franco12 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

CHAOS wrote:As a coach, you should use all the bullets in your gun
.

even if your pretty sure some are gonna shoot crooked? Seems like if you only have 7 bullets your confident in those are the ones your bringing to the fight

When you're playing 300 ball year after year, yea, you take the crooked ones too, because all you got are crooked ones.

the coach just benched the crooked ones and started winning and so he should put them back in?

(30pts)Dwayne Wade>(7pts)Duhon
(22pts)Tony Parker>(4pts)Duhon

Dwayne Wade and Tony Parker are consistent. Duhon has a few good games every year. We need a legitimate starting PG and it's not Nate, case closed

TMS wrote:

Rookie wrote:I try and think of the last two losses like this:

(30pts)Dwayne Wade>(7pts)Duhon
(22pts)Tony Parker>(4pts)Duhon

Dwayne Wade and Tony Parker are consistent. Duhon has a few good games every year. We need a legitimate starting PG and it's not Nate, case closed

ain't nobody saying Nate's the answer as our starting PG... but he can provide a scoring spark off the bench on nights when other guys are struggling... we could have used what he brings last night, it was pretty obvious.

Maybe if Nate could just keep his mouth shut instead of publicly asking for a trade after a handful of DNP's he would have been in the game last night, but I don't think he helps us if Parker goes off for 30pts. What might of helped us is if someone could have shut Parker down in the last 3-4 minutes of the game, like maybe Douglass. We lost because of Parker, Ginobli and Duncan being clutch. Nate doesn't change that. He plays no defense. We would not have been as close as we were for as long as we were without good team defense. You could also say that if we played Nate, the game wouldn't have been as close as it was for as long as it was. Their big three has alot of experience closing out games and coming away with a win. We will get better at it but we need to stick with the plan. Nate's not in the plan

Rookie wrote:

TMS wrote:

Rookie wrote:I try and think of the last two losses like this:

(30pts)Dwayne Wade>(7pts)Duhon
(22pts)Tony Parker>(4pts)Duhon

Dwayne Wade and Tony Parker are consistent. Duhon has a few good games every year. We need a legitimate starting PG and it's not Nate, case closed

ain't nobody saying Nate's the answer as our starting PG... but he can provide a scoring spark off the bench on nights when other guys are struggling... we could have used what he brings last night, it was pretty obvious.

Maybe if Nate could just keep his mouth shut instead of publicly asking for a trade after a handful of DNP's he would have been in the game last night, but I don't think he helps us if Parker goes off for 30pts. What might of helped us is if someone could have shut Parker down in the last 3-4 minutes of the game, like maybe Douglass. We lost because of Parker, Ginobli and Duncan being clutch. Nate doesn't change that. He plays no defense. We would not have been as close as we were for as long as we were without good team defense. You could also say that if we played Nate, the game wouldn't have been as close as it was for as long as it was. Their big three has alot of experience closing out games and coming away with a win. We will get better at it but we need to stick with the plan. Nate's not in the plan

u have a hard time presenting a case that Nate couldn't have helped us beat the Spurs when he helped us beat the Spurs the last time we played them at MSG.

TMS wrote:

Rookie wrote:

TMS wrote:

Rookie wrote:I try and think of the last two losses like this:

(30pts)Dwayne Wade>(7pts)Duhon
(22pts)Tony Parker>(4pts)Duhon

Dwayne Wade and Tony Parker are consistent. Duhon has a few good games every year. We need a legitimate starting PG and it's not Nate, case closed

ain't nobody saying Nate's the answer as our starting PG... but he can provide a scoring spark off the bench on nights when other guys are struggling... we could have used what he brings last night, it was pretty obvious.

Maybe if Nate could just keep his mouth shut instead of publicly asking for a trade after a handful of DNP's he would have been in the game last night, but I don't think he helps us if Parker goes off for 30pts. What might of helped us is if someone could have shut Parker down in the last 3-4 minutes of the game, like maybe Douglass. We lost because of Parker, Ginobli and Duncan being clutch. Nate doesn't change that. He plays no defense. We would not have been as close as we were for as long as we were without good team defense. You could also say that if we played Nate, the game wouldn't have been as close as it was for as long as it was. Their big three has alot of experience closing out games and coming away with a win. We will get better at it but we need to stick with the plan. Nate's not in the plan

u have a hard time presenting a case that Nate couldn't have helped us beat the Spurs when he helped us beat the Spurs the last time we played them at MSG.

