For your reference:
http://ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=15926
Ohhah, I like you, you're a fierce competitor.
Save it.
That said, there are a few things I'm not so keen on, not the least of which is your propensity to resort to hyperbole and cheap-shots. You remind me of Bill Laimbeer who'd get dirty with the best of 'em, but then got all whiney and "why me?" when they got retribution or foul calls.
Whining? Me? About you? Point it out. You can't. I just warn, and then I cut loose when it is obvious folks like yourself don't understand how to stay civil when their argument is being crushed.
The first cheap shot was thrown by you in that thread. Go back and look. The hyperbole was initiated by you. Go ahead and look. Or just check out this quote for the first cheap shot between you and I:
ohhah, don't think I don't have a response to your reply above. But unlike many, I don't just come with hollow rhetoric, like "If we played uptempo everything would have been fine" or "any other coach could have done better." I come with evidence and substance and I just don't have the time yet to put it all together..
Not that that cheap shot bothered me, but the mild stuff I threw back at you sure seemed to have gotten your knickers in a bunch. Don't dish it out if you can't take it, and please stop crying...
Oh aren't you clever, you're effectively calling me a liar AGAIN for equating the phrase "making things up" with "lying."
Is subtlety lost on you? English is a wonderful language with many shades of meaning. Lying is deliberately saying something you know to be untrue to acheive a certain goal. I don't think you are doing that. But you are exagrerating largely unsubstantiated rumors and straight up opinion and presenting it as fact because you FEEL it is true. I guess you just don't even realize it.
You were and still are making things up. You don't know if LB has a big or small playbook, and you sure as hell can't say that Marbury led a coup d'etat. That is made up, plain and simple. Even if LB had a one-page playbook, and Marbury led the team into Isiah's office after the last game, YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT, SO STOP ACTING LIKE YOU DO!!!!!!!!
Shocking that weeks later those words were remembered as being called a liar, or are you just trying to sleaze your way through on a formality?
You are the one "sleazing" out of your own words. Shocking that you were simply wrong...Again. But not to me. Let me point out that you are the first to engage in name-calling with this "sleaze" stuff. You have very little honor for somebody as sanctimonious as yourself.
You said I called you a liar, and that is just what it means. This is the microcosm of how you use quotes. You exaggerate them. Just eat your words and enjoy them bub. You were wrong. You put in quotes, that I called you a "liar". Now you are saying that I 'suggested' you were a liar. When you quote another person's words, they are meant to be taken and used literally, and that is the standard to which they should be held.
What I suggested is that you are quite an exaggerator. And you proved it beyond question with this "liar" nonsense.
And I love your kind. You employ that old-school hypocrisy of accusing me of "making stuff up" on one hand while on the other chiding me for evidencing my assertions with quotes, stats, published reports, etc.
I love your kind. A sore loser if there ever was one. I guess if I don't give you a hand for repackaging opinions you agree with, that is "chiding". (Notice the quote use?) Here is more exaggeration from you: I never spoke to any stats you presented, and I don't beleive you used any in conversation with me. I just pointed out that your source material was long on opinion and short on fact.
When cheap-shot artists like yourself stop accusing me of "making stuff up" I'll feel far less compelled to evidence all I assert.
A guy like yourself, who I have seen insult so quickly not just me but others should not cry so much about cheap shots. I still don't see how my pointing out that you saying you know what the size of Brown's playbook is and a Marbury led coup d'etat is BS is a cheap shot. It is a fact.
And you feeling "less compelled" (Notice the quote use) to back your back up your statements when people like myself call you out for making things up. That is a freakin' cop out! You should hold yourself to a higher standard than that dude, no matter what I or anyone else says.
Suddenly VERBATIM from players and coach means nothing here. No, DODGE & SPIN is the name of the game now. Nice cheap-shot.
Let's watch you operate once again:
I won't repost the quotes, they are above for anyone to read. I'm still not sure what you think those quotes proved. One thing is for certain, you ran very far with them, much farther than any true meaning they had. Especially considering that much of it is from LB who says something new every press conference.
You did not bold the part where LB admits he hasn't rewarded guys who played hard though, why is that?
Look at yourself. Your next cheap-shot is to accusing me of trying to pass myself off as an insider!!! How low will you stoop?
Wow, now I accused you of passing yourself off as an insider! You are the most exaggerating-est person I've posted with in a long time! It is known as 'making a point'. What is the point you ask?
You post like you know the inner workings and dynamics of the Knicks. You don't. Your "information" (Note that the use of these quotes are to emphasize.) is based mainly on the opinions of non-insiders who may or may not know insiders themselves who need to write sensationalized stories to sell papers.
Never have I claimed anything close to that, and why would I go to such pains to evidence everything I say with published sources if I was pawning it off as "inside info?"
You hold your evidence to a very low burden of proof. As far as I can tell, if it is published in print and it agrees with your presuppositions, it is true. Then you state it as fact when anyone can look and see that it is not. Weak stuff indeed.
I really do get the feeling more and more that subtlety is truely lost on you. You take everything to extremes. I point out your exaggerations, so I called you a "liar". I point out that information you are presenting as fact is insider type knowledge that is based on rumors and innuendo so you cannot possibly know it, therefore I am accusing you of trying to "pass yourself off as an insider".
Get over yourself.
And that aside, you really can't tell he's not utilizing a telephone sized playbook (a term i chose because it was said that Flip Saunder's is that size) when he's utilizing a HANDFUL of sets overall and just TWO options on breaks? You're really just killing your own credibility like this.
Was that a cheap shot from the blueseats? First his playbook is not big, now it is the set of plays he is "UTILIZING" that you were talking about.
