[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

I think Larry Brown's acid reflux/leaving the game was semi-intentional...
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
4/15/2006  10:22 PM
Posted by martin:
Posted by Bonn1997:

No, it has nothing to do with excitement. I actually think Nate is the only of those four players who would be considered exciting. The issue is developing the young players. Butler: 27; Frye: 1; Lee: 15; Nate 9 (Okay it was 52, not 53). Zero of those 52 can be justified. It's probably well over 100 if you count games of fewer than 10 minutes. David Lee actually got more DNPs than Mo Taylor. Which one do you think is more important to the team's future? Which one's play earned (or should have earned) more playing time? If you said David Lee, Larry's Decisions indicate he disagrees with you.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 04-15-2006 9:18 PM]

Bonn, have you read on of Bip's posts? Rooks got to earn their spots man. Just can't hand it to them (ala Curry) and expect development of any kind.


You mean Frye going out and scoring thirty twice and 20 a bunch of times isn't earning playing time? He was doing well in summer league and preseason and he wasn't on the active roster game one.

I doubt David Lee has loafed this year.

And whether Nate has ADD or not, he was one of the few players who usually always gave effort- in fact, Nate, Lee & Frye were some of the most effective effort players.

Mo 'Black Hole' Taylor?

On any other team with any other coach, Frye & Lee & Butler would have gotten more minutes would have had a regular place in the rotation.
AUTOADVERT
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
4/15/2006  10:30 PM
...and there would have been a regular rotation.

¿ △ ?
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
4/15/2006  10:45 PM
Although the Knicks released a statement saying Brown has been cleared by doctors to resume coaching, he's on a timetable of his own choosing. His Woodmere-based agent, Joe Glass, yesterday said there's still a possibility Brown could return to the bench for the Knicks' home finale against Charlotte tomorrow or for the final game of the season Wednesday against the Nets at Continental Airlines Arena.


"He's been cleared to coach, but he's going to go by his own feelings," Glass said. "He's not coaching in Detroit, and we'll take the last two games step by step, day by day."

The Knicks generally play it close to the vest. But by saying Brown was "fully cleared," they seemed to be playing the same game Detroit did last season when Brown missed 17 games as a result of a bladder operation but returned ahead of schedule because he felt pressured by management

http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/ny-spknix0416,0,1485786.story?coll=ny-sports-headlines

I don't know... I still think there's a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't know about.
¿ △ ?
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/15/2006  10:51 PM
Posted by martin:
Posted by Bonn1997:

No, it has nothing to do with excitement. I actually think Nate is the only of those four players who would be considered exciting. The issue is developing the young players. Butler: 27; Frye: 1; Lee: 15; Nate 9 (Okay it was 52, not 53). Zero of those 52 can be justified. It's probably well over 100 if you count games of fewer than 10 minutes. David Lee actually got more DNPs than Mo Taylor. Which one do you think is more important to the team's future? Which one's play earned (or should have earned) more playing time? If you said David Lee, Larry's Decisions indicate he disagrees with you.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 04-15-2006 9:18 PM]

Bonn, have you read on of Bip's posts? Rooks got to earn their spots man. Just can't hand it to them (ala Curry) and expect development of any kind.
EVERY ONE should have to earn their minutes. But once they do earn their minutes, they should be given them. Otherwise, there's no point in asking them to earn the minutes in the first place! I guess Larry never thought of that!
martin
Posts: 79156
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
4/15/2006  11:15 PM
Bonn, Franco.... how many minutes did the rookies get? Seems to me that they are all VERY high on the per minute range for rookies this year. How do you account for that? Factor in Jackie, Woods, Barnes, Ariza, trades Jalen and Francis... where do you get the extra minutes?

Those guys played a LOT.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/15/2006  11:42 PM
how many minutes did the rookies get?
Fewer than most rookies performing at their level. It's even more stunning when you consider that our rookies were not competing with good veterans for minutes. I can't imagine how many DNP-CDs Lee and Frye would get if we had a half decent veteran like Brian Grant or Tony Battie. It's scary enough that Malik and Mo were playing ahead of them.
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
4/15/2006  11:53 PM
Posted by martin:

Bonn, Franco.... how many minutes did the rookies get? Seems to me that they are all VERY high on the per minute range for rookies this year. How do you account for that? Factor in Jackie, Woods, Barnes, Ariza, trades Jalen and Francis... where do you get the extra minutes?

