D'antoni has only had success with one system in his entire career, and then just fairly limited success. His success has always been with fast athletic teams who can run, pass, and shoot from the perimeter. Doesnt sound much like the Lakers of today to me. Is it possible he can run an offense that fits the Lakers players? Sure, we just havent seen it with success yet. He got fired from the Knicks just last year and the Knicks improved as a result. The Knicks! The Lakers hired him because he doesnt rub Buss the wrong way like PJ, he is a big name that people know, and he is cheap. That is what I call a move for the sake of 'public relations', not pure X's and O's.
Jackson has had success in the past with multiple types of players, including a strong post up player named Shaq, and won championships.
Ok, ignoring the other bit entirely...
D'Antoni had better than limited success, he took a mediocre team and turned it into a true contender. During the 3 years he and Nash had PHX at their pinnacle, they were one of the best 3 teams in the NBA. But for a dodgy application of the rules, then PHX may have beaten a very good Spurs team - and in all likelihood won the title.
The vital, pivotal part of the offense he ran with the Suns was the pick and roll. That's the centerpiece, the shooting stems off that, but that was it. Additionally to running at pace, their half-court offense was devastating too.
The Knicks? Well... I agree with you. I think that he tried to run the same offensive system and bend the players to fit that, and it failed. Melo is completely the wrong type of player for many of the ideals D'Antoni preaches.
However, Jeremy Lin first had his successes under D'Antoni, and a lot of the offense the team played without Carmelo was redolent of his system.
But... I agree with you.
And I also agree with you that a motivated, enthused Phil Jackson is a better coach. Infinitely better.
But Jackson has never had a point-guard oriented team to run. That said, I think he's a smart enough guy to be able to work it so that Steve Nash would be the creative starting point. If motivated...
And that's really the point. Nearly everything I've read, everything I've heard, points to Phil Jackson not being totally motivated. Not really having the right reasons for taking the job.
Guys far more knowledgeable and *ahem* "brilliant" thee or me have stated that they know this, or at least believe it to be true.
Adrian Wojnarowski, Ryen Russillo, Bill Simmons. All think that the motivations PJ had for being interested weren't entirely above board.
If it's a choice between Phil Jackson of 2008/9 and D'Antoni, I take Phil. In a heartbeat. But if that choice becomes Phil circa 2010/11? Gimme Mike D'Antoni.
Mike D'Antoni isn't coming cheaply. I believe that it's a 4 year deal (4th year a team option), at around 4 mil a year (and the numbers could be way off on salary). That's cheaper than Phil, but not cheap.
A lot of experts have stated that an offense based on the pick and roll would be a better fit for LA than returning to the triangle. Only Gasol/Bryant/Blake really know the triangle, and I don't think Steve Blake will even hold down the back-up role that long. Yeah, I'm choosing to believe that D'Antoni won't try run the SSOL with LA. If mugs like you and I can see that this would be a bad fit, I think that D'Antoni will be able to see that too - from all reports he's a really smart guy.
Additionally, contract length. If Phil came aboard, then he's coach for a maximum of 2 years. I have difficulty seeing him being motivated beyond a few months, much less when he's nearly 70. That would mean a new coach when the franchise is looking to retool around Dwight. Bad idea. This way, they get to have a coach in place who can oversee the building around Dwight.
Err... part two coming up!
http://with-malice.com/ - The half-crazed ramblings of a Lakers fanatic in Japan