Charles Barkley slams Knicks amid team's search for next head coach
The New York Knicks' plan to hire a successor to Tom Thibodeau does not appear to be going so well at the start of the NBA offseason.
The team was rumored to be interested in former Cleveland Cavaliers assistant coach Jordan Ott before he took the Phoenix Suns' head-coaching job and the Cavaliers' associate head coach Johnnie Bryant, who the Knicks have yet to pull the trigger on bringing in.
ESPN reported over the last few days the Knicks have tried to reach out to several teams' current head coaches in an attempt to lure them via trade. Among those reportedly on the list were the Dallas Mavericks' Jason Kidd, Minnesota Timberwolves' Chris Finch, Houston Rockets' Ime Udoka and Atlanta Hawks' Quin Snyder. All to no avail.
Charles Barkley took a swipe at the Knicks' early offseaon woes.
"The Knicks gotta be the stupidest damn people in the world," Barkley said on NBA TV before Game 3 of the NBA Finals. "You don't fire no good coach like that and don't have a plan. I mean, Thibs did a hell of a job, obviously something's going on there. You don't have a plan? And now three coaches have turned you down. You've gotta have a plan, man. And they don't have a plan. I don't know what the hell they're going to do."
The Knicks fired Thibodeau after the team reached its farthest spot in the postseason since 2000.
New York was 51-31 and has a decent team built around Jalen Brunson. It is unclear what the offseason will hold for the organization.
Follow Fox News Digital's sports coverage on X, and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
27 minutes ago
- New York Times
Thunder struck with a midrange shooting slump at the wrong time in NBA Finals
INDIANAPOLIS — How do the Oklahoma City Thunder surprisingly find themselves down 2-1 to the Indiana Pacers in the NBA Finals? I can give you two versions of the story, both of which are equally valid. On one hand, there is the sheer fact of a more energetic Indiana side repeatedly outhustling, outscrapping, outrunning and ultimately outlasting Oklahoma City in Game 3. Call it 'energy' or 'playing with force' or whatever euphemism you want to use, but the tape doesn't lie. Rewatching the game on Thursday, the Thunder looked like a team on the last game of a four-games-in-five-nights trip. They played with little pace, were beaten to nearly every loose ball and completely ran out of gas at the end. Advertisement Of particular note was that the Thunder's best player was guilty on many of these fronts. Perhaps it's not surprising that Shai Gilgeous-Alexander was worn out by the end after a 42-minute stint where he was repeatedly attacked on defense while the Pacers picked him up full court on offense. What's a bit more shocking is how out of sorts the MVP looked even at the beginning. Eight seconds into the game, he picked up a frustration foul shoving away Andrew Nembhard. Minutes later, he already seemed exhausted. Check out this play, where he lets another player bring the ball up, jogs in a circle for a bit, then completely taps out of the play and grabs his shorts. This wasn't in the fourth quarter; it was in the fourth minute. Indiana's plan was to deny Gilgeous-Alexander from catching the ball anywhere, even 90 feet from the basket. After making baskets, Nembhard routinely raced in to deny an inbound pass before Gilgeous-Alexander could have a free catch. It was a nice adjustment by Indiana. What was amazing, however, was how meekly the Thunder acquiesced to this arrangement. On play after play, Gilgeous-Alexander either made no move at all to get open or pointed to a different player for the inbounder to pass to. One wonders if Gilgeous-Alexander was dealing with something physically, because he seemed to be conserving energy almost from the opening tip. Or maybe he just had a bad night; it happens. Gilgeous-Alexander was awesome in Games 1 and 2, and I expect the Thunder to give a much more valiant effort in Game 4. But underlying everything that happened in the first three games is another explanation, a bigger-picture question that's gnawing at me: Why can't the Thunder make 2s? Advertisement Oklahoma City has only made 47.4 percent of its 2-point shots this series, a ghastly figure that would have ranked last by a mile in the regular season. The league average was 54.5 percent; the worst team in the league (Charlotte) shot 49.9 percent. The poor shooting inside the arc is a key reason the Thunder offense is only posting a 113.6 offensive rating for the series after rolling to a 119.2 mark in the regular season (good for third in the league) and posting a 118.6 mark against a fearsome Minnesota Timberwolves defense in the Western Conference finals. Usually, a struggle like that