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

now we see why LB put out 90 different line ups
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
islesfan
Posts: 9999
Alba Posts: 37
Joined: 7/19/2004
Member: #712
11/23/2006  9:01 PM
I think 95 games is a good sample size.
If it didn’t work in Phoenix with Nash and Stoutamire... it’s just not a winning formula. It’s an entertaining formula, but not a winning one. - Derek Harper talking about D'Antoni's System
AUTOADVERT
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
11/23/2006  9:07 PM
Posted by islesfan:

I think 95 games is a good sample size.

82 of those games were played under Larry, who destoyed the confidence of even the hard working kids like Nate, Lee, and Frye.

Nothing can excuse that.
martin
Posts: 80909
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
11/23/2006  9:39 PM
Posted by Rich:
Posted by islesfan:

I think 95 games is a good sample size.

82 of those games were played under Larry, who destoyed the confidence of even the hard working kids like Nate, Lee, and Frye.

Nothing can excuse that.

I don't remember any confidence being broken.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
11/23/2006  9:48 PM
Posted by franco12:

Yea- Larry was right for starting Lee, then giving him a series of DNPs, and playing him spotty minutes.

Isiah gave Francis and Marbury a shot to play together- who knows, it might work out down the line- but this team needs a chance to develop chemistry.

The second unit has had chemistry- the first unit, none.

LB would have been giving Lee DNPs, and Nate too.


Isiah did himself the favor of not having to fit in Jalen, Q2, and Mo at Lee's position... after telling LB there'd be no changes.

People lambast Brown for taking Lee out of the starting lineup, but all these months later still have all the patience in the world for Isiah to put him back in.
martin
Posts: 80909
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
11/23/2006  9:51 PM
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by franco12:

Yea- Larry was right for starting Lee, then giving him a series of DNPs, and playing him spotty minutes.

Isiah gave Francis and Marbury a shot to play together- who knows, it might work out down the line- but this team needs a chance to develop chemistry.

The second unit has had chemistry- the first unit, none.

LB would have been giving Lee DNPs, and Nate too.


Isiah did himself the favor of not having to fit in Jalen, Q2, and Mo at Lee's position... after telling LB there'd be no changes.

People lambast Brown for taking Lee out of the starting lineup, but all these months later still have all the patience in the world for Isiah to put him back in.

Add in QWoods and Mat Barnes to that list. After AD went a little nuts, Knicks had no defensive coordinator out there, so he started Malik Rose.

The Knicks' rookies played a LOT of minutes all things considered.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
11/23/2006  9:51 PM
Posted by martin:
Posted by Rich:
Posted by islesfan:

I think 95 games is a good sample size.

82 of those games were played under Larry, who destoyed the confidence of even the hard working kids like Nate, Lee, and Frye.

Nothing can excuse that.

I don't remember any confidence being broken.

Really? Frye, for example, was shooting the lights out of the basket until Larry broke him down.

Lee started, the team did well, and then was benched. He later said it confused him, which couldn't have aided his development.

Nate was jerked around too.
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
11/23/2006  9:53 PM
i think it's safe to say that all those fans going nuts about lb's record setting # of starting lineups are starting to realize that it doesn't matter with this group.

the fundamental problem with this team is that it is built incorrectly. so no matter who you stick where, nothing changes in the final outcome of the game.

therefore it's time to just look down the road and build a team for that. which means alot of fans that were upset lb wasn't playing their "favorites" are now going to have to get ready for some of them to get shipped out. that's why i really don't care who stays or goes b/c i know this team needs to be re-built from top to bottom.
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
11/23/2006  9:58 PM
Posted by Rich:
Posted by martin:
Posted by Rich:
Posted by islesfan:

I think 95 games is a good sample size.

82 of those games were played under Larry, who destoyed the confidence of even the hard working kids like Nate, Lee, and Frye.

Nothing can excuse that.

I don't remember any confidence being broken.

Really? Frye, for example, was shooting the lights out of the basket until Larry broke him down.

Lee started, the team did well, and then was benched. He later said it confused him, which couldn't have aided his development.

Nate was jerked around too.

does starting frye games and then benching him during 2nd half's count as being "jerked around?"

how about balkman's minutes? 6, 3, 21, 19, 12, 5, 5 - those are his minutes over the past 7 games. that could constitute being "jerked" around also, no?

and lee has yet to start when he's CLEARLY outplaying the #8 pick and the 2 #1's/$60 mil superstar in front of him.

but it's all good tho...the most important thing is that isiah has only used 2 lineups.
martin
Posts: 80909
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
11/23/2006  9:59 PM
Posted by Rich:
Posted by martin:
Posted by Rich:
Posted by islesfan:

I think 95 games is a good sample size.

82 of those games were played under Larry, who destoyed the confidence of even the hard working kids like Nate, Lee, and Frye.

