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

Is Curry on Isiah's hit list?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 3 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
12/15/2007  3:31 AM
Posted by oohah:



The fundamental flaw in Panos presumption is that last year was the year LB and Isiah had virtually identical teams and Isiah did better -- I don't see how that can be argued. That is the season to compare coaches. Isiah did better with the same team last year period.


I think you're incorrect. Both years can and should be compared. And, in both years, one would expect a significant improvement in win total due to improvement individually by the rookies (especially Lee) and in team chemistry. This doesn't even take into account the fact that Marbury and others were in complete mutiny mode even in pre-season, a large negative influence distinct from whether or not Larry sabotaged. The argument you're trying to make that, if Larry didn't sabotage, he should have won more because he's a better coach is flawed for these reasons. Thus, the team Isiah took over was not even close to identical to LB's - this is due to the major factors of rookie improvement, loyalty to the coach and team chemistry, factors of which you yourself were a big proponent. Most importantly, the fact that LB may have underachieved/sabotaged the team is not mutually exclusive with him being a "great coach" as you implied. There is no contradition anywhere even if you stretch it.

Posted by oohah:


Thirdly, even if Isiah matches LB's loss total this season with better paper talent (And that is a big if), that is a greater failure on LB's part because as we can all agree on, LB is historically one of the best coaches ever, and Isiah is not. And I don't think LB is that bad of a coach, it was evident that there was more at play than just poor coaching or poor player performance during that season.


This is wrong again, imo. As I clearly stated above, LB was dealt a deck of mutiny and rookies and the win total in Isiah's first year should have been significantly higher. If you're so vehemently insistent on not comparing this year with LB's year because the teams are different then I think you should be consistent and acknowledge that Isiah's first year circumstances were quite different from Lb's year as well.

Posted by oohah:


Is most of the win total of any coach player personnel driven? Yes! But there are degrees of sucking, and we didn't have to suck that bad in 2005-2006. We shouldn't suck this bad now. But it is a different team, not totally, but significantly. I look at this year's sucking to be more of the GM's fault because he was supposed to improve the team in actuality, not just on paper, though the coach has to carry much of the blame. The players might suck but the coach has to make them suck less. This is true for both Isiah and LB.

Why do you view this year's sucking as mostly the GM's fault? You expected 41 wins. The coach has failed to devliver so far. Is it sabotage or not? Whether we had to suck that bad in 05-06 is your opinion and, to be honest, it doesn't make sense to me. Mine is that LB didn't tank, atleast until the all-star break. He suffered from mutiny. And the reason for the sucking this year is a combination of the coaching and GMing of Isiah who, this year, has had to deal with the same problems LB did. (mutiny)

Take home message - coaching has minimal influence when mutiny strikes.

FYI: Panos didn't extrapolate a "23 win total." Rather, it was a hypothetical that we're discussing. An "if" proposition that is consistent with the play so far.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
AUTOADVERT
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
12/15/2007  3:32 AM
Posted by eViL:
Posted by oohah:

Code, to make my point in short: LB should have had a regular bad team when he coached the same personnel Isiah coached to a regular bad win total.

LB should have had the support of his general manager when the team's star player decided to start a mutiny, but he didn't. Now, it's nice to see the same players quit on Isiah. That is what he gets for enabling a bunch of me-first quitters. You are too smart to see otherwise, oohah. It's ok to admit you are wrong sometimes.

This coach does have the support of the GM doesn't he? I don't think that the GM's support is the factor it is made out to be.

I really do think that you believe I like most of these payers. I don't particularly like them.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
12/15/2007  3:49 AM
I think you're incorrect. Both years can and should be compared. And, in both years, one would expect a significant improvement in win total due to improvement individually by the rookies (especially Lee) and in team chemistry. This doesn't even take into account the fact that Marbury and others were in complete mutiny mode even in pre-season, a large negative influence distinct from whether or not Larry sabotaged. The argument you're trying to make that, if Larry didn't sabotage, he should have won more because he's a better coach is flawed for these reasons. Thus, the team Isiah took over was not even close to identical to LB's - this is due to the major factors of rookie improvement, loyalty to the coach and team chemistry, factors of which you yourself were a big proponent. Most importantly, the fact that LB may have underachieved/sabotaged the team is not mutually exclusive with him being a "great coach" as you implied. There is no contradition anywhere even if you stretch it.