Those guys played a LOT.

They did, and it's not just Larry's approach but Isiah's too.

Nate has played more this year than Ariza did last year. Ariza only had TT to compete with while Nate had Marbury, Crawford, Q, Jalen and Francis.

Rookie Frye has played more minutes in his 62 game season than Sophomore Sweets did in 82.

Lee I'd have liked to see more of Lee, but Larry is trying to shape him from a 4 to a 3 while in the absence of AD and Frye Mo is a more natural 4. Lee is definitely a keeper, and I don't know yet if larry is right or wrong in trying to make him a 3, but in that position his perimeter game, offensively and defensively, isn't quite there yet. Right now Woods is the more natural 3. None the less lee's gotten more mins than Woods.

So relative to last year (pre brown) I think this years kids are ahead. If Isiah, Mills and Dolan, (the architects of this 'rebuild') wanted Larry to feature the kids they should have set a better precedent last year and thought twice about adding two more max contract veterans at the deadline.
Nalod
Posts: 71931
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
4/16/2006  12:49 AM
We got a lot of young guys. How many teams were carrying 3 rookies, plus Reezy and Butler?

They earned minutes, but lets be real, rookies like these guys need time and had problems. Frye had foul problems, Nate was wild, etc.

Plus the vets do deserve some consideration.

Did anyone think it would ever get this bad? The vets rolled over and played dead late in the season.

Hindsight is easy.

Bonn, who goes and counts DNPs anyway?
Solace
Posts: 30002
Alba Posts: 20
Joined: 10/30/2003
Member: #479
USA
4/16/2006  11:44 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:

No, it has nothing to do with excitement. I actually think Nate is the only of those four players who would be considered exciting. The issue is developing the young players. Butler: 27; Frye: 1; Lee: 15; Nate 9 (Okay it was 52, not 53). Zero of those 52 can be justified. It's probably well over 100 if you count games of fewer than 10 minutes. David Lee actually got more DNPs than Mo Taylor. Which one do you think is more important to the team's future? Which one's play earned (or should have earned) more playing time? If you said David Lee, Larry's Decisions indicate he disagrees with you.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 04-15-2006 9:18 PM]

Zero are justified? I think that's unfair. Frye sitting out the first game out the first game of the season was foolish; LB realized that and corrected the mistake the next game. Nate missed games because we had just gotten Steve Francis and were stacked in the backcourt; before the personality problems were revealed. JB's 27 DNPs is totally understandable; especially when to start the season we put a lot into Jerome James. David Lee's DNPs are less understandable, but we did have a lot of forwards.

Is every decision perfect? No. Is every move going to please everyone? No. Is 52 DNPs from four rookies that bad? Let's look at it from another angle: Frye played 65 out of 66 games before injury, Nate will play in about 72 games, Lee will play in about 66 or 67 games and Butler will play in over 50 games. Compare that to previous years where the rookies usually didn't get a shot. It's really not so awful. You can't hand minutes on a silver platter, as Bip pointed out. We have too many divas as it is. Give them something for nothing and you create more. They will get their shot and get their time.
Wishing everyone well. I enjoyed posting here for a while, but as I matured I realized this forum isn't for me. We all evolve. Thanks for the memories everyone.
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
4/16/2006  12:36 PM
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/409266p-346406c.html
¿ △ ?
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/16/2006  12:37 PM
Posted by Solace:
Posted by Bonn1997:

No, it has nothing to do with excitement. I actually think Nate is the only of those four players who would be considered exciting. The issue is developing the young players. Butler: 27; Frye: 1; Lee: 15; Nate 9 (Okay it was 52, not 53). Zero of those 52 can be justified. It's probably well over 100 if you count games of fewer than 10 minutes. David Lee actually got more DNPs than Mo Taylor. Which one do you think is more important to the team's future? Which one's play earned (or should have earned) more playing time? If you said David Lee, Larry's Decisions indicate he disagrees with you.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 04-15-2006 9:18 PM]

Zero are justified? I think that's unfair. Frye sitting out the first game out the first game of the season was foolish; LB realized that and corrected the mistake the next game. Nate missed games because we had just gotten Steve Francis and were stacked in the backcourt; before the personality problems were revealed. JB's 27 DNPs is totally understandable; especially when to start the season we put a lot into Jerome James. David Lee's DNPs are less understandable, but we did have a lot of forwards.

