TMS wrote:

sebstar wrote:

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.

MDA played J. Bender ahead of Jordan Hill & people are still trying to make logic of it... LMAO.

If he gave you a shot, and you performed well and we won, then you were part of the rotation( with duhon being the exception) if your production slipped and we lost, then it was time to go in a different direction. He did this with, hughs, Darko, TD, Hill, nate and bender.

when he kept shifting Al in and out of the starting line up it started to become a win/loss decision. We win the, line up stays the same, we lose it's time to try something different, but the goal is to win at all cost.

knicks1248 wrote:

TMS wrote:

sebstar wrote:

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.

MDA played J. Bender ahead of Jordan Hill & people are still trying to make logic of it... LMAO.

If he gave you a shot, and you performed well and we won, then you were part of the rotation( with duhon being the exception) if your production slipped and we lost, then it was time to go in a different direction. He did this with, hughs, Darko, TD, Hill, nate and bender.

when he kept shifting Al in and out of the starting line up it started to become a win/loss decision. We win the, line up stays the same, we lose it's time to try something different, but the goal is to win at all cost.

Bippity10 wrote:nates minutes in the 17 games before the finals
0
8
0
4
0
0
1
13
3
0
0
0
5
2
9
13

Lot of zeros in there. Can't say that's all because of Rondo. A player that is so good that he must be gettign minutes for teh Knicks would not have 13 of 17 games with 5 minutes or less. If he was doing everything right he would have been in the line-up. The truth is I live here in Boston and listened to the post game press conferences. Doc was very straight forward when he said that Nate would get his minutes and sooner or later would help the team win. But at that moment in time he had not adapted to the level of defense and ball distribution that the team needed. No where in that explanation was it suggested that Nate was a jerk or a loser it was just that he needed to do some little things in order to be in the line-up. No controversy. Those nights when Nate got 0, 1 and 2 minutes there were no calls that his joy was being stolen or that Doc had it out for him. It was taken for what it was. A professional player that needed to learn a few things before getting minutes. Nate didn't complain and the papers didn't blow these benchings out of proportion.

Doc taught Nate teh same lessons Larry Brown, D'Antoni and even Isiah tried to teach him. The luxury is that they are winning so benching him means nothing. In NY we were losing so the prevailing wisdom is that he was too good to bench. That is poppycock. We still needed to attempt to teach the lessons that Boston has been able to.

To top that off, the entire team have rings on there hands, even rasheed.

TMS wrote:

sebstar wrote:

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.

MDA played J. Bender ahead of Jordan Hill & people are still trying to make logic of it... LMAO.

Because rookies have to earn their time in this league and if you play all rookies, you will have no fans, except for diehards still watching. What concerns me is that there's still a lack of understanding of the business aspect of the league. I have no problem with not playing a rookie who isn't yet ready. It's the NBA, not single A baseball.

sidsanders wrote:

Solace wrote:

TMS wrote:

sebstar wrote:

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.

MDA played J. Bender ahead of Jordan Hill & people are still trying to make logic of it... LMAO.

Because rookies have to earn their time in this league and if you play all rookies, you will have no fans, except for diehards still watching. What concerns me is that there's still a lack of understanding of the business aspect of the league. I have no problem with not playing a rookie who isn't yet ready. It's the NBA, not single A baseball.

so after years of awful, playing the rooks would have been the last straw for fans/ability to make $? the bis aspect: this team has been dreadful with some flat out awful public relations disasters relating to the on court display and off court madness. the knicks survived.

bender came in off the street after years of not playing and got in a game before garbage time. how exactly did he earn it? what allowed duhon to keep playing? on a team that has had some success, who would be arguing that a bunch of rookie question marks should be getting major mins... on a lousy team, if the treatment of players was consistent in terms of earning time, i dont think folks would mention it as much.

there is no logical explanation for how long MDA stuck with Duhon & how Bender ever saw playing time after 4 years of being out of the NBA & 2 practices with the team... Bender did not earn anything, he was handed sympathy minutes as a favor to DW, & he did not play well... i dunno what anyone was watching out there but he may have had 1 or 2 good games & the rest he looked slow, unfit, uncoordinated & just thoroughly outclassed by the opposition on every night.

CHAOS wrote:Nate Robinson is having a HUGE POSITIVE impact on the Celtics and this championship series. He is earning his ring, not just sitting on the bench, but playing and playing well.

Game 5 = 4pts and 4ast in 10 mins
Game 4 = 12pts and 3ast

For the series is is shooting 47%fg and 44% 3pt fg in 10mins per game !!!!!!

