Solace wrote:I think you're having a special day today. Missed your morning coffee?

I dont drink that shyt.

And I'm just rockin' with you. I mean, if you want to invoke this Isiah nonsense when this thread has nothing to do with him and get your little agenda on --- then I'll play along I guess.

There is plenty of material in this thread to debate or rebut or if you want to put in your two cents. But if you're trying to rile me up, you know I'm down.

sebstar wrote:

If Nate's game was so dysfunctional and so diametrically opposed to winning basketball

D'Antoni never said this, as a matter of fact he said the opposite. That is your interpretation of the benching, probably based on the hatred of a few fans on this site that may have said such things, but D'Antoni did not. D'Antoni benched him and you jumped to the conclusion that he felt Nate was diametrically opposed to winning. D'Antoni actually said that he needed Nate in order to win. He was trying to teach him(like coaches try to teach all young guys) the little things, the positive habits that it takes for a guy that talented to not only succeed but to help make the team around him better.

Now here is a direct quote from Doc Rivers(there have been many more quotes from Doc about defense and ball movement that I can't find right now)

“The reason Nate is playing is because he’s bought into our defense,’’ Rivers said. “Early on he just didn’t know it and he hadn’t bought in yet, and now he has.’’
http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/articles/2010/06/11/robinson_finally_making_most_of_his_time/

When you go to a championship team things are different. When he arrived he came from a losing environment. He lost for five years. He had no idea what good habits were. He got to Boston and worked hard to learn winning ways. When he didn't listen and didn't buy in, Doc was in his ear, KG was in his ear, Ray was in his ear, Perk was in his ear. Rondo worked with him as well. He had no choice but to change. He knew that if he didn't play defense he wasn't going to play. He would sit the bench. And no one would care. No one was going to yell at Doc for stealing his joy or being vindictive. They just move on to someone else that can help them win. Nate worked hard and now is getting his limited minutes. The harder he works, the more he listens, the more his playing time will go up and the more successful he will be. These are the same things that were said in NY

Things in NY are the opposite of Boston. It's a losing culture. We have players on the roster that have never won and have no idea what it takes to win(see the article. Nate played for what 3-4 coaches and still had no idea how to play a pick and roll. CAn't blame that all on D'Antoni). The guys need to learn somehow. Unfortunately in this losing culture the coaches are on an island. There are no vets that will get on Nate when he isn't playing D, or not running the offense. The fans don't quietly move on to the next guy. They instead attack the coach and say all the moves are vindictive. The player sees the fans and the media attacking the coach, is not yelled at by the vets and suddenly looks around and realizes nobody is on him for his actions and everyone is against the coach. So his actions must be right. He doesn't listen and nothing gets fixed. Nothing is vindictive. Nobody hated Nate. They wanted him to change, but unfortunately when the environment here could not change him, it hit a point where we had to move on. No hatred, no bad words. We just needed someone that would "buy in"(just like the Celtics needed) without it being such a fight, because in a losing situation the coach is never going to win that fight.

Sebstar if you were a coach you would do the same thing. To bench or trade a guy does not mean you hate him. You simply need to move on to guys that will buy in. The daily fight is not worth it when you are trying to change your team around.

Solace wrote:

sebstar wrote:

Solace wrote:I think you're having a special day today. Missed your morning coffee?

I dont drink that shyt.

And I'm just rockin' with you. I mean, if you want to invoke this Isiah nonsense when this thread has nothing to do with him and get your little agenda on --- then I'll play along I guess.

There is plenty of material in this thread to debate or rebut if you want to put in your two cents. But if you're trying to rile me up, you know I'm down.

It's cool. I'm just bored today, but not really in the mood to rehash things I've said bunches of times. Bippity covered most of what I was feeling anyway. I also feel similar to Panos; Nate isn't a Knick anymore, so I don't really care all that much. I just think some of the criticism towards D'Antoni is a little harsh and maybe there's a lot of assumptions going on.

As for the Isiah comment; I don't care about him either. I just find it a little frustrating that it seemed like Isiah was given way more leeway by some of the same people who are giving none to D'Antoni. A little consistency is all I ask.

Naw, I feel you. I like Nate and I think that he's gotten an unfair rep and like Jamal Crawford was lumped in with the true bad apples on the Knicks. I dont like some of the stuff D'Antoni has pulled. All opinions.

sebstar wrote:

Solace wrote:

sebstar wrote:

Solace wrote:I think you're having a special day today. Missed your morning coffee?

I dont drink that shyt.

And I'm just rockin' with you. I mean, if you want to invoke this Isiah nonsense when this thread has nothing to do with him and get your little agenda on --- then I'll play along I guess.

There is plenty of material in this thread to debate or rebut if you want to put in your two cents. But if you're trying to rile me up, you know I'm down.

It's cool. I'm just bored today, but not really in the mood to rehash things I've said bunches of times. Bippity covered most of what I was feeling anyway. I also feel similar to Panos; Nate isn't a Knick anymore, so I don't really care all that much. I just think some of the criticism towards D'Antoni is a little harsh and maybe there's a lot of assumptions going on.

As for the Isiah comment; I don't care about him either. I just find it a little frustrating that it seemed like Isiah was given way more leeway by some of the same people who are giving none to D'Antoni. A little consistency is all I ask.

Naw, I feel you. I like Nate and I think that he's gotten an unfair rep and like Jamal Crawford was lumped in with the true bad apples on the Knicks. I dont like some of the stuff D'Antoni has pulled. All opinions.

I don't like some of Dantoni's actions and I don't like some of Nate's. But I like them both. And D'Antoni has proved that he can be part of a winning situation and Nate is proving it now. No reason to dislike either in my view. This is basketball mistakes are made and you recover.