Nothing can excuse that.

I don't remember any confidence being broken.

Really? Frye, for example, was shooting the lights out of the basket until Larry broke him down.

Lee started, the team did well, and then was benched. He later said it confused him, which couldn't have aided his development.

Nate was jerked around too.

I guess Isiah must haven broke Frye down in preseason this year, cause he had the same results. Frye puts pressure on himself cause he doesn't understand defense. Also, defenders started to pick up on Frye and his outside shooting. Most all rookies hit that type of wall. Does that necessarily mean that the coach purposely destroyed their confidence?

If you think LB really broke the confidence of Frye and it lasted to this year, the same must hold for Nate and Lee. But those guys are BETTER this year. So one could argue that their confidence was not broken at all. Hey, when does confusion equate to breaking confidence ala Lee?

You think Nate deserved consistent minutes because of his consistent play last year? All of those excellent foreys into the paint that got blocked? All the unnecessary heaves?
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
11/23/2006  10:00 PM
Posted by martin:
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by franco12:

Yea- Larry was right for starting Lee, then giving him a series of DNPs, and playing him spotty minutes.

Isiah gave Francis and Marbury a shot to play together- who knows, it might work out down the line- but this team needs a chance to develop chemistry.

The second unit has had chemistry- the first unit, none.

LB would have been giving Lee DNPs, and Nate too.


Isiah did himself the favor of not having to fit in Jalen, Q2, and Mo at Lee's position... after telling LB there'd be no changes.

People lambast Brown for taking Lee out of the starting lineup, but all these months later still have all the patience in the world for Isiah to put him back in.


Add in QWoods and Mat Barnes to that list. After AD went a little nuts, .

None of those players should have been playing ahead of Lee. Isiah's playing time for Lee is not as bad as Brown's but it's still bad. He should be getting far more PT.
martin
Posts: 80909
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
11/23/2006  10:07 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by martin:
Posted by BlueSeats:
Posted by franco12:

Yea- Larry was right for starting Lee, then giving him a series of DNPs, and playing him spotty minutes.

Isiah gave Francis and Marbury a shot to play together- who knows, it might work out down the line- but this team needs a chance to develop chemistry.

The second unit has had chemistry- the first unit, none.

LB would have been giving Lee DNPs, and Nate too.


Isiah did himself the favor of not having to fit in Jalen, Q2, and Mo at Lee's position... after telling LB there'd be no changes.

People lambast Brown for taking Lee out of the starting lineup, but all these months later still have all the patience in the world for Isiah to put him back in.


Add in QWoods and Mat Barnes to that list. After AD went a little nuts, .

None of those players should have been playing ahead of Lee. Isiah's playing time for Lee is not as bad as Brown's but it's still bad. He should be getting far more PT.

Bonn, now I know you didn't see all of the games last year. There is good argument for Barnes starting at the beginning of last year AND getting playing time over a rookie early in the season (Matt was only there for a short period). Also, QWoods played pretty darn well at the SF spot for a stretch.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
11/23/2006  10:11 PM
what david brought last year was hard work and effort. for that, he should've gotten more minutes...BUT remember, we had a ton of people at the 4 spot in front of him: malik, mo, AD, and not to mention frye. so he got burn at SF, but he was getting killed at that position on defense.

you guys have to remember that nate, lee, and frye were all rookies last year. and they still got more minutes that many other rookies in the league. incorporating 3 rookies on a team with a $120 mil payroll is not an easy task. as you can see this year when mardy isn't even active, balkman gets 5 minutes and lee still isn't cracking 25 mins a night despite no glut in the frontcourt and how he's outplaying the guys in front of him.
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
11/23/2006  10:14 PM
Posted by martin:
Posted by Rich:
Posted by martin:
Posted by Rich:
Posted by islesfan:

I think 95 games is a good sample size.

82 of those games were played under Larry, who destoyed the confidence of even the hard working kids like Nate, Lee, and Frye.

Nothing can excuse that.

I don't remember any confidence being broken.

Really? Frye, for example, was shooting the lights out of the basket until Larry broke him down.

Lee started, the team did well, and then was benched. He later said it confused him, which couldn't have aided his development.

Nate was jerked around too.

I guess Isiah must haven broke Frye down in preseason this year, cause he had the same results. Frye puts pressure on himself cause he doesn't understand defense. Also, defenders started to pick up on Frye and his outside shooting. Most all rookies hit that type of wall. Does that necessarily mean that the coach purposely destroyed their confidence?

If you think LB really broke the confidence of Frye and it lasted to this year, the same must hold for Nate and Lee. But those guys are BETTER this year. So one could argue that their confidence was not broken at all. Hey, when does confusion equate to breaking confidence ala Lee?

You think Nate deserved consistent minutes because of his consistent play last year? All of those excellent foreys into the paint that got blocked? All the unnecessary heaves?