Where do you get that the team was in mutiny mode in preseason? Who? Lee, Frye, Rose, Daniels, Crawford, Curry, Q, Barnes, were all in mutiny mode? Maybe Marbury, but I think that is a stretch too, because many said they saw the best ball of his career that year.

I do think that a developed team should get better fromm within without changes -- but LB did not try to develop the team in my opinion.

I am not implying that LB underachieving/tanking is mutually exclusive with him being a great coach. Just the opposite. I feel that he underachieved/tanked and I know he could and should have done significantly better.
This is wrong again, imo. As I clearly stated above, LB was dealt a deck of mutiny and rookies and the win total in Isiah's first year should have been significantly higher. If you're so vehemently insistent on not comparing this year with LB's year because the teams are different then I think you should be consistent and acknowledge that Isiah's first year circumstances were quite different from Lb's year as well.

Can we name the players who were mutinous please? I think every year is different, but last year's personnel was very close to '05/'06, and the rookies were virtually still rookies, especially Lee. Last year was closer in situation than this year's team.
Why do you view this year's sucking as mostly the GM's fault? You expected 41 wins. The coach has failed to devliver so far. Is it sabotage or not? Whether we had to suck that bad in 05-06 is your opinion and, to be honest, it doesn't make sense to me. Mine is that LB didn't tank, atleast until the all-star break. He suffered from mutiny. And the reason for the sucking this year is a combination of the coaching and GMing of Isiah who, this year, has had to deal with the same problems LB did. (mutiny)

Take home message - coaching has minimal influence when mutiny strikes.

FYI: Panos didn't extrapolate a "23 win total." Rather, it was a hypothetical that we're discussing. An "if" proposition that is consistent with the play so far.

I don't think this team has gone all mutiny, and I don't think LB's team did either. I think they were/are demoralized. Currently, the GM has failed to solve the problems that plagued LB's team and last year's team. Those teams were 33-36 win teams, not 23 win teams.

The coach is doing a bad job this year, he was better last year. I see no dichotomy here. And it doesn't change what happened in the LB year either.

Is it sabotage? We have to look at the day to day actions, not just the wins. I really think Isiah is trying to win, and failing. I really think LB was trying to make a point from the jump, not really trying to win. You'll see when LB publishes his book: "I WUZ TANKIN!"

Going back to last year and the year before, I would have been fine with LB winning 33 games and really getting production out of Lee and Curry with Frye playing decoy. Then I would have expected better from him the next year, same as I do with Isiah this year. Isiah is disappointing me. I'm a fair guy.


oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
12/15/2007  3:59 AM
Posted by oohah:
I think you're incorrect. Both years can and should be compared. And, in both years, one would expect a significant improvement in win total due to improvement individually by the rookies (especially Lee) and in team chemistry. This doesn't even take into account the fact that Marbury and others were in complete mutiny mode even in pre-season, a large negative influence distinct from whether or not Larry sabotaged. The argument you're trying to make that, if Larry didn't sabotage, he should have won more because he's a better coach is flawed for these reasons. Thus, the team Isiah took over was not even close to identical to LB's - this is due to the major factors of rookie improvement, loyalty to the coach and team chemistry, factors of which you yourself were a big proponent. Most importantly, the fact that LB may have underachieved/sabotaged the team is not mutually exclusive with him being a "great coach" as you implied. There is no contradition anywhere even if you stretch it.

Where do you get that the team was in mutiny mode in preseason? Who? Lee, Frye, Rose, Daniels, Crawford, Curry, Q, Barnes, were all in mutiny mode? Maybe Marbury, but I think that is a stretch too, because many said they saw the best ball of his career that year.

I do think that a developed team should get better fromm within without changes -- but LB did not try to develop the team in my opinion.

I am not implying that LB underachieving/tanking is mutually exclusive with him being a great coach. Just the opposite. I feel that he underachieved/tanked and I know he could and should have done significantly better.
This is wrong again, imo. As I clearly stated above, LB was dealt a deck of mutiny and rookies and the win total in Isiah's first year should have been significantly higher. If you're so vehemently insistent on not comparing this year with LB's year because the teams are different then I think you should be consistent and acknowledge that Isiah's first year circumstances were quite different from Lb's year as well.