I agree with the coaches decision not to play Nate. feel free to disagree with me

Rookie wrote:You can request a trade w/o going public. Who requested what is just semantics and subject to league disciplinary action.

Is there even such a thing as "not going public" in New York?

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

CHAOS wrote:As a coach, you should use all the bullets in your gun
.

even if your pretty sure some are gonna shoot crooked? Seems like if you only have 7 bullets your confident in those are the ones your bringing to the fight

When you're playing 300 ball year after year, yea, you take the crooked ones too, because all you got are crooked ones.

the coach just benched the crooked ones and started winning and so he should put them back in?

Didn't notice we had made it to five hundred

Sure, we went from playing like 200 ball, had a spurt and won a bunch of decent games, and we're now sitting at .367.

So its not outside the very likely realm of possibility that we end up finishing the year right around the same win total as last year.

So who is that on?

Look, if MDA didn't want Nate around, they should have figured that out last year before the trading deadline.

I don't think that is too much to ask a coach getting paid top dollar with zero expectations to do.

I don't expect this group to win any more or less than they have.

But I do feel like MDA has not played his cards well when it comes to his roster.

Coaches get paid to win, not play favorites.

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

CHAOS wrote:As a coach, you should use all the bullets in your gun
.

even if your pretty sure some are gonna shoot crooked? Seems like if you only have 7 bullets your confident in those are the ones your bringing to the fight

When you're playing 300 ball year after year, yea, you take the crooked ones too, because all you got are crooked ones.

the coach just benched the crooked ones and started winning and so he should put them back in?

Didn't notice we had made it to five hundred

Sure, we went from playing like 200 ball, had a spurt and won a bunch of decent games, and we're now sitting at .367.

So its not outside the very likely realm of possibility that we end up finishing the year right around the same win total as last year.

So who is that on?

Look, if MDA didn't want Nate around, they should have figured that out last year before the trading deadline.

I don't think that is too much to ask a coach getting paid top dollar with zero expectations to do.

I don't expect this group to win any more or less than they have.

But I do feel like MDA has not played his cards well when it comes to his roster.

Coaches get paid to win, not play favorites.

what you just wrote makes no ****in sense whatsoever.

Team has played 30 games. The first 15 we were 3-12. Over the next 15 the team is 8-7. You wanna go back to what the Knicks were doing for the first 15 games of the year?

That's plain stupid.

Hey, if the Knicks and their current shorted rotation goes on another 3-12 run, sure, something should change. But you don't mess with a good thing, plain and simple.

nate missed 6 of those first 15

McK1 wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

martin wrote:

franco12 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

CHAOS wrote:As a coach, you should use all the bullets in your gun
.

even if your pretty sure some are gonna shoot crooked? Seems like if you only have 7 bullets your confident in those are the ones your bringing to the fight

When you're playing 300 ball year after year, yea, you take the crooked ones too, because all you got are crooked ones.

the coach just benched the crooked ones and started winning and so he should put them back in?

Didn't notice we had made it to five hundred

Sure, we went from playing like 200 ball, had a spurt and won a bunch of decent games, and we're now sitting at .367.

So its not outside the very likely realm of possibility that we end up finishing the year right around the same win total as last year.

So who is that on?

Look, if MDA didn't want Nate around, they should have figured that out last year before the trading deadline.

I don't think that is too much to ask a coach getting paid top dollar with zero expectations to do.

I don't expect this group to win any more or less than they have.

But I do feel like MDA has not played his cards well when it comes to his roster.

Coaches get paid to win, not play favorites.

what you just wrote makes no ****in sense whatsoever.

Team has played 30 games. The first 15 we were 3-12. Over the next 15 the team is 8-7. You wanna go back to what the Knicks were doing for the first 15 games of the year?

That's plain stupid.

Hey, if the Knicks and their current shorted rotation goes on another 3-12 run, sure, something should change. But you don't mess with a good thing, plain and simple.

nate missed 6 of those first 15

also 12 of the last 15.