Papabear wrote:orangeblobman wrote:Papabear wrote:orangeblobman wrote:Papabear wrote:orangeblobman wrote:What's horrible about it, NJ? I am not being jerk, just wondering what you saw as bad coaching.
Papabear Says
Bad coaching is when you keep a man on the bench who could maybe help this team and you put some one else in who haven't played. Bad coaching is when you see that the shooters on the floor has gone cold and the one person on the bench who might be able to give us some quick fire power just because of a personal situration.
So what's good coaching to you? Isiah Thomas is hall of fame coach?
Nate CAN"T help, get that through your head. He has hurt this team more than helped. Just because a player puts up 17 ppg doesn't mean he's good or worthy of playing time. Tony Campbell put up 20 ppg back in 91 for the Wolves. He sucked.
Papabear Says
So Nate was to blame for all those losses. Thanks for telling me. Let's just see what happens in the next 10 games. Nate might have been a clown but he surely is not to blame for the Knicks failures. Maybe it just make you feel better by saying that.
He's not to blame, but he didn't help them win, either. Nate is a highly overrated player by a lot of weak fans in this area. People who prefer to watch basketball and not some WWF spinoff do not enjoy watching Nate goof off constantly.
Nate is welcome on the team and if he shows that he has changed his stupid ways and if there is an opportunity or a need for him to come in, he will come in and be given yet another chance. We wait until then. Personally, I don't really want to see him play for the Knicks again, but if the situation makes that necessary and he can prove his change then all is ok.
Papabear Says
Nate is who he is and he can help this team win games, but the problem is not Nate. It's the whole team. There is no consistancy. We have no go to guy in the crunch. And don't tell me about Gallo because he ain't there yet. The best go to guy this team have when they are in a crunch is Nate. He can hit the 3, he can hit the 20 ft jumper, and he can drive to the basket.
You probably wouldn't care if we got back nothing for even trading Nate, or Curry.
We have no go to guy in the crunch
You are right and that really is the problem. And I agree that we ideally should put Nate in off the bench to give the team an offensive boost when the offense is sputtering. Every good team has a player like that, and Nate should be ours.
I personally don't like short rotations because you keep too many players unhappy and cold. And you burn out the starters.
However, MDA is the coach and he should have authority and control of the team. He was given that responsibility and so I will go with it. Is it personal with Nate? Probably. But every coach has his ways.
One thought on this. How is Nate looked upon by the other Knick players? When Nate was benched the team responded positively by playing well. I think MDA has given Nate an ultimatum and Nate hasn't succumbed to following it? And therefore not playing. MDA is not going to give up his control of all of the players. Remember when Isiah gave Marbury an ultimatum for leaving the team and Isiah said he waon't start Marbury. But when Marbury came back, Isiah started him....and promptly lost the team and any respect he had from the other players. Could be a similar situation.
The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense.
Tom Clancy - author