Can we name the players who were mutinous please? I think every year is different, but last year's personnel was very close to '05/'06, and the rookies were virtually still rookies, especially Lee. Last year was closer in situation than this year's team.
Why do you view this year's sucking as mostly the GM's fault? You expected 41 wins. The coach has failed to devliver so far. Is it sabotage or not? Whether we had to suck that bad in 05-06 is your opinion and, to be honest, it doesn't make sense to me. Mine is that LB didn't tank, atleast until the all-star break. He suffered from mutiny. And the reason for the sucking this year is a combination of the coaching and GMing of Isiah who, this year, has had to deal with the same problems LB did. (mutiny)

Take home message - coaching has minimal influence when mutiny strikes.

FYI: Panos didn't extrapolate a "23 win total." Rather, it was a hypothetical that we're discussing. An "if" proposition that is consistent with the play so far.

I don't think this team has gone all mutiny, and I don't think LB's team did either. I think they were/are demoralized. Currently, the GM has failed to solve the problems that plagued LB's team and last year's team. Those teams were 33-36 win teams, not 23 win teams.

The coach is doing a bad job this year, he was better last year. I see no dichotomy here. And it doesn't change what happened in the LB year either.

Is it sabotage? We have to look at the day to day actions, not just the wins. I really think Isiah is trying to win, and failing. I really think LB was trying to make a point from the jump, not really trying to win. You'll see when LB publishes his book: "I WUZ TANKIN!"

Going back to last year and the year before, I would have been fine with LB winning 33 games and really getting production out of Lee and Curry with Frye playing decoy. Then I would have expected better from him the next year, same as I do with Isiah this year. Isiah is disappointing me. I'm a fair guy.


oohah

Well, I'm at a loss for words. I disagree with every word of this post. LB didn't tank until perhaps the very end. Blueseat's has a post that documents the mutiny extensievly - he's the man to ask for that. You talk about LB not improving the players - I think you're wrong there as well and the irony, to me, is the lack of player improvement under Isiah from last year to this year.

Maybe we should just start from scratch - where was I/Panos trying to have it both ways? If Isiah hits 23 wins this year because of mutiny, like Larry did, I think the common cause should be fairly obvious.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
12/15/2007  4:13 AM
Well, I'm at a loss for words. I disagree with every word of this post. LB didn't tank until perhaps the very end. Blueseat's has a post that documents the mutiny extensievly - he's the man to ask for that. You talk about LB not improving the players - I think you're wrong there as well and the irony, to me, is the lack of player improvement under Isiah from last year to this year.

Well, I remember blueseats making a lot of posts like that. But is should be pretty easy to name off a few players who went mutiny before the season started, or if you exaggerating a little bit, early on. The only guy I can think of that we can make that argument for is Marbury.
Maybe we should just start from scratch - where was I/Panos trying to have it both ways? If Isiah hits 23 wins this year because of mutiny, like Larry did, I think the common cause should be fairly obvious.

IF that happens, we might have a discussion. However, there can be more than one reason for a 23 win season. I do think a 23 win season would be even more inexcusable this year.

I look at it like this: If you give me(Isiah) some crappy food, I can make you a crappy meal. But if Emeril Lagasse(Larry Brown) has the same food, he should make a better meal than I. Doesn't that make sense?

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
12/15/2007  4:15 AM
Well, I'm at a loss for words. I disagree with every word of this post. LB didn't tank until perhaps the very end.

By the way, we disagree here too. At the end of the season, LB was trying to win. In the last 6 weeks, he unchained Crawford, and that is when Crawford had his much ballyhooed "improvement". That is when the Knicks won at a better percentage and escaped the worst record in Knicks history.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
12/15/2007  4:22 AM
Posted by oohah:
Well, I'm at a loss for words. I disagree with every word of this post. LB didn't tank until perhaps the very end. Blueseat's has a post that documents the mutiny extensievly - he's the man to ask for that. You talk about LB not improving the players - I think you're wrong there as well and the irony, to me, is the lack of player improvement under Isiah from last year to this year.

Well, I remember blueseats making a lot of posts like that. But is should be pretty easy to name off a few players who went mutiny before the season started, or if you exaggerating a little bit, early on. The only guy I can think of that we can make that argument for is Marbury.
Maybe we should just start from scratch - where was I/Panos trying to have it both ways? If Isiah hits 23 wins this year because of mutiny, like Larry did, I think the common cause should be fairly obvious.

IF that happens, we might have a discussion. However, there can be more than one reason for a 23 win season. I do think a 23 win season would be even more inexcusable this year.

