sebstar wrote:

Paladin55 wrote:All comes down to the stucture of the team player-wise. There is nobody on this Knicks team who is on the court with him who can control him.

MDA is no Dr. Phil, but who knows the kind of work he put in trying to control and influence Nate's style of play.

I have coached for over 20 yrs in HS, and Nate is just like the kids I have, and if I don't have guys on my teams who can talk sense to someone like him, I am going to have trouble.

Nate will always have his moments of greatness, and will have more moments, if given the chance, of being out of control.

Understood. But can somebody explain to me what it was about Nate that was so horrible. So damming?

Take a guy like Rodman, who was 100,000 x the distraction that Nate was or is. Phil didnt try to embarass him or humiliate him --- he treated him like a man and let Rodman do his thing. trips to vegas, silly haircuts, dressing like fruit, Phil took in in stride. He treated that cat with respect and let him be him --- he just wanted Rodman to back it up on the court. Thats a real coach. He harnessed Rodman's abilities and got the most out of him, without trying to prove he was the boss.

And if D'Antoni's problems were just with Nate, then I would give Pringles the benefit of the doubt. But his exchange with Hill exposed him. Jordan Hill didnt even say anything bad about D'Antoni, and by all accounts he is a hard worker and a high character individual. But that didnt stop D'Antoni from taking a cheap shot at him. He loves to make shyt personal and its going to catch up to his ass. you'll see.

Thats why he didnt draft Jennings and hung on to Duhon. He is intimidated by anybody who seemingly wont put up with his b.s..

the Hill-MDA comment thing was also over-exposed and pretty much a non-issue. Pretty much just NYPost/Berman instigating nothingness.

sebstar wrote:I cant stand Berman, but dont blame him for D'Antoni's words and actions.

do you even remember what was actually said? Cause I think if you did you would understand that MDA's comments were pretty fair.

Bippity10 wrote:

TMS wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:He's getting 10-15 minutes a game in Boston after sitting for much of the end of the season. If that happened in NY there would be thread after thread of how D'Antoni was mismanaging, mistreating and stealing Nate's joy. I just don't get it.

if NY had a starting PG like Rondo playing ahead of Nate, i highly doubt that.

96 minutes in the backcourt. If Nate was so good that D'Antoni had to play him couldn't he find more then 10-15 minutes???

Personally I think next year you will see him get more minutes even with the same back court. Because the more he learns from the vets. The more he listens. The more winning rubs off, the more he will understand the things he wasn't doing in NY. And the more he understands these things the more he will do them.

Nate is doing nothing different then he did in NY. He's just doing it in less minutes. If he plays well they stick with him and let him carry them. When he starts to stray from the offense and hold the ball too long they can bench him with little negative effect on the team. They are not worried about him learning any lessons because when they put him on the bench there is no negative affect on the team. For us it was a completely different situation. When he ignored the offense we still needed him to win. That is why coaches tried to teach him lessons. Because they knew they needed him.

i agree Nate's doing nothing different in Boston than he was in NY, i agreed with kam when he posted that on this thread earlier... my point is no one would have been complaining about Nate's minutes in NY if he was only getting 10-15 a night while playing behind someone like Rondo... the problem was he wasn't getting ANY play for a stretch of 14 games while scrubs like Chris Duhon, Fishlips & J Bender were getting burn.

sebstar wrote:

martin wrote:

sebstar wrote:I cant stand Berman, but dont blame him for D'Antoni's words and actions.

do you even remember what was actually said? Cause I think if you did you would understand that MDA's comments were pretty fair.

yeah, he said something about Hill being a bad rookie. Slamming a kid who received no consistent playing time whatsoever, and no real shot or role on the Knicks. Wasnt this the same Hill that D'Antoni called the next Amare and is obviously still trying to develop his game in the NBA? Not only was it the cheapest of cheap shots, it was completely unnecessary. What am I missing exactly?

the whole context of the question and MDA's full answer. Did you read more than the headline?

TMS wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:

TMS wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:He's getting 10-15 minutes a game in Boston after sitting for much of the end of the season. If that happened in NY there would be thread after thread of how D'Antoni was mismanaging, mistreating and stealing Nate's joy. I just don't get it.

if NY had a starting PG like Rondo playing ahead of Nate, i highly doubt that.

96 minutes in the backcourt. If Nate was so good that D'Antoni had to play him couldn't he find more then 10-15 minutes???

Personally I think next year you will see him get more minutes even with the same back court. Because the more he learns from the vets. The more he listens. The more winning rubs off, the more he will understand the things he wasn't doing in NY. And the more he understands these things the more he will do them.

Nate is doing nothing different then he did in NY. He's just doing it in less minutes. If he plays well they stick with him and let him carry them. When he starts to stray from the offense and hold the ball too long they can bench him with little negative effect on the team. They are not worried about him learning any lessons because when they put him on the bench there is no negative affect on the team. For us it was a completely different situation. When he ignored the offense we still needed him to win. That is why coaches tried to teach him lessons. Because they knew they needed him.

i agree Nate's doing nothing different in Boston than he was in NY, i agreed with kam when he posted that on this thread earlier... my point is no one would have been complaining about Nate's minutes in NY if he was only getting 10-15 a night while playing behind someone like Rondo... the problem was he wasn't getting ANY play for a stretch of 14 games while scrubs like Chris Duhon, Fishlips & J Bender were getting burn.

I disagree...Nate actually won games for the Knicks...There were times when he put the team on his back and carried them...He has single handedly won 3 or 4 games for the Knicks this past year...No other player on this team can be credited for that...On a team that won 29 games where Nate was benched for 14, carrying the team to victory for 3 or 4 games is saying something...

My problem is that with some Knick fans is that's it all or nothing...Having a player like Nate fill a role is not enough...He has to do everything right...He is what he is...A spark of the bench that provides energy on and off the court....Some coaches know how to channel that energy and others don't...I personally think Nate needed veteran leadership around him to take the spot light off him and have been saying as much over the years...Knicks are a team with no stars and boring players, Nate's every move was magnified no matter how silly it was and MDA helped to blow it up further..

Broadcasters are now saying Doc has been outcoaching Jackson, his approach to his players and how he uses his bench, how he motivatges them...Imagine that, Nate is a big reason his coach is now being looked at in a different light...

martin wrote:

kam77 wrote:MDA was talking generally about playing time for rookies. He was questioned about not playing rookies, and he got defensive and said he does play rookies, he just doesn't play bad rookies. Apparently some people (most with anti-dantoni axes to grind) took that to mean he thought Hill was a bad rookie.

right, and he also followed up pretty much with... he had to play Gallo, Lee, Harrington, JJ and other vets big minutes at the PF spot which Hill occupied. C'est la vie.

Are ya'll serious???

When he said " I dont play bad rookies" it was a direct rebuttal to Hill's criticism that he didnt receive enough playing time. How can ya'll try to spin it as not being a shot at hill? Thats ridiculous.

And even if you wanted to stretch all limits of reason and common sense, if D'Antoni really felt he was taken out of context why didnt he attempt to clear the air? Everybody and their mama considered it a shot at hill --- I guess everybody except you two.