oohah wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:
But the same applies for Nate. That's the reason they were traded for each other. Because they're somewhat similar as to what they can bring on a nightly basis.

No one got ripped off with this trade. Its funny how the Nate lovers think Boston got the best of us. I'm so glad this clown is off the team.

True to a certain degree. But House cannot take over a game by himself. He is a spot up shooter. The ball has to be given to him while he is set up. Robinson can bring the ball up, drive and shoot as well as pressure the ball. He actually is a better player than House and Ainge knows it.

By the way, just because you hate Nate Robinson does not make everybody who does not hate him a "Nate-Lover". Maybe we are just not extremists? Consider that.

oohah

Nate is a little more talented, sure. He's a little younger too. I'll give him that. But sometimes its just not about what the guy can do with the ball. Its about his attitude, and Nate Robinson's attitude is down right awful. He is no different from Marbury and Randolph. This is the the culture Walsh wanted to change, and he did a good job of that by ridding the Knicks of Nate and his clown like acts.

Everyone is so quick to just assume it was only D'antoni's decision to get rid of him. Well you know what, it's about time the coach had some authority over the players, because things didn't work out so well when the players had that authority here, did it ? There's no doubt in my mind Walsh pushed for this trade as well.

oohah wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:

Nate is a little more talented, sure. He's a little younger too. I'll give him that. But sometimes its just not about what the guy can do with the ball. Its about his attitude, and Nate Robinson's attitude is down right awful. He is no different from Marbury and Randolph. This is the the culture Walsh wanted to change, and he did a good job of that by ridding the Knicks of Nate and his clown like acts.

Everyone is so quick to just assume it was only D'antoni's decision to get rid of him. Well you know what, it's about time the coach had some authority over the players, because things didn't work out so well when the players had that authority here, did it ? There's no doubt in my mind Walsh pushed for this trade as well.

That is interesting that you think Walsh was the one motivated to get rid of Robinson because when Robinson was benched Walsh expressed bewilderment at D'Antoni's actions.

***

Randolph, Marbury, Robinson -- you lumped them all together as if they were the same. They are not. They are actually all quite different. Do you recall how the Knicks team and the entire NBA congratulated Robinson on his comeback 40 point game?

Has anybody ever questioned Randolph's heart on the court?

Marbury is an extreme case.

oohah

Just because Walsh expressed bewilderment towards D'antoni, doesn't mean he wasn't still going to pull the trigger on getting Nate out of NY. Apparently Walsh thought D'antoni's concerns over Nate's attitude was legitimate enough.

And yes, I do recall the Atlanta game. It was impressive. But I also recall a bunch of other games where his attitude and circus acts were just out of control and unacceptable. I'm not going to jizz in my pants like everyone else just because of the Atlanta game. Eddie House has hit his fair share of big shots with Boston too.

oohah wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:
Just because Walsh expressed bewilderment towards D'antoni, doesn't mean he wasn't still going to pull the trigger on getting Nate out of NY. Apparently Walsh thought D'antoni's concerns over Nate's attitude was legitimate enough.

And yes, I do recall the Atlanta game. It was impressive. But I also recall a bunch of other games where his attitude and circus acts were just out of control and unacceptable. I'm not going to jizz in my pants like everyone else just because of the Atlanta game. Eddie House has hit his fair share of big shots with Boston too.

Here you go with the extremism again: "Jizz pants". House has hit some big shots. More often he is not in the game because he can only do one thing. House very rarely, if ever, has taken over a game and won it on his shoulders. Nate Robinson did that 10-12 times in the 2009 season, did it a couple of times this season, and almost brought the pathetic Knicks back in several others, like against Cleveland.

Your over the top dislike of Robinson is similar to the Randolph situation. You believe too much in the conventional rumors about a player and choose to ignore what he does well. Then another team goes ahead and makes good use of him.

For you, Nate Robinson being out of control and his circus act is unacceptable, but you seem to have missed all of Eddie House's out of control rushed shots thus far with the Knicks, and his "Circus Act" as well.

But forget all the extra-curricular stuff. Nate Robinson is a much better basketball player than Eddie House. House is a journeyman who is on a new team almost every year. This is simply the fact. If you can't see that on your own, I doubt the mountain of evidence I can produce for you will convince you, you simply want to believe what you want to.

oohah

Jamal hit some of the biggest shots in Knicks regular season history, but we were still 20 and 30 win teams. Marbury even had a few himself, but the same applies with him. Randolph had monster games during his Knick days, but it didn't matter because we were a losing team. Nate had some big moments, and he propelled the Knicks into some victories. But guess what, it didn't matter because once again, we were a 30 win team. So its time for you to just realize that Nate isn't the impact player that you think he is. He's just a career bench player, just like Eddie House. Which is the reason the trade took place. Don't kid yourself. This isn't a case of Vlade Divac being traded for Bryant. Its just a matter of time until Nate reaches journeyman status.

oohah wrote:

JrZyHuStLa wrote:Jamal hit some of the biggest shots in Knicks regular season history, but we were still 20 and 30 win teams. Marbury even had a few himself, but the same applies with him. Randolph had monster games during his Knick days, but it didn't matter because we were a losing team. Nate had some big moments, and he propelled the Knicks into some victories. But guess what, it didn't matter because once again, we were a 30 win team. So its time for you to just realize that Nate isn't the impact player that you think he is. He's just a career bench player, just like Eddie House. Which is the reason the trade took place. Don't kid yourself. This isn't a case of Vlade Divac being traded for Bryant. Its just a matter of time until Nate reaches journeyman status.

You seem to be under the impression that I want to build a team around Nate Robinson. My point is that Robinson is a pretty good player for what he is, a role player who gives you scoring and energy off the bench and can change the tempo and look of a game because he is tough to guard and he puts pressure on the defense. As an added plus he can heat up and win a game all by himself for his team every now and then.

Here is the thing: You are trying to create a ridiculous straw man argument for me because you can't refute my actual point. Robinson is better than House. House has all the same behavior problems and control problems in his play that Robinson did except House can do exactly 1 thing and that is shoot open jumpers. End of story. Like I wrote, if you can't see that then I don't think I can help you see it.

oohah

Dude, I already said Nate is a little more talented, are you reading my posts or are you just waiting for my replies so you can continue your little rant on Nate ? I said he's a little more talented, but its just not worth it at the end of the day in my very own opinion.

"End of story. Like I wrote, if you can't see that then I don't think I can help you see it."

You don't need to help me see it, because its just not there to see with my very own eyes. Just save your time and try to realize I'm not creating a straw man argument, but rather actually implementing truthfulness with what I'm trying to say. You said Nate is a good guy that can give scoring and energy off the bench. I'm saying that Eddie is capable of doing the same exact thing ! And if you don't believe that, then I have no choice but to believe that you want a team built around Nate Robinson.