I look at it like this: If you give me(Isiah) some crappy food, I can make you a crappy meal. But if Emeril Lagasse(Larry Brown) has the same food, he should make a better meal than I. Doesn't that make sense?

oohah


Its funny that you say the only guy could have been Marbury. Marbury just happened to be the point guard and best player on the team. It would only take him to ruin everything and it absolutely did. Again, Blueseats can give you all of that information in sordid detail.

Your Lagasse analogy is off the mark because they didn't have the same ingredients (see above). Mutiny is an ingredient enough to make any dish go sour. And, regardless, if we can actually stick to the hypothetical and Isiah hits 23 wins (mutiny or not), then it gives credence to the argument LB may not have been tanking. The more prevalent factors were mutiny and plain old sucking with a sprinkle of random chance adding/subtracting wins here and there.

Btw, I heard they were taking Lagasse off the air because he was getting old?
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
12/15/2007  4:23 AM
Posted by oohah:
Well, I'm at a loss for words. I disagree with every word of this post. LB didn't tank until perhaps the very end.

By the way, we disagree here too. At the end of the season, LB was trying to win. In the last 6 weeks, he unchained Crawford, and that is when Crawford had his much ballyhooed "improvement". That is when the Knicks won at a better percentage and escaped the worst record in Knicks history.

oohah

Great, so if LB was trying to win at the end, why are you obsessed with the sabotage argument?
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
12/15/2007  4:34 AM
Its funny that you say the only guy could have been Marbury. Marbury just happened to be the point guard and best player on the team. It would only take him to ruin everything and it absolutely did. Again, Blueseats can give you all of that information in sordid detail.

I said you can make an argument for Marbury mutinying. I don't think he did mutiny. He was probably an insolent ass-hole, but that isn't the same thing. I do agree that is very detrimental to a team.
Your Lagasse analogy is off the mark because they didn't have the same ingredients (see above). Mutiny is an ingredient enough to make any dish go sour. And, regardless, if we can actually stick to the hypothetical and Isiah hits 23 wins (mutiny or not), then it gives credence to the argument LB may not have been tanking. The more prevalent factors were mutiny and plain old sucking with a sprinkle of random chance adding/subtracting wins here and there.

They had very similar ingredients last year, can't we agree on that? You will never find any team from seqason to season to be 'exactly' the same.

And even if Isiah wins 23 this year, it doesn't mean anything to with the intent of what LB did or was trying to do. It does mean they both did a bad job coaching and the players blow chunks.
Btw, I heard they were taking Lagasse off the air because he was getting old?

Emeril for Knicks GM! Bam!

You know Curry would like that!

Great, so if LB was trying to win at the end, why are you obsessed with the sabotage argument?

I am not "obsessed" with sabotage any more than you are "obsessed" with mutiny.

I have said many times that LB was coaching to make a point and in doing so sabotaged the team from regular bad to super-bad. But I didn't bring it up, Panos did. I haven't brought up LB in a while, but there has been a resurgence of LB talk around here so I think the LB obsession runs deep with other posters.

Time to put it behind us. I'm more of a forward looking guy.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
12/15/2007  4:47 AM
Posted by oohah:
Its funny that you say the only guy could have been Marbury. Marbury just happened to be the point guard and best player on the team. It would only take him to ruin everything and it absolutely did. Again, Blueseats can give you all of that information in sordid detail.

I said you can make an argument for Marbury mutinying. I don't think he did mutiny. He was probably an insolent ass-hole, but that isn't the same thing. I do agree that is very detrimental to a team.
Your Lagasse analogy is off the mark because they didn't have the same ingredients (see above). Mutiny is an ingredient enough to make any dish go sour. And, regardless, if we can actually stick to the hypothetical and Isiah hits 23 wins (mutiny or not), then it gives credence to the argument LB may not have been tanking. The more prevalent factors were mutiny and plain old sucking with a sprinkle of random chance adding/subtracting wins here and there.

They had very similar ingredients last year, can't we agree on that? You will never find any team from seqason to season to be 'exactly' the same.

And even if Isiah wins 23 this year, it doesn't mean anything to with the intent of what LB did or was trying to do. It does mean they both did a bad job coaching and the players blow chunks.
Btw, I heard they were taking Lagasse off the air because he was getting old?

Emeril for Knicks GM! Bam!

You know Curry would like that!

Great, so if LB was trying to win at the end, why are you obsessed with the sabotage argument?

