Tom Thibodeau resurrected the Knicks, but firing him might be the only way to get to the next level

By Sam Quinn

Quinn is a knowledgable, smart guy who I respect.

The focus of Quinn's indictment of Thibodeau is the latter's wooden reliance on the starters that he decides on at the beginning of the regular season.

No team relied [as] heavily on its starters in the regular season than the Knicks. ...Cracks started showing in that unit during the regular season, then the wheels fell off in the playoffs. It took losing back-to-back home games in the conference finals to make a change.

It was necessary, but it was also desperate. Most successful coaches treat the regular season somewhat experimentally. They try different lineups so they can see what combinations work and are ready to adapt in the playoffs. Thibodeau didn't do that...He rarely does. His commitment to his starters is notorious among head coaches. The rest of the series reeked of panic. That's what leads to minutes for Delon Wright and Landry Shamet...

...

Never did Thibodeau address the core playing style concerns here. The Knicks lost their defensive identity with Isaiah Hartenstein. ...

I believed when it happened that losing Hartenstein--to Oklahoma City!--would hurt; it turned out to be the most impactful move on the "Knicks" roster last summer, negatively impactful.

I was intrigued by the "Knicks" last season and this; I was delighted by the "Nova Knicks"; I followed them fairly closely; I was aware of Thibodeau's Billy Martin-esque overuse of his starters, to the detriment of their physical soundness and of the team's prospects for sustained success; I was lukewarm on the Randle-Towns trade, Randle had to go but KAT did not seem an upgrade. What I saw in the Indiana series was Rick Carlisle comprehending Thibodeau's 82-game book at a glance and nimbly dismantling the book's entire thesis in six games. As Quinn says, knocking off Boston and having Cleveland eviscerated by these "Pacers" was a "golden opportunity" for Thibodeau and the "Knicks". 

"But playoff-level opposition and coaching weakened them significantly." 

Sam Quinn does not end his piece calling for Thibodeau to be replaced. I end my piece here calling for him to be replaced. With whom, I don't know, that's the sports-talk show host's smug retort to any fan who suggests a coaching change. Those are two separate, but related, decisions. Is change is necessary? That is first. That is a question that fans and management both can opine on intelligently. If change is deemed not necessary, then it is necessary not to change. The common fan can form valid opinion when a coach has not worked out, or when his methods have come up short because he watches the games. The fan does not know who is available as replacement and who is not. That is the second question and only management can answer. That's why they get paid the big bucks. When change is necessary, it is necessary for decision-makers to make a change.