could be explained by 3-point variance, but not here: Oklahoma City has made 39.8 percent from downtown in the three games. The Thunder are also drawing fouls at a high rate, making their freebies (83.6 percent) and doing solid work on the offensive glass. Even turnovers — Game 3 aside — have been a plus, with a very respectable 11.9 percent rate for the series. But the one area their offense figured to have a massive advantage has instead been a total zero. The Thunder ranked seventh in the league in 2-point shooting at 55.9 percent, while the Pacers were 23rd in 2-point defense at 55.4 percent — the worst mark of any playoff team. Additionally, 2-point shooting is usually more stable than 3-point shooting, and there should be less variance after three games because nearly twice as many shots are 2s. If you're wondering, the postseason's first three rounds didn't provide any indication that this dramatic shift would happen. The Thunder made 54 percent of their 2s against the Denver Nuggets and 55.7 percent against the Wolves. Indiana allowed the New York Knicks to shoot 56.1 percent in the conference finals and, before that, the injury-addled Cleveland Cavaliers made 52.8 percent against them. Based on the regular-season results, we'd expect the Thunder to be shooting 57 percent on 2s in this series, and instead, they're shooting a full 10 points worse. For three games, that's a difference of about 28 points (allowing for the fact that some of the extra misses were offensive rebounded), more than enough to swing the outcomes of Games 1 and 3. Advertisement Digging deeper on the 2-point woes, the main culprits are the Thunder's best players. Of the top fix Oklahoma City players in finals minutes, only Chet Holmgren has made more than half his 2s, and he's barely eeking past at 13-of-25 (52 percent). Jalen Williams has only made 42.5 percent of his 2s, and Gilgeous-Alexander just 50 percent, which is a problem since those two account for more than half the team's attempts. Personnel choices have likely been a factor, too. Isaiah Hartenstein and Aaron Wiggins were the team's two most accurate 2-point shooters in the regular season, combining for 13.2 attempts per game; they have only taken 16 the entire finals as the role of each has shriveled. Limiting fast-break points has been a factor: Oklahoma City averaged a whopping 17.2 fast-break points per game in the previous two rounds against Denver and Minnesota, but the Thunder have averaged a piddling 8.4 thus far in the finals. Subtracting some of those easy run-outs definitely impacts 2-point percentage; the Thunder shot 64.6 percent inside 5 feet in the regular season and 63.7 percent in the last two playoff rounds (even after I eliminated the four-game stampede over Memphis) but just 55.3 percent in these finals. The shooting stats also reveal a more mundane issue: The Thunder's two best players have missed a ton of makable middies. On 2s beyond 10 feet, Oklahoma City shot 46.4 percent in the regular season, 49.1 percent in the last two playoff rounds … and 36.1 percent in the finals. Williams lamented after Game 1 that many of his misses were on shots in his wheelhouse, 'shots that I rep,' as he put it. He missed all four of his long 2s while Gilgeous-Alexander went 2 of 8, hugely consequential misses in a one-point loss. Even in an otherwise strong performance in Game 3, Williams was 2 of 7 on 2s beyond 10 feet while Gilgeous-Alexander was 3 of 8. Most of them were clean looks, too. Even in the Thunder's breakout Game 2 win, the duo combined to shoot 7 of 13 on these shots; solid, but hardly a hailstorm. For the series, that makes them 14 of 40 on the midrange shots that have been a huge bulwark of the Thunder's half-court offense all season. For Williams, the pull-ups going left have abandoned him suddenly. This one from Game 3 is a practice shot for him, and it's not even close: Late in the third quarter, he had another example of a frustrating miss when he was isolated against the lumbering Thomas Bryant and easily got to a pull-up, only to have it hit three parts of the rim and bounce out. Similarly, Gilgeous-Alexander had some tough shots against good contests from the Pacers but also has to feel like he left some money on the table. He shoots about 99 percent when he turns baseline from the left block, but this shot over a lukewarm contest from Ben Sheppard didn't find the mark: He bonked another shot from the same spot in the second half, albeit under a bit more duress from Nembhard. So, what do we make of this? It's too reductive to say that the Thunder are just going to automatically make more long 2s next game; that's not how this works. And of course, this isn't the only element of shooting variance at work here; at some point, Lu