kam77 wrote:If you looked at Nate's play vs. the Hawks and thought he turned a over a new leaf, you're delusional.
If you think D'antoni's brilliant button-pushing produced 41 points, you're delusional.
If you think Nate can consistently channel his fire into winning basketball, you're delusional.
If you think Nate hasn't frustrated every NBA head coach he's had, you're delusional.
If you think D'antoni cost the knicks wins with nate's benching, you're delusional
(no one ever counts how many more losses would we have with Nate's bonehead plays?)Nate hasn't proven he is a winning basketball player. One game down not a career define. He just happened to be in the zone for a night an played unstoppable. Unless you want to turn your entire offense over to Nate-ball, his style of play is not conducive to being a winning ingredient on a good team. He can be an iverson-lite. And we already passed on that type of ball dominating offensive weapon.
with all due respect, this is a very silly, overly-general, deterministic, arrogant, and unnecessarily insulting list of statements, kam.
to suggest that anyone who might consider any of these things to be delusional (and lump them all into the same category) is perhaps more delusional than the individuals who remain open to all possibilities.
personally, i agree that nate has not yet proven to be a consistently "winning" player, and that one game does not necessarily mean too much (as we should always be aware of), but that does not suggest he is incapable of changing at all because of his history.
i certainly would not want you to be my teacher or coach, because the good one's know how to walk the line between holding people to high expectations (which could mean implementing consequences when they are not met) with opportunities or chances to show one can change. human behavior is not static and does change given a variety of factors.
does this necessarily mean mda thought of this? i dunno, yet i do know that when he first came here and what he has said of nate in public has constantly reminded me of those approaches i learned in school and work experience.
if players with a bad history are not capable of change, please explain rasheed wallace, or latrell sprewell? weren't the coaches for those players given credit?
i wonder if perhaps some of us who often throw nash, barbosa, diaw, etc.'s emergence into soley about mda's "system" make the mistake of separating a system a coach implements from team culture, a mind set it might create, and how the person in charge implements it.
look, i don't necessarily believe a miracle happened last night due to mda's benching of nate, and i agree that nate's antics have been a problem for all coaches. i'd even suggest that benching nate might have cost the knicks a win or two, but he needed to be benched after all of the chances he had, and that he also hurt us in so many other ways that the balance of pro for his good parts versus the parts that hurt us was no longer sensible to ignore...and perhaps was about sending a message to anyone else on the team about how the coach expects professionalism and good basketball play.
yet, again, to suggest that a player is not capable of change is defeatist, and certainly not the mindset any coach should have of a young player who shows the willingness to change and work hard. however, he will need to do a lot more than have one huge game to shift the tide in favor of demonstrating real change. it is a nice start, and a great win for the knicks, but i am also more than fine with moving on from nate if he does not continue to grow.
Forum Po Po and #33 for a reason...
for leaving SuperNate out there.
1/2/2010 7:38 PM