kam77 wrote:Per Hahn -- D'Antoni has picked his battles, for sure. He stuck with Chris Duhon despite some awful play early in the season, but mainly because Duhon, in his mind, was the only playmaking point guard who could run an offense on the roster. If he buried Duhon and lost him, he'd lose control of the offense, for sure. He took on Robinson mainly because he knew he could win without him, which was subsequently proven. That should have been the most alarming thing to Nate.

to me, this explanation makes sense. We all know Duhon was playing awful, but who was his replacement? playa, still haven't seen you man up and answer this.

playa2 wrote:I find it hard to believe in a Danphoney's offense where the pg is the most important piece in keeping the machine running he would put all his eggs in the basket with one pg chris duhon ?

After Duhon breaking down last yr what kind of insurance would he have to rely on.

Even Nash had a barbosa to step in and do a yeoman's job in nash's absence.

So are we under the impression management wasn't concerned about having another pg to play if duhon goes down for any length of time ?

Jennings was that guy ! It's not like we run the triangle offense where a active ball hog dribbling pg isn't needed.

so mostly nothing to add, right?

what does this have to do with anything related to topic?

kam77 wrote:

playa2 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:Larry Hughes is making 13.6mm $ this year. Why in the world is he making noise one day back from injury? Just chill and use some class--hold your tongue and practice hard--be ready. He was given a secondary chance after a horrible pre season and did some nice things in various games but he kind of floated down the tubes even before he was hurt. Im sure he will play again--but this unbelievable--obnoxious selfish attitude by some players is pretty disgusting. Hey Larry--millions of kids won't have two meals today--you've got it pretty good.

Listen if you were playing when the team was winning and felt that you were an integral part of it and got hurt wouldn't you want the spot back ? Getting Dnp's is not a good sign from the coach that we appreciated you when you helped us turned it around with your all-around TEAM play. It's not like he's a rookie like Douglas.

Now he's a bum with a bad attitude. wow

Maybe it should be a 12 man rotation to make you happy.

Exactly...If Hugehs is still in the rotation then MDA is an a****** for not playing Douglas. It doesn't end with some people....

playa2 wrote:I find it hard to believe in a Danphoney's offense where the pg is the most important piece in keeping the machine running he would put all his eggs in the basket with one pg chris duhon ?

After Duhon breaking down last yr what kind of insurance would he have to rely on.

Even Nash had a barbosa to step in and do a yeoman's job in nash's absence.

So are we under the impression management wasn't concerned about having another pg to play if duhon goes down for any length of time ?

Jennings was that guy ! It's not like we run the triangle offense where a active ball hog dribbling pg isn't needed.

and the lenardo barbosa award for quality backup pg award to take away duhon's spot in d'antoni's offense on the knicks goes to....

.....

.....

we don't have jennings, who for whatever reason walsh passed on (to my own disappointment, btw) so how does that answer what d'antoni was supposed to do this season?

however, it was clearly not that the knicks were not interested in getting another pg, because of their flirtation with sessions, rumored interest in rubio, and drafting of douglas.

the reality is that walsh passed on jennings (his bad), douglas is not ready to run a team, and sessions wanted too much money from the knicks' perspective given their cap situation.

i think walsh may have figured with this/hoped that with hughes, a hopefully more mature nate, and douglas, that duhon -- who played well before he seemed to break down -- would get enough rest with these guys filling in backup minutes well enough. yet, the team got off to an atrocious start -- fueled by several players poor play -- including duhon and hughes (who couldn't even make the rotation to start the year).

again...

what was d'antoni suppossed to do given that reality, and nate's inability to be a legit, consistent pg at this point? douglas played well enough early on, but duhon was the guy he depended on, and hughes then filled the void for a bit, yet then hughes fell off/got injured and duhon played better.

i do hear hughes' frustration since he did work hard to get back, but he wasn't playing well and the knicks had nate sitting on the bench, ready for a second shot. on this team this year, with a desperate sense for winning games, that's the mantra....

you suck (and we have someone who might take your spot) you sit.

kam77 wrote:Per Hahn -- D'Antoni has picked his battles, for sure. He stuck with Chris Duhon despite some awful play early in the season, but mainly because Duhon, in his mind, was the only playmaking point guard who could run an offense on the roster. If he buried Duhon and lost him, he'd lose control of the offense, for sure. He took on Robinson mainly because he knew he could win without him, which was subsequently proven. That should have been the most alarming thing to Nate.

dude, do u ever present an opinion of your own? Alan Hahn is presenting an opinion just like everyone else here... you present this stuff & quote it as if you were quoting passages from the Bible... so if Hahn wrote it, it must be true & everyone else's opinions are automatically rendered moot i guess... please.

TMS wrote:

kam77 wrote:

TMS wrote:

kam77 wrote:Wow... it must be really personal between them [/sarcasm]

u really are a moron... u wanna keep throwing cheap jabs to get under people's skin even when you know this is a completely different scenario... Larry Hughes was not benched for behavioral issues... he was just playing like crap... of course this wasn't personal... but keep on making your thought provoking threads about everyone being delusional. [/sarcasm]

It's not a matter of getting under anyone's skin. It's the stupidity of some people hating on D'antoni because of who he does or does not play and calling it personal. You're the moron if you think D'antoni should've brought Nate back earlier when we were winning all those games with cohesion and chemistry. It wasn't until about 8 games into Nates banishment where we lost a few games due to scoring droughts. And as Nate showed with his 2 for 11, he is a feast or famine player with no guarantees he could've helped on those nights.

actually it's the stupidity of people like you that eat up anything & everything MDA wants to feed you to explain the moves he makes & take it as gospel... i'm the moron if i thought Nate should have been playing in games where we lacked offense? are you kidding me??? so it made much more sense to play a guy with no cartilage in his knees that can barely get up & down the floor without toppling over & expect him to bring it on a consistent basis??? dude, i can't believe you're actually that stupid to buy into the bullsh!t you're shovelling at this point.

dude, you need to chill.

TMS wrote:i need to chill... so it's cool for kam to be a punk & incite arguments but not ok for me to respond... gotcha bro... i'll shut up now.

TMS, I don't read everything. All I see if you calling kam a moron in the post above. Telling Bip that he is acting high and mighty or whatever. Dropping the stupid comment in a lot of different places.

Why don't you just talk basketball instead of trying to characterize other people's posts or the posters themselves. I don't really read into any type of response that tries to deflect as you have done with the kam mention above; I am just asking directly to you.

TMS wrote:

kam77 wrote:Per Hahn -- D'Antoni has picked his battles, for sure. He stuck with Chris Duhon despite some awful play early in the season, but mainly because Duhon, in his mind, was the only playmaking point guard who could run an offense on the roster. If he buried Duhon and lost him, he'd lose control of the offense, for sure. He took on Robinson mainly because he knew he could win without him, which was subsequently proven. That should have been the most alarming thing to Nate.

dude, do u ever present an opinion of your own? Alan Hahn is presenting an opinion just like everyone else here... you present this stuff & quote it as if you were quoting passages from the Bible... so if Hahn wrote it, it must be true & everyone else's opinions are automatically rendered moot i guess... please.

Yes i present opinions and then I back up my posts with newspaper and blog articles that further echo my point.