't have the energy to do anything else.

You can't just argue play more guys, knowing full well the Knicks don't have a roster full of capable two way players

McBride/Payne/Landry/Wright. All struggle with shot creation because they can't dribble. What really justifies playing these dudes more than 10 minutes a game?

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

Prefacing this by saying that Brunson is NOT Curry.

But Curry was perceived as a weak link in the Golden State defense, even in their dynasty years. How true that was…may be up for debate. But do you see any parallels or potential lessons the Knicks could take from the way the Warriors constructed their lineups to make Curry less of a liability and apply them to Brunson and their lineups?

To further expand on the Warriors' liabilites on defense -

They've also had to navigate not having any legitimate bigs, relying on a 6-6 aging forward to anchor them on that end of the floor for years now. They had the #1 defense in 2022 when Kevon Looney was their only big man; arguably the worst frontcourt rotation in the league, yet it didn't stop them from having championship success on the back of having the best defense.

And the reason behind why they managed to cover up those holes is all due to their system/culture.

Moving the ball, empowering role players to be the best version of themselves keeps them engaged and playing as a collective, so that they continue to play as one on defense too. If you develop that level of synergy, it's much easier to be willing to understand and execute on defense, covering up what could be perceived as deficiencies. We don't have to look any further than Wiggins going from someone who was perceived as an non-impactful player in Minny, to going to GS and doing all things that it took to win.

It's much easier said than done though because Steph is naturally a good team defender and his selflessness allows others to be their best selves. The Knicks will have to convince Brunson to become less ISO-dependent.

You can't just argue play more guys, knowing full well the Knicks don't have a roster full of capable two way players

McBride/Payne/Landry/Wright. All struggle with shot creation because they can't dribble. What really justifies playing these dudes more than 10 minutes a game?

That's all up to the coach to utilize them properly. Very few rosters in the league have capable two way players like that.

If they struggle with creating their own offense, then that's where ball movement and moving without it come into play. In general, every single player can make basic close-quarter passes, hand-offs, cuts, dives etc, you just have to get them to buy into doing it. Some of the best lineups the Knicks ran in the ECF were primarily made up out of bench guys, so I'm really not trying to hear that McBride, Landry and Delon are so limited that they can't play any more than 10 minutes with a proper system, especially when you can mix and match them with certain starters in accordance to balance.