I am not "obsessed" with sabotage any more than you are "obsessed" with mutiny.

I have said many times that LB was coaching to make a point and in doing so sabotaged the team from regular bad to super-bad. But I didn't bring it up, Panos did. I haven't brought up LB in a while, but there has been a resurgence of LB talk around here so I think the LB obsession runs deep with other posters.

Time to put it behind us. I'm more of a forward looking guy.

oohah

Marbury mutinied plain and simple in my opinion. Quibbling over the difinition is not informative - he was defiant both on and off the court and he attempted to pass his shtick onto others. Again, Blueseats is the master of that domain.

We most definitely cannot agree that they had similar ingredients last year. Not unless we can agree that Isiah has much better ingredients this year. The fact remains that either year is comparable if you account for changes in personnel, attitude, loyalty and team chemistry. Trying to make last year more comparable, however, by looking merely at the hard assets is grossly misleading, imo.

The intent of LB is a subjective discussion and I don't have the energy to go pick apart the 05-06 articles. If we're trying to discern his intent based on performance, I think my position holds up better than yours. That is, considering both last year's and this year's performance so far. Certainly, I think the odds are in favor of the fact that whatever "tanking" was occurring had a neglibible impact on the win total.

I'll freely admit that I am obsessed with Lb. You might even call me a Larry lover. He was the most prominent opportunity for us to get past Isiah's incompetence. Kind of makes you feel like the retired boxer who missed his one chance at a title shot.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
12/15/2007  5:01 AM
You might even call me a Larry lover.

I wouldn't. That type of turn of phrase is not my bag. However, wouldn't your love for Larry color your perceptions of him and what happened in a biased manner?

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
12/15/2007  5:04 AM
We most definitely cannot agree that they had similar ingredients last year. Not unless we can agree that Isiah has much better ingredients this year.

Sorry, then we can't agree. I don't see much real difference in last year's lineup besides Balkman and Collins, and they did not play until later in the season.

I think the ingredients are better this year, but not by a large margin. And the recipe is off. And we have way to much meat, but not enough vegetables.

oohah



Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
12/15/2007  5:06 AM
The intent of LB is a subjective discussion and I don't have the energy to go pick apart the 05-06 articles. If we're trying to discern his intent based on performance, I think my position holds up better than yours. That is, considering both last year's and this year's performance so far. Certainly, I think the odds are in favor of the fact that whatever "tanking" was occurring had a neglibible impact on the win total.

I am basing his intent on his actions, comments, and his results.

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
12/15/2007  5:08 AM
Posted by oohah:
You might even call me a Larry lover.

I wouldn't. That type of turn of phrase is not my bag. However, wouldn't your love for Larry color your perceptions of him and what happened in a biased manner?

oohah

Oh please, I welcome the Larry lover chants. I know I've done well when I get those.

In this retrospecetive debate, my "love for Larry" does influence my opinion in the same way that your hate for Larry colors your perceptions. But, all in all, my opinions of Larry were formed mostly as a result of his work here; so, rather than my "love for larry" coloring my perceptions, it would be more appropriate to say that my "love for Larry" came about as a result of his fantastic efforts to supplant Isiah.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
12/15/2007  5:12 AM
Posted by oohah:
We most definitely cannot agree that they had similar ingredients last year. Not unless we can agree that Isiah has much better ingredients this year.

Sorry, then we can't agree. I don't see much real difference in last year's lineup besides Balkman and Collins, and they did not play until later in the season.

I think the ingredients are better this year, but not by a large margin. And the recipe is off. And we have way to much meat, but not enough vegetables.

oohah

If you can't see the difference, its because you're not acknowledging the very real factors of mutiny, team chemistry and rookie improvement(Lee).

Remember, a coach can use as much meat and vegetables as he chooses. The failure to approach .500 means that both the meat went bad or the chef sucked or the meat refused to go in the pan.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
12/15/2007  5:14 AM
Posted by oohah:
The intent of LB is a subjective discussion and I don't have the energy to go pick apart the 05-06 articles. If we're trying to discern his intent based on performance, I think my position holds up better than yours. That is, considering both last year's and this year's performance so far. Certainly, I think the odds are in favor of the fact that whatever "tanking" was occurring had a neglibible impact on the win total.