Now who is splitting hairs? Just the fact that he had to pare the plays down suggests that he has quite a few plays. But even if he doesn't have many plays in his book, you don't know! All you know is that he is cutting plays! Is it really that hard to understand? Maybe that is what you actually meant? Try using language with more precision blueseats. More quality, less quantity.
You're trying to equate SCORES to TEMPO? Do you realize that the score of the last night's Dallas vs Phoenix game was 95-88, well within the range of many of those games? We happened to be playing defense at that point of the season too, as well as turning the ball over a lot, it led to inconsistent scores is all.
Scores and tempo don't go together? Get your head out of the New York Post and watch some games son! Higher scoring teams play a faster tempo, and lower scoring teams play a slower tempo. That is a basketball LAW. Don't get too caught up in individual games, it is too small a sample size.
Dallas plays a reasonably quick tempo normally, but they are intentionally slowing it down more to try to negate Phoenix's super-fast tempo. Just listen to every analysis about how teams are playing the Suns this year, including from opposing coaches and players and you might hear something about it. Or just watch the freakin' games.
I won't address your reasoning about why the Knicks had low scores over the first 10 games, that BS breaks down by itself.
But again, with all that, it was our 2nd or 3rd most winningest month of the season in spite of the players not having familiarity with each other, or not knowing what brown wants, and all the usual complaints, because the EFFORT was there.
What an accomplishment in a 23 win season! The only thing I agree with is that they were playing hard, because Brown had not crushed their spirit yet.
And, tempo is all relative. At the beginning of the season we were much faster than the year before, but slower than the win streak in January.
Like I wrote in the other thread you used for exaggerative purposes. Sticking with ANY style would have been better than what Brown did. But uptempo is the right goal for this crew.
there is no certain pace or score that constitutes "up-tempo", but I'll tell ya, all you gotta do is watch tapes of games under Lenny and Herb during and after our 2-17 skid to see "down-tempo."
You can tell uptempo when you see it, there is no "magic number". I guess down-tempo could describe several of the Knicks skids this year. Too bad we did not have any good months to go along with it like we did under Lenny.
Now all you've done in this post is to continue to attempt to impugn my character instead of dealing with the major issues head on.
You are something else blueseats! You started the cheap shots and the character assassination. Just go back and look. You simply cannot take it like you dish it out.
If Brown was so down on tempo why did he always put in the kids to hustle and up-tempo us back into games that the downtrodden vets had squandered?
He didn't. Just check the DNP's. Notice that Lee got into many many games during garbage time. Stop making things up.
Why was he so effusive in his praise of Marbury and co. during our up-tempo win streak?
Because he is a hypocrite.
Why did he give Nate more Burn than Q, Jalen and Francis?
Does that include the umpteen games in a row he did not play after the all-star break?
Why did he give Frye more burn than Mo and Malik?
Because Frye was better, but it took Brown more time than the rest of us to realize it. And Frye should have gotten all of Malik's time from the git-go.
Why did Marbury say he could do whatever he wanted if he played defense?
Because both he and Brown had to put out the fire in the press. (I am speculating here, blueseats-style)
Etc, etc. Just read some old articles and you'll see that Brown was most pleased with the team when our effort and tempo was high and most upset when effort and temp was low, and don't kid yourself otherwise until you do.
Yes he was most pleased when things worked out, and when they didn't it was everybody's fault but his, don't kid yourself.
Listen, I'm keeping this post relatively short for now because I'm fixing to write a thesis level paper on the whole goddamn last season when I get a day to myself some dog-day in July.
This is short? Listen, when you write that thesis, hold it to a high standard of proof, and lay off the presenting of opinion as fact and taking everything to the extreme, would ya?
This post was just to evidence your cheap-shots so as to keep this and future conversations on topic.
Go back and read, and you will see that all cheapness was started by you and only you becuase you ran out of argment quickly once I burst the bubble you were basing you statements on. And notice that you were the one escalating, and also notice that you are scrambling all over the place trying to figure out how to back up what you're saying.
If you can't debate the issues just don't reply, no need to get sleazy. I don't "make stuff up", pose as an "insider", or get my opinions from the papers, I simply go the distance to evidence my assertions in the face of those who don't, wont or cant.
Sleazy is opening up a post saying you like someone, then insulting them left and right. And there is nothing quite so sleazy as crybabies who initiate insults and then bawl about it later when they are insulted in turn, pretending that they did not say anything.
What you do is write a lot, quote a lot, and make up a lot. You don't debate. You wouldn't last ten seconds in a fact-based debate pal, so just keep on braying about what you think is true, piecing together unrelated quotes from months apart to form an elaborate collage of misrepresentation.
My point isn't that Brown was flawless, but I try to illustrate the conditions that Brown was operating under - the malaise and indifference that coaches have been fighting since at least Steph uttered "I'm The Best" day, whether it's Steph's fault or not - because it's relevant to Lenny, Herb, Larry, and whoever comes in next, be they coach, GM or player.
No your point is that Marbury is bad, bad, man and it is all his fault. See? Right to the point!
With or without brown, the rookies were chosen specifically because of the character and energy they could bring to the equation, and they brought it, they did their job in that regard, they just couldn't exceed the effect of the veteran leaders. Not the present leaders anyway, and certainly not in year one....
You're closing with a statement about the rookies? Why? What is your point? Why focus on them all of a sudden? They could not surpass the veteran leadership? Why not add in the horrible coaching?
Never mind, I've answered my own question, you have a special interest in maligning Marbury, that's why.
oohah
[Edited by - oohah on 05-29-2006 08:32 AM]
5/27/2006 12:40 PM