Is every decision perfect? No. Is every move going to please everyone? No. Is 52 DNPs from four rookies that bad? Let's look at it from another angle: Frye played 65 out of 66 games before injury, Nate will play in about 72 games, Lee will play in about 66 or 67 games and Butler will play in over 50 games. Compare that to previous years where the rookies usually didn't get a shot. It's really not so awful. You can't hand minutes on a silver platter, as Bip pointed out. We have too many divas as it is. Give them something for nothing and you create more. They will get their shot and get their time.
You're counting only DNP-CDs, though; you're ignoring all the games where they barely played (e.g., single digit min, esp. in garbage time, which is essentially equivalent to a DNP-CD). Then you probably have closer to 150 wasted games. I disagree about benching Butler being logical unless your goal is to reward laziness (JJ) and punish hard work (Butler). I'm glad Larry is finally giving some playing time to the young players, but it took him longer than I'd expect a 6th grader to realize that you need to reward, not punish, the hard workers. And similarly, you have to *stop* handing minutes to lazy players. (He still hasn't really learned this latter point.)
Solace
Posts: 30002
Alba Posts: 20
Joined: 10/30/2003
Member: #479
USA
4/16/2006  4:20 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Solace:
Posted by Bonn1997:

No, it has nothing to do with excitement. I actually think Nate is the only of those four players who would be considered exciting. The issue is developing the young players. Butler: 27; Frye: 1; Lee: 15; Nate 9 (Okay it was 52, not 53). Zero of those 52 can be justified. It's probably well over 100 if you count games of fewer than 10 minutes. David Lee actually got more DNPs than Mo Taylor. Which one do you think is more important to the team's future? Which one's play earned (or should have earned) more playing time? If you said David Lee, Larry's Decisions indicate he disagrees with you.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 04-15-2006 9:18 PM]

Zero are justified? I think that's unfair. Frye sitting out the first game out the first game of the season was foolish; LB realized that and corrected the mistake the next game. Nate missed games because we had just gotten Steve Francis and were stacked in the backcourt; before the personality problems were revealed. JB's 27 DNPs is totally understandable; especially when to start the season we put a lot into Jerome James. David Lee's DNPs are less understandable, but we did have a lot of forwards.

Is every decision perfect? No. Is every move going to please everyone? No. Is 52 DNPs from four rookies that bad? Let's look at it from another angle: Frye played 65 out of 66 games before injury, Nate will play in about 72 games, Lee will play in about 66 or 67 games and Butler will play in over 50 games. Compare that to previous years where the rookies usually didn't get a shot. It's really not so awful. You can't hand minutes on a silver platter, as Bip pointed out. We have too many divas as it is. Give them something for nothing and you create more. They will get their shot and get their time.
You're counting only DNP-CDs, though; you're ignoring all the games where they barely played (e.g., single digit min, esp. in garbage time, which is essentially equivalent to a DNP-CD). Then you probably have closer to 150 wasted games. I disagree about benching Butler being logical unless your goal is to reward laziness (JJ) and punish hard work (Butler). I'm glad Larry is finally giving some playing time to the young players, but it took him longer than I'd expect a 6th grader to realize that you need to reward, not punish, the hard workers. And similarly, you have to *stop* handing minutes to lazy players. (He still hasn't really learned this latter point.)

Actually, you're ignoring the games where they barely played. The 52 DNP-CDs was the stat you threw out there.

