[quote]
Posted by Nalod:

Marbs before he got hurt was playing great! A big turnaround!

Lee: Bonafied NBA player. And at a new position.

Frye: Top 3 rookie of the year thus far.

Jackie Blue: Making big progress and its shows.

Reezy: Getting shown what skills are needed to be in the league. He is being called out on his fundamentals.

Mo. T: Best season in a few years!

Qdog: Maybe our SF of the future?

Larry does have a positive footprint on this team.

THese questins still loom:

Curry: Seems like he is playing as well as last year. No camp and injuries are his excuse.
Nate: A 15 min novalty player.
Rose, AD, Penny: not an issue either way.
Qich: No nash, no value!



dont tell me about the individuals, tell me about the unit. How does the unit fit together and perform?


what does mo taylor best year in a few mean? how does that relate to tam play? is he earning 9.5mm a year with his improved play?

these other lottery teams have beaten up on the knicks because they are built more like teams, we are pieces of castoffs thrown together inchorently.

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by crzymdups:

and, DJ, I think that look on the players' faces isn't fear, it's confusion. they have not had solid roles all season. we've set a record for different starting lineups, somewhat due to injury, but mostly due to Larry.

A coach is supposed to bring leadership, but also consistency and an identity. This team has one of the only low post centers in the league, one of the best pick and roll PGs in the league, one of the best shooting big men in the league and we have no identity. That and the lack of a consistent lineup are totally on Brown. I give him a pass on Q (injury, the tragedy with his bro) and somewhat Curry (until New Year's), but his destruction of Craw, his toying with Marbury until New Year's, his toying with Frye, Ariza and Lee, all that is on Brown.

i guess it really is on how you see it. it could be toying or it could be weeding out the weak. regardless, it's pretty apparent that lb doesn't care about w's and l's (like many said) and it's about finding his guys for next season.

What exactly did David Lee do wrong as a starter, other than win six games in a row and averaged 8ppg and 8rpg?

I think Brown is trying to force these guys to play ways they can't, rather than focusing on what they can do.

I'm not saying this team should be a 50 win team, but there's no way that this team should have been under .500 before Marbury got hurt. With Marbury out and/or playing hurt, it's a different story.

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by crzymdups:

and, DJ, I think that look on the players' faces isn't fear, it's confusion. they have not had solid roles all season. we've set a record for different starting lineups, somewhat due to injury, but mostly due to Larry.

A coach is supposed to bring leadership, but also consistency and an identity. This team has one of the only low post centers in the league, one of the best pick and roll PGs in the league, one of the best shooting big men in the league and we have no identity. That and the lack of a consistent lineup are totally on Brown. I give him a pass on Q (injury, the tragedy with his bro) and somewhat Curry (until New Year's), but his destruction of Craw, his toying with Marbury until New Year's, his toying with Frye, Ariza and Lee, all that is on Brown.

i guess it really is on how you see it. it could be toying or it could be weeding out the weak. regardless, it's pretty apparent that lb doesn't care about w's and l's (like many said) and it's about finding his guys for next season.

What exactly did David Lee do wrong as a starter, other than win six games in a row and averaged 8ppg and 8rpg?

I think Brown is trying to force these guys to play ways they can't, rather than focusing on what they can do.

I think Q2 playing better may have benched Lee. It seems strange at the time, but Q2 acutally showed up and got better - in terms of performance - over a 3 game stretch. Not an end all, but nice.

And I think someone else hit it on the head. Brown is not out for the W's this year, he is out for the faster progression of the players so that the W's next year come faster, and that is why you see Brown forcing players to do what they are probably not 100% comfortable with.

Posted by Bippity10:

I just don't understand how a team can give efforts like they did last night(which isn't a rare occurence) and still expect consistent time. Until our players stop turning the ball over, start playing defense and give consistent effort we will not have a consistent rotation. Enough with the excuses for the players. There is a reason Marbs is the only guy that gets consistent minutes. He is the only one that deserves them.

That's ridiculous. You have to give player's a game plan and a role if you want to get results from them. You can't just throw the ball up and say, "make me believe in you." Not to rookies. Not when 8 guys on the roster are 25 or younger. That's a horrible way to teach, to coach.

For the record, I don't think we would be as bad as we look right now if Marbury was healthy and could drive to the hole and run pick and rolls.

Posted by Bippity10:

Well I seem to be the only one that noticed that when Marbs went down the team seemed to use that as an excuse to stop giving maximum effort. How do you reward that?

Just curious - as a coach, do you ever take responsibility for your players' lack of preparation?

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by Bippity10:

I just don't understand how a team can give efforts like they did last night(which isn't a rare occurence) and still expect consistent time. Until our players stop turning the ball over, start playing defense and give consistent effort we will not have a consistent rotation. Enough with the excuses for the players. There is a reason Marbs is the only guy that gets consistent minutes. He is the only one that deserves them.

That's ridiculous. You have to give player's a game plan and a role if you want to get results from them. You can't just throw the ball up and say, "make me believe in you." Not to rookies. Not when 8 guys on the roster are 25 or younger. That's a horrible way to teach, to coach.

crzymdups, here is one thing I will add. What if Brown has clearly communicated to his players his plan, and that plan being: Give 100% all the time. Here are each of your 3 top weaknesses, work on them. If you do both of those 2 things, I will give you playing time. If someone else does a better job than you at his things, they will get playing time. Effort, effort, preparation, preparation. Also, it'll take me about 2-3 months to sort through all of you guys, so give ME some time too.