I am basing his intent on his actions, comments, and his results.

oohah

Same here. I feel like its about time for the infamous "we can agree to disagree" conclusion, my friend.
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
12/15/2007  5:15 AM
In this retrospecetive debate, my "love for Larry" does influence my opinion in the same way that your hate for Larry colors your perceptions. But, all in all, my opinions of Larry were formed mostly as a result of his work here; so, rather than my "love for larry" coloring my perceptions, it would be more appropriate to say that my "love for Larry" came about as a result of his fantastic efforts to supplant Isiah.

First of all, I don't hate Larry Brown. He means nothing to me before or after his time with the Knicks. I rooted for him to do well here and I never called for him to be fired.

It seems to me you hate Isiah, not so much love Larry. However, his efforts to supplant Isiah are exactly what I am talking about. Worrying about replacing the GM rather than winning games is very poor form for a coach. And that was always my major complaint about LB.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 15-12-2007 05:16 AM]
Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
oohah
Posts: 26600
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/7/2005
Member: #887
12/15/2007  5:15 AM
Same here. I feel like its about time for the infamous "we can agree to disagree" conclusion, my friend.

Good night, we can rant some more tomorrow after the game!

Best,

oohah

Good luck Mike D'Antoni, 'cause you ain't never seen nothing like this before!
codeunknown
Posts: 22615
Alba Posts: 9
Joined: 7/14/2004
Member: #704
12/15/2007  5:23 AM
Posted by oohah:
In this retrospecetive debate, my "love for Larry" does influence my opinion in the same way that your hate for Larry colors your perceptions. But, all in all, my opinions of Larry were formed mostly as a result of his work here; so, rather than my "love for larry" coloring my perceptions, it would be more appropriate to say that my "love for Larry" came about as a result of his fantastic efforts to supplant Isiah.

First of all, I don't hate Larry Brown. He means nothing to me before or after his time with the Knicks. I rooted for him to do well here and I never called for him to be fired.

It seems to me you hate Isiah, not so much love Larry. However, his efforts to supplant Isiah are exactly what I am talking about. Worrying about replacing the GM rather than winning games is very poor form for a coach. And that was always my major complaint about LB.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 15-12-2007 05:16 AM]

First of all, I don't hate Isiah. I rooted for him to succeed. But now it appears that he's incapable of success. He's like a mutant mouse who is resistant to the shocks from the "younger and more athletic" cage.

Let me clarify on LB - I don't think by any means think that he tried to take over as GM. He tried to change the players and Isiah didn't take kindly to that. Isiah was at fault. And thats when the story ended with the following victims - LB and Knick fans.
In terms of it being poor form for a coach, I think thats an inappropriate analysis. The coach should have input as to which players are moved and Isiah should have learned to work more cooperatively.

[Edited by - codeunknown on 12-15-2007 05:25 AM]
Sh-t in the popcorn to go with sh-t on the court. Its a theme show like Medieval times.
Cosmic
Posts: 26570
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1115
USA
12/15/2007  9:38 AM
On Larry Brown: Why is ANYONE still defending this delusional old man who was clearly undermining Isiah and the entire team so Dolan would fire Isiah and give Larry full control? He acted wholly inappropriately and that's why he got fired. While he was right that the team sucked and needed to be changed HE WAS NOT HIRED FOR THAT JOB he was hired to coach what he was given, he never did, and he spent an entire year trying to undermine the product and pit players and coaches and management against each other so HE could gain control of a franchise.

STOP DEFENDING THIS PIECE OF GARBAGE!!!!!!!!


Now...as to Curry being on Isiah's hit list? Who cares. Isiah still thinks he's a few practices away from being SHAQ. Isiah also thinks Crawful is a more athletic Michael Jordan. He thinks Jared or QBrick is Pippen. He thinks Zach is Cwebb in his prime. Isiah is a freakin IDIOT if nobody noticed that yet.

Know who should be on a hit list?


Steve Mills
Isiah Thomas
Malik Rose
Jared Jeffries
Eddy Curry
Zach Randolph (Oh, but Cos, he puts up great stats!) Yeah, but, ever heard of TEAM CHEMISTRY!? He hasn't! Proof? Eddy Curry turning into a big pile of garbage!
Stephraud TurdBury
Jamawful Crawful
Jerome James
Quentin "Oh, My Back, I think I pulled it!" Richardson
http://popcornmachine.net/ A must-use tool for NBA stat junkies!
Page 3 of 4 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Is Curry on Isiah's hit list?
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