Dort might cool off from 3, for instance, and I don't think the Thunder can count on their 'free-throw defense' to save them quite as many points in the upcoming games. Needless to say, if I were the Thunder, I'd be much more concerned about the effort and exhaustion piece of the puzzle, and particularly about how to manage Gilgeous-Alexander through games so he has some juice left to take over at the end. Advertisement Nonetheless, the Thunder probably need to solve both problems to win three of the next four and claim the franchise's first title in Oklahoma. Most expected that a Pacers' victory template would include their full-court pace and pressure gassing the mighty Thunder, but Oklahoma City's wayward 2-point shooting is an unforeseen complication. Sure, the law of averages might eventually tilt back the Thunder's way on these shots, but we don't have 82 games to wait. Their margin of error is gone. The effort needs to ramp up, and the middies have to start falling. (Top photo of Jalen Williams and Bennedict Mathurin: Maddie Meyer / Getty Images)
New York Times
27 minutes ago
- New York Times
We thought the Indiana Pacers were underdogs. But this team is a juggernaut
With each thrilling win, and with each step they take closer to achieving the first NBA title in franchise history, the Indiana Pacers are slowly testing our ability to consume and analyze the game of basketball. For so long, we've been conditioned to look at champions and great teams a certain way, with a certain formula and infrastructure. There has to be at least one superstar. There has to be a second star, capable of reaching All-NBA levels. There has to be a supporting cast around two or three players capable of making big plays and big shots at the same time. Even the 2011 Dallas Mavericks, for all of their talk about equal opportunity glory, featured Dirk Nowitzki, and his 2011 playoff performance qualified as one of the best individual runs in the history of the league. Advertisement Should the Pacers turn their current 2-1 NBA Finals lead over the Oklahoma City Thunder into a championship, they could be the most unique champion since the 2004 Detroit Pistons. And even that Pistons team had more star power, if we count the defensive brilliance of Ben Wallace and the all-around point guard artistry of Chauncey Billups. Those Pistons had four players make the All-Star team that season. These Pacers aren't built around superstar talent, although Tyrese Haliburton and Pascal Siakam are better than many of us gave them credit for entering these playoffs. They are built around depth, versatility and shooting, and a legendary head coach figuratively running circles around his counterparts, one eye-opening series at a time. They are built around having a roster full of players useful in playoff situations — there is a difference between just putting players on the floor and putting players on the floor who can contribute in the playoffs. They are built around the tenacity and ability to wear teams down with their speed, all the while finding defensive stops when needed. In five or 10 years, championship or not, this Pacers run will age well, because this is the new way to build a team in the new collective bargaining agreement era. The days of top-heavy rosters winning titles are gone. The Pacers and the Thunder proved that this season. The Boston Celtics proved that last season. The road to titles going forward is paved through having dynamic depth. That being said, because we aren't used to the Pacers, we call them an underdog. This series has all but been labeled as David deploying his slingshot at Goliath. With the Pacers winning two of the first three games, the word 'plucky' has been thrown around with the same ferocity of Myles Turner throwing Chet Holmgren around in the waning stretches of Game 3. Advertisement We need to stop. And we need to face reality. The Oklahoma City Thunder are fully capable of rallying to win this series. They were a great team in the regular season with 68 wins. They proved themselves a great team in the postseason by running through the Western Conference, with the Denver Nuggets their lone speed bump. But the results of this series shouldn't diminish that two things can be true: OKC is a great team, a basketball giant. And the Indiana Pacers are a great team, a basketball giant. We have to start thinking of this series as two phenomenal teams going at each other, and a series that has the potential to reach six or seven games. We have to stop thinking of this series as one great team against a team trying to pull off a gargantuan upset. This isn't that. This isn't Villanova trying to slay Georgetown in 1985. This isn't Jim Valvano and the 1983 North Carolina State Wolfpack taking down