RealGM

some of this is give and take.


e.g.
you deny the rim, you will let up more shots from three
e.g.
you can be last in the league at defensive 3pt % but
middle in the league at 3pt attempts given up


we need to switch more
we overhelp from the weak side way too much

Go figure. We don't protect the perimeter at all. It's ridiculous. It will be a problem when elimination games come into play.

Go get Ime

Mitch solves this.

Inexcusable when you have Bridges OG Hart and McBride on your team.

Those who believe Thibs can take this team to the promised land, please explain how a defensive philosophy that results in giving up the most open 3's in the universe gives us the best shot a championship.

I'm genuinely curious.

Please don't mention Mitchell Robinson being the savior. That's worse than folks saying Embiid can save the Sixers.

Thibs isn’t the guy folksssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It sucks but we need to start loosing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Iron Mantis wrote:Those who believe Thibs can take this team to the promised land, please explain how a defensive philosophy that results in giving up the most open 3's in the universe gives us the best shot a championship.

I'm genuinely curious.

Please don't mention Mitchell Robinson being the savior. That's worst than folks saying Embiid can save the Sixers.

In a league that prioritizes the 3 point shot, our dumbass coach instead protects the rim
Watching this laker Knick game live at the garden made me want to yell down on Thibs’ head to STOP PLAYING DROP COVERAGE

The guy’s an idiot, we have to solely rely on the talent of players on the team, whereas scheming alone can actually net you a few wins in the league some games

Kampuchea wrote:Mitch solves this.

We have always given up either a high volume of threes relative to our pace, a lot of makes or a high percentage. The last time Mitch was healthy we were 23rd in the league in opponents 3 point makes per game. Our scheme gives up threes, whether it's attempts or makes or percentage, we're at the bottom of the league in 1 of those 3 things fairly consistently because our scheme leads to open threes.


Mitch played 72 games the year we were 23rd in opponent makes, and 27th in opponents attempts. You play against Thibs, you're going to get clean looks.

Kampuchea wrote:Mitch solves this.

The same guy who is never available ?
We relying on a guy who maybe plays 20 games a year?
What about the other 62 games??

Iron Mantis wrote:Those who believe Thibs can take this team to the promised land, please explain how a defensive philosophy that results in giving up the most open 3's in the universe gives us the best shot a championship.

I'm genuinely curious.

Please don't mention Mitchell Robinson being the savior. That's worse than folks saying Embiid can save the Sixers.

-I don’t think this roster has enough talent to win a title
-I also don’t think Thibs is maximizing this roster completely.

Let’s face it, you don’t have to be an elite coach to win a title but you just need superior talent. There are only a handful of teams in the league that are more talented than the Knicks but they’d probably beat the Knicks regardless of who is coaching this team. With that said Thibs clearly isn’t maximizing the team defensively and he runs very little offensively. I just think the insistence of Thibs being the reason the Knicks aren’t true contenders is just scapegoating 101.

I blame MSG.

Iron Mantis wrote:Those who believe Thibs can take this team to the promised land, please explain how a defensive philosophy that results in giving up the most open 3's in the universe gives us the best shot a championship.

I'm genuinely curious.

Please don't mention Mitchell Robinson being the savior. That's worse than folks saying Embiid can save the Sixers.

I said this before this year (and will keep saying it) . Thibs drop coverage looks great when the pieces are just right and horrible when they aren't. The rim protecting 5 is a critical piece of it.

In theory things will look markedly better with Mitch in the middle. The other guys wont nearly have to cheat as much in to protect the paint and can play the guys on the perimeter consistently much closer than they do now.

NoDopeOnSundays wrote:

Kampuchea wrote:Mitch solves this.

We have always given up either a high volume of threes relative to our pace, a lot of makes or a high percentage. The last time Mitch was healthy we were 23rd in the league in opponents 3 point makes per game. Our scheme gives up threes, whether it's attempts or makes or percentage, we're at the bottom of the league in 1 of those 3 things fairly consistently because our scheme leads to open threes.


Mitch played 72 games the year we were 23rd in opponent makes, and 27th in opponents attempts. You play against Thibs, you're going to get clean looks.

Look at the numbers post OG when either Mitch or IHart were on the floor. Drastically different and not a tiny sample size either. Thibs D needs enough elite wing defense combined with an elite defensive 5 in the middle. When he has that the D is phenomenal .

imo.

I think our current championship odds are a bit underrated because of how the team is tailor built for the playoffs.


but this is going to be my new "go get kat" prediction

Thibs always trying to defend the rim like Beiber at a Diddy party. Needs to relax and focus on other efforts.

KnixinSix wrote:

NoDopeOnSundays wrote:

Kampuchea wrote:Mitch solves this.

