mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Anyhow, I agree with Fish that DWill being misused on offense doesn't explain his bad defense, bad passing and poor rebounding. But it could be a factor that made him feel uncomfortable and out of place. Combine that with the pressure of being a no.2 overall pick and expected to put up numbers on a team he didn't like... it's possible he could have struggled for those reasons. Of course, the best guys play through it and put up numbers wherever. But DWill is maybe not a "best guy"... he may have been misused. Plenty of guys around the league take a few stops to figure it out, from Chauncey Billups to Jermaine O'Neal, etc. Not saying DWill is one of those guys, but I'm saying I'm willing to give him a chance.

no disrespect to Nix, but he's about as objective with the Knicks as DK is with Melo. You can pretty much predict what angle he's taking before types a single word.

Don't disrespect me like that!!! Just because I like DWill doesn't mean that it's simply because he's a Knick. I was in favor of adding him before we signed him. I never said anything that was over the top and Homerish. People need to stop thinking that there's no substance to what I post simply because I have a more positive outlook. I always provide rationale for my opinions and they're not based only on hopes and wishes of a Knicks fan. Yes I take a Pro Knicks angle!!! We don't need me to write negative stuff when we have the media and some fans to do that!!! Still doesn't mean that what I write is invalid simply because it's positive. It's either valid information or it's not. I never said DWill was perfect or without flaws or that he'd be a lock to find success here.

July 3, 2015

nixluva wrote:

callmened wrote:

nixluva wrote:Missing the point if you think we're saying Derrick Williams is a savior. NO ONE said anything like that. This is a case where you can take a guy that has talent but may not have been able to put it all together yet. You put him in your system and see if you can get him right with a clear role. You coach him up and work on his flaws and things that may have held him back from contributing. The same way they took a flyer on Shved and he looked a lot better in the role we gave him. Some players have the talent but perhaps not the clear vision of how they can succeed at this level. You give them a better understanding of their role and suddenly things can click for them.

i definitely agree. i wouldnt mind signing him (for pennies) and see what he can do. i'm not expecting much except for a few bad fouls and nice dunks. if he exceeds my expectations then great. its just sad that we need ALOT more but we're not evaluating scrubs for roles. but baby steps first i guess

With some young players you have to look beyond what they've done so far. Sometimes it's circumstances that mess up a players head and they look far worse than they should. It's not easy but when you do some research you can find those players throughout the league. It's not like it never happens that players suddenly find their niche and play closer to their potential. It happens all the time. When you're in our situation you have to be open to this approach.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=51734&page=3

I was very clear about why I felt DWill could thrive in this style of play and I provided evidence of what I felt Sacramento was doing wrong in how they used him. Just because I don't write exhaustive NEGATIVE posts doesn't invalidate the things I do write about.

nixluva wrote:IMO if you watch how he was used next to Cousins and Gay, DWill was an afterthought and lingered behind the 3 pt line a lot. Sure he could sneak baseline for some easy scores but it was kind of random. Thing is he will always be able to score that way or in transition. It's getting him more in the flow of the offense so that he's more efficient. Of course he also has to defend and rebound MUCH better.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=52423

Dude... show me one post where you admit signing any Knick player was a mistake, or we drafted the wrong guy, or it wasnt a good trade, or anything besides Knick fluff. We are coming off 17 win and 30ish win seasons and you tout every move and only talk about the upside. Thats fine, its not disrespect, your a fan on an fan site. I actually appreciate it considering some of the fodder that is posted here. But would you call yourself objectionable? Your not. Its fine. Its your team, you choose to be positive and get behind them and look at the good. Cool on you.

My problem with what you wrote is that you're basically saying people can discount what I write simply because I focus on a players strengths and what they can bring to the table. That's not right. If what i'm writing is accurate then it doesn't matter that I spend a lot of time explaining what a player can bring to the team. I may highlight those aspects but I never totally ignore their weaknesses. People tend to ignore my comments about a players weaknesses.

What I have said about DWill is factual. I also said that he must improve his defense and rebounding. The thing is we didn't being him here based on his defense and rebounding! The Knicks were looking for some offensive punch, which he can provide. I feel if he's happy and confident that he should improve his overall game as well. Still he's here for his offensive skills more than his defense and rebounding which is not a strong suit.

When talking about RoLo I focused on his defense and rim protection because that is the part of his game that we brought him in for. He's not the best offensive players but I focused on what he does well offensively because not a lot of people realize that he is pretty effective passing, offensive rebounding and efficient offensively. He's robotic but effective. Still that's not why they brought him in. He's here for his defense mostly.

When we got Shved I was telling people that he was better than many thought and that his game would fit in this system very well. It wasn't just because the Knicks added him but because it was true! He's that big combo guard that is aggressive going to the basket, has just enough passing and shooting to be effective in that role. I wasn't saying he was a perfect player but that he was a good fit. My comments aren't just homer talk. Positively slanted yes, but factual.

its not that what you say is wrong but of course it needs to be weighted by the fact that you are an ultimate homer and not that objective.

as fishmike said, its fine to be a homer as long as you don't get insulted when some may feel that you can't be objective.