the Houston Cougars. Maybe the odds say so in Vegas. But, when you watch the Pacers, the narrative around them simply doesn't fit. I can understand why things are talked about in this manner. Getting used to change takes time, especially in basketball circles. It took us a few years to figure out we were watching an all-time great in Stephen Curry. And, frankly, the Pacers didn't give us much of a reason to pay attention in the first two months of the season. They were 10-15 in their first 25 games. That's usually a pretty decent sample, so, understandably, Indiana slipped off the radar, especially with the Cleveland Cavaliers' dominant regular season. But the Pacers have gone 54-22 since that start. They were 12-4 in the first three rounds of the playoffs. And nothing proves dominance more than dominating an entire conference during an entire postseason run. The Pacers rounded into a great regular-season team. But they have become an absolutely elite playoff team. Haliburton and Siakam are All-Star level players who have been better in the postseason. Indiana checks every box when you look for a potential champion. You need point-of-attack defenders to deal with the guard play the league has to offer: Andrew Nembhard is one of the best around at that. Advertisement You need an elite wing defender who can effortlessly switch through a lineup: Aaron Nesmith has rounded into that, after a rough start to his NBA career with the Celtics. A shooting big man unique enough to protect the rim is the dream: Turner is one of the prototypes. You need shooting up and down the rotation: Other than T.J. McConnell, the Pacers don't put a subpar 3-point shooter on the floor. And even McConnell is unique in his ability to break the paint off the dribble. Ideally, you need scoring off the bench. Bennedict Mathurin changed Wednesday night's Game 3 with 27 points. And Indiana's collective athleticism, which has jumped off the screen, even against an elite Oklahoma City team, is rarely discussed. The Pacers were the best team in the Eastern Conference since the start of the year for good reason. The talent was always there, but they became a unit on both ends of the floor. They have stayed relatively healthy, and the confidence they gained from a run to the Eastern Conference finals a year ago has clearly translated to this current run. Offensively, they consistently create pace, create open shots and make the open shots they create. Defensively, they have been stingy and difficult to crack. And that's why they find themselves two wins away from an NBA title. Whether they get there, they aren't an underdog. In retrospect, the 2011 Dallas team that current Pacers head coach Rick Carlisle took to the promised land wasn't. In real time, we should respect the Pacers, and the Thunder for that matter, a lot more than depicting Indiana as the little engine that could. The Indiana Pacers are a juggernaut. And we should recognize them as such. (Photo of Myles Turner: Maddie Meyer / Getty Images)
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How did Johni Broome's Auburn basketball experience impact his NBA Draft process?
For the first time in five years, Johni Broome isn't playing college basketball. Broome, who finished the 2024-25 campaign as a National Player of the Year finalist, is in the thick of the NBA Draft process, prepping to hear his name called June 25. But his final three years at the college level were spent with Auburn basketball, including the program's second Final Four appearance in March. Advertisement On Thursday, after a workout with the Golden State Warriors, Broome highlighted what he'd learned from this season and Auburn coach Bruce Pearl. They're lessons he said he's putting to work ahead of the draft. Broome said his biggest takeaway from the season was boasting an NBA-ready rebounding ability. "I averaged close to 11 rebounds this year, so obviously, rebounding wins basketball games," he said. "Rebounding gives you more possessions, and it gives guys like Steph Curry (chances) to shoot the ball more." The biggest message that remains from Broome's former coach was simple: "Keep my motor running." Advertisement "That was the thing he always told me to do, just keep my motor running," Broome said. "Try to play like a 6-4 wing instead of a 7-foot big. Get to lose balls. Just kind of go get the ball, basically." Adam Cole is the Auburn athletics beat writer for the Montgomery Advertiser. He can be reached via email at acole@ or on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, @colereporter. To support Adam's work, please subscribe to the Montgomery Advertiser. This article originally appeared on Montgomery Advertiser: How Johni Broome's Auburn basketball career impacts NBA Draft process