We have always given up either a high volume of threes relative to our pace, a lot of makes or a high percentage. The last time Mitch was healthy we were 23rd in the league in opponents 3 point makes per game. Our scheme gives up threes, whether it's attempts or makes or percentage, we're at the bottom of the league in 1 of those 3 things fairly consistently because our scheme leads to open threes.


Mitch played 72 games the year we were 23rd in opponent makes, and 27th in opponents attempts. You play against Thibs, you're going to get clean looks.

Look at the numbers post OG when either Mitch or IHart were on the floor. Drastically different and not a tiny sample size either. Thibs D needs enough elite wing defense combined with an elite defensive 5 in the middle. When he has that the D is phenomenal .

Trouble is we don't have iHart anymore. So when Mitch comes back he'll likely back up KAT for 20 minutes. Not confident Mitch will play more than that, or play with KAT much. So will having that elite defensive 5 for 20 minutes, and KAT the rest of the time, be enough? It will help, but how much? And it seems unlikely Thibs would play one way with KAT, ie switching more, and drop coverage only during Mitch's minutes.

It's true though, the defense was really good last year. I recall the guy who makes coaching videos, called Awful Coaching or something like that? Last year he had videos showing how bad certain coaches defensive systems were, but when he did the Knicks he was full of praise when breaking down the Knicks' schemes and rotations, especially in January 2024.

KnixinSix wrote:

NoDopeOnSundays wrote:

Kampuchea wrote:Mitch solves this.

We have always given up either a high volume of threes relative to our pace, a lot of makes or a high percentage. The last time Mitch was healthy we were 23rd in the league in opponents 3 point makes per game. Our scheme gives up threes, whether it's attempts or makes or percentage, we're at the bottom of the league in 1 of those 3 things fairly consistently because our scheme leads to open threes.


Mitch played 72 games the year we were 23rd in opponent makes, and 27th in opponents attempts. You play against Thibs, you're going to get clean looks.

Look at the numbers post OG when either Mitch or IHart were on the floor. Drastically different and not a tiny sample size either. Thibs D needs enough elite wing defense combined with an elite defensive 5 in the middle. When he has that the D is phenomenal .

You're talking about a small sample size, like we gave up a ton of threes in the playoffs too, the Sixers made 13.5 per game against us which was 3rd worst, and they shot 37.9%. That was with OG, Mitch and IHart.

The scheme gives up threes, it has always given up threes and why teams attempt so many threes against us. It just comes down to variance and whether or not the opponents make them, but you have seen it over and over again over the last 5 years. A team plays us, takes a lot of threes and sometimes they start to make a lot of threes because those are the shots our scheme is conceding. There's a reason why teams don't play blanket defense against every opponent, some teams call for drop and others don't, but we do the same thing against everyone regardless of personnel.

This forum is depressing. Let me log out till the playoffs.
Knicks fans not see eye 2 eye lately.

And I'm tryna to ignore the mitch hate.. the internet is not a safe zone right now.

Mental note 2 myself. Stay away from Knicks fans talking vile about mitch

NoDopeOnSundays wrote:

KnixinSix wrote:

NoDopeOnSundays wrote:


We have always given up either a high volume of threes relative to our pace, a lot of makes or a high percentage. The last time Mitch was healthy we were 23rd in the league in opponents 3 point makes per game. Our scheme gives up threes, whether it's attempts or makes or percentage, we're at the bottom of the league in 1 of those 3 things fairly consistently because our scheme leads to open threes.


Mitch played 72 games the year we were 23rd in opponent makes, and 27th in opponents attempts. You play against Thibs, you're going to get clean looks.

Look at the numbers post OG when either Mitch or IHart were on the floor. Drastically different and not a tiny sample size either. Thibs D needs enough elite wing defense combined with an elite defensive 5 in the middle. When he has that the D is phenomenal .

You're talking about a small sample size, like we gave up a ton of threes in the playoffs too, the Sixers made 13.5 per game against us which was 3rd worst, and they shot 37.9%. That was with OG, Mitch and IHart.

The scheme gives up threes, it has always given up threes and why teams attempt so many threes against us. It just comes down to variance and whether or not the opponents make them, but you have seen it over and over again over the last 5 years. A team plays us, takes a lot of threes and sometimes they start to make a lot of threes because those are the shots our scheme is conceding. There's a reason why teams don't play blanket defense against every opponent, some teams call for drop and others don't, but we do the same thing against everyone regardless of personnel.

Our team was decimated by injury in the playoffs. When we were most healthy the D was much better. Mitch allows you not to sag in the paint as much and play the perimeter more straight up.

This is most definitely part Thibs fault, however Mitch allows him to not worry quite as much about packing the paint.