Yup, this has always been my take, but I'm fine with it. gotta have one of his kind in every bunch.

knickscity wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:

nixluva wrote:

fishmike wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Anyhow, I agree with Fish that DWill being misused on offense doesn't explain his bad defense, bad passing and poor rebounding. But it could be a factor that made him feel uncomfortable and out of place. Combine that with the pressure of being a no.2 overall pick and expected to put up numbers on a team he didn't like... it's possible he could have struggled for those reasons. Of course, the best guys play through it and put up numbers wherever. But DWill is maybe not a "best guy"... he may have been misused. Plenty of guys around the league take a few stops to figure it out, from Chauncey Billups to Jermaine O'Neal, etc. Not saying DWill is one of those guys, but I'm saying I'm willing to give him a chance.

no disrespect to Nix, but he's about as objective with the Knicks as DK is with Melo. You can pretty much predict what angle he's taking before types a single word.

Don't disrespect me like that!!! Just because I like DWill doesn't mean that it's simply because he's a Knick. I was in favor of adding him before we signed him. I never said anything that was over the top and Homerish. People need to stop thinking that there's no substance to what I post simply because I have a more positive outlook. I always provide rationale for my opinions and they're not based only on hopes and wishes of a Knicks fan. Yes I take a Pro Knicks angle!!! We don't need me to write negative stuff when we have the media and some fans to do that!!! Still doesn't mean that what I write is invalid simply because it's positive. It's either valid information or it's not. I never said DWill was perfect or without flaws or that he'd be a lock to find success here.

July 3, 2015

nixluva wrote:

callmened wrote:

nixluva wrote:Missing the point if you think we're saying Derrick Williams is a savior. NO ONE said anything like that. This is a case where you can take a guy that has talent but may not have been able to put it all together yet. You put him in your system and see if you can get him right with a clear role. You coach him up and work on his flaws and things that may have held him back from contributing. The same way they took a flyer on Shved and he looked a lot better in the role we gave him. Some players have the talent but perhaps not the clear vision of how they can succeed at this level. You give them a better understanding of their role and suddenly things can click for them.

i definitely agree. i wouldnt mind signing him (for pennies) and see what he can do. i'm not expecting much except for a few bad fouls and nice dunks. if he exceeds my expectations then great. its just sad that we need ALOT more but we're not evaluating scrubs for roles. but baby steps first i guess

With some young players you have to look beyond what they've done so far. Sometimes it's circumstances that mess up a players head and they look far worse than they should. It's not easy but when you do some research you can find those players throughout the league. It's not like it never happens that players suddenly find their niche and play closer to their potential. It happens all the time. When you're in our situation you have to be open to this approach.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=51734&page=3

I was very clear about why I felt DWill could thrive in this style of play and I provided evidence of what I felt Sacramento was doing wrong in how they used him. Just because I don't write exhaustive NEGATIVE posts doesn't invalidate the things I do write about.

nixluva wrote:IMO if you watch how he was used next to Cousins and Gay, DWill was an afterthought and lingered behind the 3 pt line a lot. Sure he could sneak baseline for some easy scores but it was kind of random. Thing is he will always be able to score that way or in transition. It's getting him more in the flow of the offense so that he's more efficient. Of course he also has to defend and rebound MUCH better.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=52423

Dude... show me one post where you admit signing any Knick player was a mistake, or we drafted the wrong guy, or it wasnt a good trade, or anything besides Knick fluff. We are coming off 17 win and 30ish win seasons and you tout every move and only talk about the upside. Thats fine, its not disrespect, your a fan on an fan site. I actually appreciate it considering some of the fodder that is posted here. But would you call yourself objectionable? Your not. Its fine. Its your team, you choose to be positive and get behind them and look at the good. Cool on you.

My problem with what you wrote is that you're basically saying people can discount what I write simply because I focus on a players strengths and what they can bring to the table. That's not right. If what i'm writing is accurate then it doesn't matter that I spend a lot of time explaining what a player can bring to the team. I may highlight those aspects but I never totally ignore their weaknesses. People tend to ignore my comments about a players weaknesses.

What I have said about DWill is factual. I also said that he must improve his defense and rebounding. The thing is we didn't being him here based on his defense and rebounding! The Knicks were looking for some offensive punch, which he can provide. I feel if he's happy and confident that he should improve his overall game as well. Still he's here for his offensive skills more than his defense and rebounding which is not a strong suit.

When talking about RoLo I focused on his defense and rim protection because that is the part of his game that we brought him in for. He's not the best offensive players but I focused on what he does well offensively because not a lot of people realize that he is pretty effective passing, offensive rebounding and efficient offensively. He's robotic but effective. Still that's not why they brought him in. He's here for his defense mostly.

When we got Shved I was telling people that he was better than many thought and that his game would fit in this system very well. It wasn't just because the Knicks added him but because it was true! He's that big combo guard that is aggressive going to the basket, has just enough passing and shooting to be effective in that role. I wasn't saying he was a perfect player but that he was a good fit. My comments aren't just homer talk. Positively slanted yes, but factual.

its not that what you say is wrong but of course it needs to be weighted by the fact that you are an ultimate homer and not that objective.

as fishmike said, its fine to be a homer as long as you don't get insulted when some may feel that you can't be objective.

Yup, this has always been my take, but I'm fine with it. gotta have one of his kind in every bunch.

Sure I have a Pro Knicks approach to how I post. I look for the positive aspects and highlight them. Highlighting positives doesn't mean that I don't recognize negatives or never comment on them. I most certainly do. I end up getting into disputes with posters that have a negative slant, which creates a warped sense of how I post. Most of my Pro Knicks posts come before the season starts. If I see things that are not working during the season I comment on it. People tend to ignore that fact and only concentrate on my preseason posts and season predictions.