TMS
Posts: 15057
Alba Posts: 166
Joined: 05-11-2004
Member: #668 03-09-2008 5:10 PM Show Profile Edit Post Reply with Quote Delete Reply

quote:Originally posted by islesfan:

Why are people making such a big deal out of a game where the Knicks were without any other scorers and Nate was allowed to have the offense run through him all night? With his gunslinging mentality, I would have been shocked if he didn't score a lot of points.

I caught most of the 4th and OT and I saw the Blazers, a team without a defensive presence in the paint, giving up layups to Nate. Then in OT I saw Nate going for 50, shooting the ball whenever he got his hands on it.

I would be much more impressed if Nate could show that he can play team basketball and run an offense where getting his own shot isn't his first thought. This does nothing to disprove the fact that he's nothing more than an energy role player off the bench who will look to do nothing but score. On a good team he would really have to be reigned in. On this team he's free to do whatever the hell he wants. Not impressed.

& yet i have a pretty good feeling people would be very impressed if he were playing on another team... i guess it's all in perceptions... i happen to think anytime a player puts up over 40 it's worthy of praise... whether people should get overly excited over that player's prospects of continuing that trend is another matter altogether... let's see him play this way over a continued stretch before we proclaim his arrival to the big stage... that goes for players like Linas Kleiza & Marcus Williams too for that matter.

TMS
Posts: 15059
Alba Posts: 166
Joined: 05-11-2004
Member: #668 03-09-2008 01:52 AM Show Profile Edit Post Reply with Quote Delete Reply

quote:Originally posted by EnySpree:

Nate can definately get the Knicks a second draft pick, but unless the Knicks are gonna draft Derrick Rose....I say we keep him. There's nobody available thats flat out better. Nate does it under scrutiny and shame. He's a rare talent and the dude is just not afraid of anything on the bball court.

Dare I say the Knicks should build around him? Again.....if its not Derrick Rose....then Nate should be the starting point guard for our New York Knicks! Its not broke so don't fix it!

but that's the thing, it IS broke right now... i agree w/u that Nate is a special scoring G but if we're gonna have Jamal on this team i think i might rather trade him for a 2nd 1st rounder & fill another need (assuming we get to draft a Rose, Gordon or Mayo w/the lottery pick)... of course i wouldn't mind holding onto Nate if we could trade Jamal for another 1st rounder or a veteran defensive C who can block some shots either for that matter... i'm just trying to gauge Nate's value right now... seems to me a lot of teams could use an energizer like Nate who's shown vast improvement this year in his game as opposed to a raw G who they might have to wait & see on... ideally we could unload Jamal's contract for a shorter term contract & a pick, draft Rose to play alongside Nate in the backcourt, & use that second pick to draft the best shotblocker available.

Posted by islesfan:

TMS, not once in those posts were you as ridiculing as you are when the topic of Marcus Williams comes up. You disagreed with those people as to what role Nate should play, I understand that. But why do you feel a need to compare the unbridled enthusiasm that those and others displayed to the relatively downplayed comments made about Marcus? They aren't comparable, yet you continue to harp and exaggerate about some double standard.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by TMS:

Christ, i made a suggestion... who the fukk knows why Nate's having a bad game?... maybe his fukkin jock in on too tight... maybe his shot wasn't falling... it happens... i'd expect all you basketball experts around here to have watched enough basketball to know that Nate's more than just a 5 pt per game player... i swear to God all the nimrods around here who jump down the throat of anyone who makes any minute reference or comment in support of any of our players is making this place a fukkin' troll's den.

And we'd expect some of you to know that Nate blowing up for 45 is very much the exception and should not be taken out of proportion. Support is fine. Suggesting that Nate should be a starter, that people need to be traded to make room for him, that you can expect big things from Nate, that all they need is the right backcourt mate to complement Nate and you're set, is just plain stupid.

It works both ways. I'd expect you to understand that.

Is it safe to say that Nate in his prime has the potential to be cappable of averaging 14-15pts 3rebs, 3assist, 1stl per game off the bench in 28mins per game? Or is that to lofty??

14-15 pts is very lofty. 10pts, 3 rebs, 3 asts, 1 stl and 5 dimes in 20-25 minutes a game off the bench would be more than can be expected.

Nate's putting up 13 & 3 this year in 25 mpg... i guess he's already exceeded your expectations... maybe he needs to collect more dimes to meet them tho... Marbs should school him on how to do it.

Yeah, on a bad team where he can do whatever he wants. I'm talking about what you can hope from him if the Knicks were ever to fire Isiah and become a half decent team. On a team with a structured offense, I would take 10pts from him. Just as long as it was in the framework of the offense and not the one on one BS that this Knicks "offense" is based on.