Seems to me with the mix of rooks and vets he was given that may have been a fair message. Now, whether or not he actually spelled it out for the group in explicit terms is another thing.

Or maybe Brown is regarded as one of best coaches around and he suddenly turned looney. One of the 2.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by TMS:

you know it's a SAAAAD state of affairs when people are trying to bring up Don Chaney as an example of good coaching.

i will say this...if chaney was such a bad coach, and the team still won 37 games, then what was the reason? would they have more wins if they had another coach? if the answer to that is yes, then you're saying that roster was better than this one.

i wonder why Don Chaney hasn't been able to land a head coaching job if he did such a great job? come on, this is a weak example... there are plenty of reasons this team isn't doing well at this point... i love all the people who try & bottle 1 specific reason for all of this team's woes when there are so many - coaching, a flawed roster, distractions off the court, bringing in garbage players like JJ, injuries, underperforming players like Q Rich, suspensions, lack of leadership just to name a few... i've said all along that you can't just say great coaching has no effect on a team's performance, because it's a factor just like the roster is a factor that deserves consideration in this discussion...

obviously, LB hasn't done a great job as of yet (how can anyone possibly say he's done a great job w/the record this team currently has?) but does that mean i won't give him at least a full year or 2 to get this team started in the right direction? i gave Don Chaney over a year to prove he could get the job done... he failed... did he have a great roster? of course not... neither does LB right now... now it's up to Larry to prove he can get the job done, but in his case at least he's already proven he can lead a team to an NBA title, so he deserves alot more leeway than someone like Chaney does... to even mention their names in the same sentence is laughable to me.

i don't know what you're talking about dude but don chaney is probably one of the top coaches in knicks history.

if i had to rank them, it would go like this:

1. red holzman
2. bob hill
3. don chaney
4. pat riley
5. john macleod

sincerely,

djsunyc where the "c" stands for chaney

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by martin:

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by Bippity10:

I just don't understand how a team can give efforts like they did last night(which isn't a rare occurence) and still expect consistent time. Until our players stop turning the ball over, start playing defense and give consistent effort we will not have a consistent rotation. Enough with the excuses for the players. There is a reason Marbs is the only guy that gets consistent minutes. He is the only one that deserves them.

That's ridiculous. You have to give player's a game plan and a role if you want to get results from them. You can't just throw the ball up and say, "make me believe in you." Not to rookies. Not when 8 guys on the roster are 25 or younger. That's a horrible way to teach, to coach.

crzymdups, here is one thing I will add. What if Brown has clearly communicated to his players his plan, and that plan being: Give 100% all the time. Here are each of your 3 top weaknesses, work on them. If you do both of those 2 things, I will give you playing time. If someone else does a better job than you at his things, they will get playing time. Effort, effort, preparation, preparation. Also, it'll take me about 2-3 months to sort through all of you guys, so give ME some time too.

Seems to me with the mix of rooks and vets he was given that may have been a fair message. Now, whether or not he actually spelled it out for the group in explicit terms is another thing.

Or maybe Brown is regarded as one of best coaches around and he suddenly turned looney. One of the 2.

I'm not saying Brown suddenly went loony. He has a very well documented history of breaking down players and trying to build them back up. He has a history of wearing out his welcome after about three years everywhere he's gone. He is extremely hard on his players. He gets results, but I don't know if I'd say he is coaching the "right" way. Isn't it better to build trust, to give encouragement and support your players? Perhaps he feels this is the only way to get through to players, though it's clearly had a major negative impact on Crawford and Ariza. Also, Marbury basically played his protest game down in Orlando before turning things around. I don't know if he "got" Brown's message or proved to Brown that this team is nothing if Marbury isn't scoring.

fair enough. I think Brown is a bit of Old School. Or, more likely, all Old School. Tough Love. It is what it is I guess. I sure wish I just could be a fly on the walls of practice to see what's really going on.

Also, the best teachers I've known take a different approach with every student. You wouldn't necessarily have to break them all down. Some might need to be broken down, others might need some encouragement.

fish, as someone pointed out, as limited as that team was in terms of height and athleticism, it still had a trio of gritty vets in Spree, Houston and KT who were playing as well as they ever played. The rest of the team was at least smart vets who knew the pro game and knew what they could and couldn't do.

Now we have a bunch of kids still learning what they can and can't do and when it's best to do it. Marbury is the only vet capable of picking his spots.

that 37-45 Chaney team also had played together for at least two years and the main guys had been together since 99. Knowing your teammates is HUGE in this league. We have 11 new guys who have never played as one group before in Curry, Lee, Nate, Frye, Woods, AD, MoT, Rose, Qrich, JJames and Butler. Craw and Marbury have only been together a little over a season. Ariza is one of the most tenured Knicks. It takes time when you make that big of a change. It's going to take longer with all the turmoil and injuries and lineup changes. Obviously you can't blame Brown for all that's gone bad this season, but I think he has created an atmosphere of not knowing what's coming next for some guys, like Craw, Nate, Lee, Butler and Frye in particular. I guess for an Old School coach you say, "well, they need to earn their minutes." But when these guys are so clearly a huge part of what little success this team has had, I think you have to treat them more fairly, give them a role that's the same every single night and work on their holes in practice.

Basketball Jones, I agree, a good teacher has to adjust his methods for the players/students he has. When you have this many youngsters and a lot of this stuff is new to them, you have take that into account.

Posted by djsunyc:

1. red holzman
2. bob hill
3. don chaney
4. pat riley
5. john macleod

i hope that is a joke having chaney above riley... he wouldnt even be above van gundy.