No, Frye was coming off a serious knee injury, and it was to be expected that it would take time to find his game and the confidence that Larry destroyed. Actually, Frye's off the ball defense has improved.

I think both Lee and Nate have acknowledged that playing for Larry did make them question their games. That they have been able to persevere after being subject to Larry's inane treatment is a testimony to them.

It wasn't like the Knicks were winning anything. Why not just let the kids develop?
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
11/23/2006  10:16 PM
Posted by Rich:

It wasn't like the Knicks were winning anything. Why not just let the kids develop?

so why not start jamal and nate in the backcourt? why not start lee?
fishmike
Posts: 53903
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
11/23/2006  10:25 PM
Isiah wont and he cant... thats throwing the towel in on this season. He's put all his marbles in Curry/Marbury. It will take some crazy stuff for him to ditch that. Think about what he gave up for them, and everything he's said about them. I mean look at David Lee's play, and he got 12 minutes against the Wolves. 12 freakin minutes.
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
11/23/2006  10:46 PM
Posted by fishmike:

Isiah wont and he cant... thats throwing the towel in on this season. He's put all his marbles in Curry/Marbury. It will take some crazy stuff for him to ditch that. Think about what he gave up for them, and everything he's said about them. I mean look at David Lee's play, and he got 12 minutes against the Wolves. 12 freakin minutes.

four #1 picks, 2 #2 picks
took back $100+ mil for marbury (with penny)
and $60 mil for curry

these are the "franchise" players isiah thought he was acquiring.

on a side note, the pieces we gave up for marbury + ariza, turned into marbury AND francis.
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
11/23/2006  10:53 PM
Posted by djsunyc:
Posted by fishmike:

Isiah wont and he cant... thats throwing the towel in on this season. He's put all his marbles in Curry/Marbury. It will take some crazy stuff for him to ditch that. Think about what he gave up for them, and everything he's said about them. I mean look at David Lee's play, and he got 12 minutes against the Wolves. 12 freakin minutes.

four #1 picks, 2 #2 picks
took back $100+ mil for marbury (with penny)
and $60 mil for curry

these are the "franchise" players isiah thought he was acquiring.

on a side note, the pieces we gave up for marbury + ariza, turned into marbury AND francis.

UK mafia
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
11/23/2006  11:01 PM
Posted by djsunyc:
Posted by Rich:

It wasn't like the Knicks were winning anything. Why not just let the kids develop?

so why not start jamal and nate in the backcourt? why not start lee?

Two reasons: 1) He is too close to Marbury; 2) He may think changing the lineup too often would seem Larry-like.
martin
Posts: 80909
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
11/24/2006  12:25 AM
Posted by Rich:
Posted by martin:
Posted by Rich:
Posted by martin:
Posted by Rich:
Posted by islesfan:

I think 95 games is a good sample size.

82 of those games were played under Larry, who destoyed the confidence of even the hard working kids like Nate, Lee, and Frye.

Nothing can excuse that.

I don't remember any confidence being broken.

Really? Frye, for example, was shooting the lights out of the basket until Larry broke him down.

Lee started, the team did well, and then was benched. He later said it confused him, which couldn't have aided his development.

Nate was jerked around too.

I guess Isiah must haven broke Frye down in preseason this year, cause he had the same results. Frye puts pressure on himself cause he doesn't understand defense. Also, defenders started to pick up on Frye and his outside shooting. Most all rookies hit that type of wall. Does that necessarily mean that the coach purposely destroyed their confidence?

If you think LB really broke the confidence of Frye and it lasted to this year, the same must hold for Nate and Lee. But those guys are BETTER this year. So one could argue that their confidence was not broken at all. Hey, when does confusion equate to breaking confidence ala Lee?

You think Nate deserved consistent minutes because of his consistent play last year? All of those excellent foreys into the paint that got blocked? All the unnecessary heaves?

No, Frye was coming off a serious knee injury, and it was to be expected that it would take time to find his game and the confidence that Larry destroyed. Actually, Frye's off the ball defense has improved.

I think both Lee and Nate have acknowledged that playing for Larry did make them question their games. That they have been able to persevere after being subject to Larry's inane treatment is a testimony to them.

It wasn't like the Knicks were winning anything. Why not just let the kids develop?

Confidence of playing after an injury and confidence of playing after being "broken" are completely different things. Still not convinced one had to do with another.

Frye repeatedly said he was 100% before the season started so I don't buy there was any confidence issues related to physical play.

As much as I can claim Isiah hurt Frye's confidence that lead to his sh!t play at the beginning of this year, you can claim LB had that same effect. It's all bull.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
BlueSeats
Posts: 27272
Alba Posts: 41
Joined: 11/6/2005
Member: #1024
11/24/2006  12:32 AM
we need less fragile players
Page 2 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
now we see why LB put out 90 different line ups
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