Again with the “Style versus Substance” on Nate? Nate Robinson had his best offensive performance of his young career on Saturday against Portland. He shot 16-28 from the floor and 13-15 FTs. He handed out 6 assists and had 5 boards. Subjectively it didn’t “feel” like he dominated the ball either, despite the 28 shots. By comparison, Richardson’s 20 shots seemed more “labor intensive” and out of the flow. Part of the difference is that Nate never had to look hard to find the mismatch; he was the mismatch. Overall, it’s difficult to criticize his offense with a straight face. He’s efficient. He’s low turnover. And, he’s made himself into a passable passer; a player at least the equivalent of Leandro Barbosa. If there is a criticism of Nate’s game—and there is—it is his tendency to wander, to gamble, and to lose focus on the defensive end. Steve Blake, to his credit, put up some pretty good numbers against him: 15, 11, and zero screams.

Now, I love that Nate Robinson plays to the Garden crowd. What I don’t love are his routine defensive brain farts. Nate is minimally adequate at best when he should be a terror on defense. But, here’s the thing. You can hardly get to the latter because people won’t quit blathering about the former (present company excepted of course). The too, too tired “style over substance” trope virtually forbids discussion of actual basketball—unless it is to say that Nate would be better at it if he “toned down his act.” I get that some people just don’t care for Robinson’s act, which is perfectly fine and understandable. But it’s hard to make a case that he really hurts the team unless you’re talking about his defense. He’s been among the most potent offensive players on the team the past two years.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by TMS:

Posted by islesfan:

TMS, not once in those posts were you as ridiculing as you are when the topic of Marcus Williams comes up. You disagreed with those people as to what role Nate should play, I understand that. But why do you feel a need to compare the unbridled enthusiasm that those and others displayed to the relatively downplayed comments made about Marcus? They aren't comparable, yet you continue to harp and exaggerate about some double standard.

the fact that you would on the flip side bring up a 20 pt game & start talking about Marcus Williams' ability as a potential future starter & not even think to consider Nate one when he scored more than double what Marcus put up that game strikes me as hypocritical... that's why i bring up the issue to you & everyone else with these "Linas Kleiza is the Chosen One" type threads we see pop up around here everytime someone on another team has a good game... if ya'll can recognize potential in role players like that i fail to see why the same potential can't be recognized in our own players, that's the only point i've been making from the start.

[Edited by - TMS on 03-10-2008 10:06 PM]

Like I said before, it's not the points as much as how they played to get those points. If Vince and Jefferson sat out and Marcus showed in his play that he was all about getting his that night and being the Man, while his opponents spread the waters for him to score easy layups as they protected 3 pt leads at the end of the game, then I wouldn't have been nearly as "impressed" as I was when I was moved to say that Marcus "wasn't that bad".

Posted by PresIke:

Didn't get a chance to watch the game, and I'm not going to "make excuses" for his performance. He had a bad game, clearly.

I would say, although this may sound like an "excuse" that over the course of the year he's done well, and that anyone can go check the discussion in the other thread about Nate and Jamal together being a problem for the team. I suspect Nate will do better, generally, when he has a point to go with him that doesn't dominate the ball in the way Jamal does, as a scorer. One also wonders if Zach works either, because I wonder if Nate works better on a team that runs more, like the SL team did. If he were on Golden State I would not be surprised if many would be salivating over the dude.

Just some food for thought...

http://www.knickerblogger.net/index.php/2008/03/10/pre-game-odds-and-ends/

Again with the “Style versus Substance” on Nate? Nate Robinson had his best offensive performance of his young career on Saturday against Portland. He shot 16-28 from the floor and 13-15 FTs. He handed out 6 assists and had 5 boards. Subjectively it didn’t “feel” like he dominated the ball either, despite the 28 shots. By comparison, Richardson’s 20 shots seemed more “labor intensive” and out of the flow. Part of the difference is that Nate never had to look hard to find the mismatch; he was the mismatch. Overall, it’s difficult to criticize his offense with a straight face. He’s efficient. He’s low turnover. And, he’s made himself into a passable passer; a player at least the equivalent of Leandro Barbosa. If there is a criticism of Nate’s game—and there is—it is his tendency to wander, to gamble, and to lose focus on the defensive end. Steve Blake, to his credit, put up some pretty good numbers against him: 15, 11, and zero screams.

Now, I love that Nate Robinson plays to the Garden crowd. What I don’t love are his routine defensive brain farts. Nate is minimally adequate at best when he should be a terror on defense. But, here’s the thing. You can hardly get to the latter because people won’t quit blathering about the former (present company excepted of course). The too, too tired “style over substance” trope virtually forbids discussion of actual basketball—unless it is to say that Nate would be better at it if he “toned down his act.” I get that some people just don’t care for Robinson’s act, which is perfectly fine and understandable. But it’s hard to make a case that he really hurts the team unless you’re talking about his defense. He’s been among the most potent offensive players on the team the past two years.

[Edited by - PresIke on 03-11-2008 01:27 AM]