Nate is what he is, a great energy player off the bench. That's what Celtics wanted and are getting from Nate. Good for Nate, he is about to get a ring.

sebstar wrote:

Bippity10 wrote:nates minutes in the 17 games before the finals
0
8
0
4
0
0
1
13
3
0
0
0
5
2
9
13

Lot of zeros in there. Can't say that's all because of Rondo. A player that is so good that he must be gettign minutes for teh Knicks would not have 13 of 17 games with 5 minutes or less. If he was doing everything right he would have been in the line-up. The truth is I live here in Boston and listened to the post game press conferences. Doc was very straight forward when he said that Nate would get his minutes and sooner or later would help the team win. But at that moment in time he had not adapted to the level of defense and ball distribution that the team needed. No where in that explanation was it suggested that Nate was a jerk or a loser it was just that he needed to do some little things in order to be in the line-up. No controversy. Those nights when Nate got 0, 1 and 2 minutes there were no calls that his joy was being stolen or that Doc had it out for him. It was taken for what it was. A professional player that needed to learn a few things before getting minutes. Nate didn't complain and the papers didn't blow these benchings out of proportion.

Doc taught Nate teh same lessons Larry Brown, D'Antoni and even Isiah tried to teach him. The luxury is that they are winning so benching him means nothing. In NY we were losing so the prevailing wisdom is that he was too good to bench. That is poppycock. We still needed to attempt to teach the lessons that Boston has been able to.

You dont teach somebody ball distribution and defense in the span of 17 games. They eased him into the lineup so as not to disrupt the chemistry of a championship level team. he's not a radically different player.

The difference is the coach is not out to scapegoat Nate or make an example out of him.

1.) Nobody said he was taught ball movement in 17 games

2.) What was said was there was a level of ball movement and defense(which is the adjustment period that you and I are both talking about) that he had to achieve in order to get minutes. That level of Defense and ball movement that is needed is going to be different for every team and every player and every role. Great teams can ask for something different then bad teams can.

3.) In Boston, if Nate does not do the things needed then KG, Ray, Perk, Wallace and Paul Pierce(and everyone else for that matter)is in his ear lettign him know that these things cannot be tolerated. The coach has to work less on those negative aspects of behavior because peer pressure tends to keep everyone under control. You can also bench him and no one notices. In losing situations it is far different and I don't understand why this is such a difficult topic to understand. When Nate stepped out of line there were no vets to bring him back and the fear from the coach is that the young kids(who see him as a vet) will begin to copy whatever it is he is doing. That is why in losing situations your first job is to eliminate bad habits and try to teach good ones. You sometimes have good players that have the worst habits. Many times it's your best players. You can't simply ignore it just because they are your best players. As a matter of fact you have to be harder on your best players because they are most likely to spread the infection that Bip keeps talking about.

4.) This used to happen to me all the time. You would bench someone really good that had a really bad habit. They would walk around saying "he hates me, he hates me" or "he blames me, he blames me. No I don't hate you or blame you. I just need you to stop doing what you are doing. It's that simple. But people still don't get it.

sebstar wrote:I'm an a-hole

Well, at least something interesting was admitted in this thread.

Vmart wrote:Nate is doing well for the Celtics its good to see him conform to the teams rules of playing defense hard, and concentrate on team play. Nate had to change because he knew he had a foot out the NBA door. After all those DNPs who was gonna give him a decent contract? He had to change his ways with the Celtics or it was off to China with another familiar face.

Whenever I see Nate, I think Marbury. SMH.

And I'm glad the Celtics were so charitable. Taking this cancerous, sociopath off our hands and then giving him crucial fourth quarter minutes in the NBA finals out of pity. True humanitarians those Bostonians.

Can we get over it?

Panos wrote:Are we still talking about Nate?
Seriously?
We're 2 weeks away from the most drastic overhaul of the roster in the past 40 years, and we're talking about a guy
that we would not have resigned, even if we hadn't traded him?

Can we get over it?

Well, from my point of view, I see it like this:

Maybe some people would prefer Nate over LeBron. I'm pretty sure some people would prefer being able to say "I told you so" over their team actually being successful. The overwhelming trend is that there is blind hatred for D'Antoni, mostly by the same people who made every excuse in the book for every move Isiah made. Maybe they're just bitter that "their" guy isn't the one to turn the franchise around. This is why I said that I find this board very peculiar. I would think most would just be happy to have the Knicks be contenders again and not continuing to have a team of self-centered a-holes. Maybe that's niave.