If I was coach, would I have played the rookies more? Yes. However, is it understandable that rookies don't get the minutes handed to them? Yes. I think LB may have overdone it a bit, and there were certainly times where some of his moves seemed random, but you guys are being overdramatic about it.
Wishing everyone well. I enjoyed posting here for a while, but as I matured I realized this forum isn't for me. We all evolve. Thanks for the memories everyone.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/16/2006  4:34 PM
Actually, you're ignoring the games where they barely played. The 52 DNP-CDs was the stat you threw out there.
We both are, although I did acknowledge every time I stated the 52 DNP-CDs that games with single min digits were just as important even though I didn't have the stats for them.

If I was coach, would I have played the rookies more? Yes. However, is it understandable that rookies don't get the minutes handed to them? Yes. I think LB may have overdone it a bit, and there were certainly times where some of his moves seemed random, but you guys are being overdramatic about it.
We agree on almost everything then. I think establishing a winning style of play based on rewarding hard effort on both ends of the court and benching lazy players is too important to overlook.

I haven't called for Larry to be fired, though. I don't think he's remotely close to the biggest problems of the organization. I think that relates to Dolan, Mills, and Cablevision and will continue regardless of who the coach and GM are, although some coaches and some GMs would put better bandaids on the problem.
Allanfan20
Posts: 35947
Alba Posts: 50
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #542
USA
4/16/2006  5:19 PM
Bonn, put it this way. Our vets suck. Our rookies are inexperienced and need to earn their place. We wouldn't have had a much better team had we played our rooks much more. Maybe 30 wins, 35 at most. Big whop. Larry is setting a standard for the rookies to reach, and it's not simply working harder than Mo T. Anybody on the face of the planet can. Anyone can work harder than Jerome. Anyone can be smarter than Marbury and Francis. Therefore, Larry is setting up expectations that the rookies need to meet, that have absolutely nothing to do with playing better than the vets we have on our team. His expectations are "You outplay everyone in the league, consistently, you'll get the big minutes." They haven't done that yet, but they are getting there.
“Whenever I’m about to do something, I think ‘Would an idiot do that?’ and if they would, I do NOT do that thing.”- Dwight Schrute
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/16/2006  5:59 PM
Our rookies are inexperienced and need to earn their place. We wouldn't have had a much better team had we played our rooks much more. Maybe 30 wins, 35 at most.
I've NEVER cared about the wins this season. I care about developing the young players and making players EARN their minutes and be rewarded when they earn them. We disagree apparently on whether the young players have earned their minutes and I doubt anything I say will convince you that they have. I think we also disagree on whether veterans need to earn their minutes as well (or even young vets like Curry). I want free minutes to NEVER be handed to anyone. I don't think one person on this board is a stronger advocate than I am of having every player earn every second he's on thecourt.
Allanfan20
Posts: 35947
Alba Posts: 50
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #542
USA
4/16/2006  7:46 PM
Bonn, read the rest of my post.
“Whenever I’m about to do something, I think ‘Would an idiot do that?’ and if they would, I do NOT do that thing.”- Dwight Schrute
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
4/16/2006  8:01 PM
People can call me crazy, but Brown has always made plays to get roster control. He used the health issues thing last year in detroit and it got him fired. I think this time it may get him what he wants.

If LB has a secret plan, which I doubt, I don't think it is so complex or that the goal is to oust isiah. More likely he is trying to make his exit.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
4/16/2006  8:33 PM
Posted by oohah:
People can call me crazy, but Brown has always made plays to get roster control. He used the health issues thing last year in detroit and it got him fired. I think this time it may get him what he wants.

If LB has a secret plan, which I doubt, I don't think it is so complex or that the goal is to oust isiah. More likely he is trying to make his exit.

oohah

when did I say he wanted to oust Isiah? I said it was a threat to make sure Marbury was ousted - "Him or Me." We'll see, he could have just wanted to avoid the Detroit game.
¿ △ ?
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
4/16/2006  8:44 PM
Posted by Allanfan20:

Bonn, read the rest of my post.
thanks; I did the first time

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 04-16-2006 10:49 PM]
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
4/16/2006  11:14 PM
when did I say he wanted to oust Isiah? I said it was a threat to make sure Marbury was ousted - "Him or Me." We'll see, he could have just wanted to avoid the Detroit game.

I misunderstood. I still think that it's a little on the machiavellian side. We'll see.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
I think Larry Brown's acid reflux/leaving the game was semi-intentional...
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy