martin wrote:

McK1 wrote:

nate missed 6 of those first 15

also 12 of the last 15.

lets see get this team to .500 without Nate

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.

Its a long season. We've been fooled before by winning streaks. Last 15 games, we played 6 games against teams with current winning record - asterisk next to new orleans who are now sub 500 but when we beat them were over- and our record is 2 wins, 4 losses.

Lets see what they do over the next 15. Chances are it will a few games under five hundred.

But my point is while the knicks improved when Nate got benched, it was less about not having nate out there, and more about the message it sent the team. Fact is, Nate is a knucklehead, but he's talented and should be playing. Short leash yes, and he definitely needs to adjust his attitude. But he's the only one on our squad that isn't home the last two years during the all star game.

McK1 wrote:

martin wrote:

McK1 wrote:

nate missed 6 of those first 15

also 12 of the last 15.

lets see get this team to .500 without Nate

We are.

orangeblobman wrote:I love how this is looked at as a 'banning' or an attempt to 'embarrass' Nate. As if grown men, successful professionals, don't have anything better to worry about than 'embarrassing' a player. You act as if the coaches and management are a group of bickering peasants with the intelligence and life experience of a high school drop out felon.

Nate not playing is the result of a calculated and rational decision making process carried out by successful men deserving of their positions of power. 'Nuff said. You see, what's implicit here is that these men got to their positions of power through solid thinking, not by chance, and this is the same thinking that deemed Nate a liability. Any other interpretation is an attempt to sensationalize the issue and, worse yet, a revealing testament to the primitive biases of the average 'fan'.

I am not under the impression that Walsh was aware of this rational decision making process that you speak of. I also think that nate did not have to be re-signed and if D'Antoni had issues he should have communicated them strongly to Walsh. D'Antoni's pattern with the Knicks is to suddenly react by shunning a player and then letting Walsh deal with it. I am not attempting to sensationalize but rather I am seeing a pattern with MDA. MDA does not appear to be able to tolerate the talented player that might have character issues, rock the boat, or be non professional in his behavior. He will not structure things to alleviate the behaviors but rather will play guys who are compliant, professional, and display the character he wants without requiring him to be the authoritarian figure most successful coaches are. That is why Jeffries, Duhon and Bender are playing despite their limitations and lack of upside.

This is the best way for nate to grow and mature, be proffessional and wait for his number to be called.

Bender may have some nice talent for his size, but I can bet money that it's his high characteristics that has him jumping the dept charts.

when you look around this league it's the guys with the high character that last.

Bippity10 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:I love how this is looked at as a 'banning' or an attempt to 'embarrass' Nate. As if grown men, successful professionals, don't have anything better to worry about than 'embarrassing' a player. You act as if the coaches and management are a group of bickering peasants with the intelligence and life experience of a high school drop out felon.

Nate not playing is the result of a calculated and rational decision making process carried out by successful men deserving of their positions of power. 'Nuff said. You see, what's implicit here is that these men got to their positions of power through solid thinking, not by chance, and this is the same thinking that deemed Nate a liability. Any other interpretation is an attempt to sensationalize the issue and, worse yet, a revealing testament to the primitive biases of the average 'fan'.

I am not under the impression that Walsh was aware of this rational decision making process that you speak of. I also think that nate did not have to be re-signed and if D'Antoni had issues he should have communicated them strongly to Walsh. D'Antoni's pattern with the Knicks is to suddenly react by shunning a player and then letting Walsh deal with it. I am not attempting to sensationalize but rather I am seeing a pattern with MDA. MDA does not appear to be able to tolerate the talented player that might have character issues, rock the boat, or be non professional in his behavior. He will not structure things to alleviate the behaviors but rather will play guys who are compliant, professional, and display the character he wants without requiring him to be the authoritarian figure most successful coaches are. That is why Jeffries, Duhon and Bender are playing despite their limitations and lack of upside.

When you are winning you can tolerate the talented player that might have character issues, rock the boat, or be non professional in his behavior because those guys can be marginalized. And if they can't be marginalized you can get rid of them and often times keep on winning. When you are a bad team with a losing culture and years of watching guys that are more focused upon non basketball related issues then on the court ones, then you have to take a stand. Losing with the guys that do things the right way, sets forth the idea that players need to focus upon the court and nothing else. If you have some relative success(like we are right now) it makes those that are doing things the right way "believers". This team is not very good, but they are playing hard and competing with everyone they play against. Nates record as a member of the rotation includes 23, 33, 23 and 32 wins. He was also a major contributor during our early swoon when we were down 20 every night. Though this is not his fault, it just shows that he has done nothing that says he should be demanding playing time.

Nothing at all...

He is not a point guard. Just cause he is small does not make him a Point.

Point guards have to have some ball movement judgement. Nate Might have the lowest BB IQ I have ever seen in a pro player. I can understand a big man having low IQ given the position (think Yinka Dare)but little players usually play on the perimeter.

knicks1248 wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:I love how this is looked at as a 'banning' or an attempt to 'embarrass' Nate. As if grown men, successful professionals, don't have anything better to worry about than 'embarrassing' a player. You act as if the coaches and management are a group of bickering peasants with the intelligence and life experience of a high school drop out felon.

Nate not playing is the result of a calculated and rational decision making process carried out by successful men deserving of their positions of power. 'Nuff said. You see, what's implicit here is that these men got to their positions of power through solid thinking, not by chance, and this is the same thinking that deemed Nate a liability. Any other interpretation is an attempt to sensationalize the issue and, worse yet, a revealing testament to the primitive biases of the average 'fan'.

I am not under the impression that Walsh was aware of this rational decision making process that you speak of. I also think that nate did not have to be re-signed and if D'Antoni had issues he should have communicated them strongly to Walsh. D'Antoni's pattern with the Knicks is to suddenly react by shunning a player and then letting Walsh deal with it. I am not attempting to sensationalize but rather I am seeing a pattern with MDA. MDA does not appear to be able to tolerate the talented player that might have character issues, rock the boat, or be non professional in his behavior. He will not structure things to alleviate the behaviors but rather will play guys who are compliant, professional, and display the character he wants without requiring him to be the authoritarian figure most successful coaches are. That is why Jeffries, Duhon and Bender are playing despite their limitations and lack of upside.

When you are winning you can tolerate the talented player that might have character issues, rock the boat, or be non professional in his behavior because those guys can be marginalized. And if they can't be marginalized you can get rid of them and often times keep on winning. When you are a bad team with a losing culture and years of watching guys that are more focused upon non basketball related issues then on the court ones, then you have to take a stand. Losing with the guys that do things the right way, sets forth the idea that players need to focus upon the court and nothing else. If you have some relative success(like we are right now) it makes those that are doing things the right way "believers". This team is not very good, but they are playing hard and competing with everyone they play against. Nates record as a member of the rotation includes 23, 33, 23 and 32 wins. He was also a major contributor during our early swoon when we were down 20 every night. Though this is not his fault, it just shows that he has done nothing that says he should be demanding playing time.

Nothing at all...

Allow me to repeat, he has done nothing that says he should be DEMANDING playing time. Players that are major components of the most embarrassing franchise in modern sports do not get to demand anything. They listen to their coach, do what he says and hope that the coach thinks that one day he can contribute to winning.

buddapaw wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:Maybe you guys forgot when nate block (forgot who) a shot, yelled, started posing under the bastket while his man scoop the ball up and layed it..Nate is part of a losing culture..he does not play to win the game..I'm sorry al least al plays some D, and can score on anybody in this league. We miss FT's. We miss some good looking shots,I'm not in full support of mikes decisions some times, but I know for sure nate, is a chemistry killer at some crucial points in the game

Lee was drafted by the Knicks the same year, isn't he also a part of that said losing culture.

Yes, and if he does not listen to the coach he will/should be benched as well.

Papabear wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

orangeblobman wrote:I love how this is looked at as a 'banning' or an attempt to 'embarrass' Nate. As if grown men, successful professionals, don't have anything better to worry about than 'embarrassing' a player. You act as if the coaches and management are a group of bickering peasants with the intelligence and life experience of a high school drop out felon.

Nate not playing is the result of a calculated and rational decision making process carried out by successful men deserving of their positions of power. 'Nuff said. You see, what's implicit here is that these men got to their positions of power through solid thinking, not by chance, and this is the same thinking that deemed Nate a liability. Any other interpretation is an attempt to sensationalize the issue and, worse yet, a revealing testament to the primitive biases of the average 'fan'.

I am not under the impression that Walsh was aware of this rational decision making process that you speak of. I also think that nate did not have to be re-signed and if D'Antoni had issues he should have communicated them strongly to Walsh. D'Antoni's pattern with the Knicks is to suddenly react by shunning a player and then letting Walsh deal with it. I am not attempting to sensationalize but rather I am seeing a pattern with MDA. MDA does not appear to be able to tolerate the talented player that might have character issues, rock the boat, or be non professional in his behavior. He will not structure things to alleviate the behaviors but rather will play guys who are compliant, professional, and display the character he wants without requiring him to be the authoritarian figure most successful coaches are. That is why Jeffries, Duhon and Bender are playing despite their limitations and lack of upside.

When you are winning you can tolerate the talented player that might have character issues, rock the boat, or be non professional in his behavior because those guys can be marginalized. And if they can't be marginalized you can get rid of them and often times keep on winning. When you are a bad team with a losing culture and years of watching guys that are more focused upon non basketball related issues then on the court ones, then you have to take a stand. Losing with the guys that do things the right way, sets forth the idea that players need to focus upon the court and nothing else. If you have some relative success(like we are right now) it makes those that are doing things the right way "believers". This team is not very good, but they are playing hard and competing with everyone they play against. Nates record as a member of the rotation includes 23, 33, 23 and 32 wins. He was also a major contributor during our early swoon when we were down 20 every night. Though this is not his fault, it just shows that he has done nothing that says he should be demanding playing time.

Nothing at all...

Allow me to repeat, he has done nothing that says he should be DEMANDING playing time. Players that are major components of the most embarrassing franchise in modern sports do not get to demand anything. They listen to their coach, do what he says and hope that the coach thinks that one day he can contribute to winning.

Papabear Says

All you want to do is put the blame on Nate. Last year if it wasn't for Nate, a bunch of those games we would have lost. I can't wait till tonights game. This is a game we should win. The pistons are down. Let's see what happens.

PapaBear if you choose to respond to me you must read my posts completely(see bolded sentence above). I no longer debate or have conversations with people that argue with me over things I did not say. I blame Nate for nothing. Like all the rest that have been a part of this team for the past 5 years, none of them can demand minutes. If they get minutes they should thank the coach for showing mercy. If they don't get minutes they should continue to practice hard and hopefully learn. Nate falls under the not getting minutes category. No blame was handed to him for anything.

Please feel free to respond after you have read things thoroughly.