You should have heard the shiot Boston fans used to say about Doc. It was worse then the stuff you hear about D'Antoni. All that stuff went away the day Boston got KG and Ray. Perception changes a lot when you win.

eViL wrote:nobody wants to admit... they wanna try this now...

damn, that's a sick chimp right chere!

That a champ right there. Duke went ham. Thats how you gotta be sometimes. Put on your hard hat, go to work, and make something happen out of nothing.

You at the club and you havent had a slice of puss for a hot minute and you see that scallywag in the corner that you wouldnt touch in your right mind....

that voice in your mind. Devil whisper of a voice: "Its got to be done"

Nalod wrote:

sebstar wrote:He face fukked that frog???

That a champ right there. Duke went ham. Thats how you gotta be sometimes. Put on your hard hat, go to work, and make something happen out of nothing.

You at the club and you havent had a slice of puss for a hot minute and you see that scallywag in the corner that you wouldnt touch in your right mind....

that voice in your mind. Devil whisper of a voice: "Its got to be done"

Isn't Nate the Frog?

Is Eddy the chimp?
Oh, naw. Eddy was on the bench... watching. Sprained vagina.

sebstar wrote:ya'll gay. Find Jesus.

LOL!

sebstar wrote:Bip,

You are trying to create equivalency with the celtics easing him into the lineup and D'Antonis benching and that's an uneasy comparison.

Even analyzing that Rivers quote you provided, it seems that Nate's benching had everything to do with his adjusting to the Boston's schematic approach to defense, as opposed to his attitude or unwillingness to do whats asked of him.

And I dont know if you're putting words in D'Antoni's mouth, like others have around here, to make him look better, but you dont embarrass a professional like that unless you're trying to promote the message that said player is a major problem. Even if I am to take what you say at face value, and that all D'Antoni was trying to do was help Nate grow as a player, that is not the way others are going to interpret it such a benching. All it would serve was to wreck Nate's trade value and image and it did.

Fans, the league, media, interpreted it as Nate was an out-of-control pariah, and was was so bad that he couldnt even see the floor on a bad team and was the reason for the Knicks tepid play. There are many different ways D'Antoni could have approached working with Nate than humiliating him like that. And given the way D'Antoni has dealt with other players, I have no doubts in my mind why he did what he did. Straight up.

It seems like you're trying to revise history, now that D'Antoni has egg on his face given how well Nate has played on the biggest stage.

1.) This is like all our conversations. If I don't agree with everything you say then that means I am a D'Antoni apologist. It's more nuanced then that. I was a coach, I made similar situations and had fans blow things out of proportion and say I hate a player when it had nothing to do with that.

2.) The Celtics can give him under 5 minutes a game in 13 of 17 appearances before the playoffs and we will call it "and adjustment period".

3.) Doc's exact words were "he hadn’t bought in yet". He was still doing the same things he did in NY that got his minutes taken away. Why is one coach supposed to play a guy through that or else he's a jerk and the other coach is just "breaking the player in". They are both trying to achieve the same thing, they are trying to get a player to do what they ask. It doesn't matter if you stink or are the leagues best team, if you don't "buy in" to what the coach is saying they will not play you. He has "adjusted" to what Boston needed him to do on the court. He never "adjusted" to what NY was asking of him.

4.) As a coach you do not care how others interpret it. You have to do what is right. You are the one coaching, not the fans.

5.) When nate came to Boston there was little talk that he was an out of control pariah. That was a NY phenomenon. People in Boston actually thought they got a player that could help them, and they did. That NY tabloid bubble is not reality. It's just drivel that is written to froth all the NYers into thinking things are worse then they are. Again I live in Boston so I see it. The perception of NY players and of D'Antoni and Walsh is nothing like the way NYer's perceive them. Not even close.

5.) LB, Isiah and D'Antoni had been attempting to work with Nate for 5 years. He got plenty of minutes and we heard common complaints from 3 coaches. Finally in 2009/2010 we decided that the culture had to be changed and that certain things would not be acceptable. So D'antoni took his minutes away. So he sat. Then was traded. Then he sat some more. The he "bought in" and began getting minutes again.

6.) I don't care how D'Antoni looks. I just think NY fans are out of control with this attack the coach stuff. We forgot what winning was about and we have begun to tolerate bad habits. That is changing now. Again this does not mean nate is bad guy, he just wasn't D'Antoni's guy. Maybe D'Antoni could have handled the situation better, but this doesn't mean he's a bad guy, or a bad coach. It just means that in hindsight maybe things could have been different. Maybe not. On a 23,32, 23, 30 win team it's really not that important.

7.) If Walsh and D'Antoni hated Nate so much, why would they trade him to an in division rival with championship aspirations?

8.) Perception is so ridiculous in NY that after D'Antoni put Nate back in the line-up and scored 41 points that it was insinuated that D'Antoni was upset by this. If he was upset by Nate's success, why would he leave him in the game to score 41 points? A coach benches a guy, he comes back and scores 41 points and somehow that is a negative reflection on the coach??? This happens in no other city. I have benched many players for many different reasons. I have given their minutes back on many occasions as well. There has never been one time that I've put a player back in the line-up and then rooted for him to stink that night. It's beyond ridiculous to think that any coach would. I pray that every player I get mad at and then bench comes back and scores 41 points the next time they play. It's a friggin coaches dream. But in the twilight zone of NY it is the opposite

9.) The Celtics benched Nate and cost him a games bonus that was worth a million dollars. How is that not disrespect and mean spirited???? He lost a million dollars!!!!!!!!!! Could you imagine if that happened in NY? In winning situations things like this are "no big deal"

10.) Seb if you played for me and I asked you to take a half court shot at the end of a half/Quarter and you instead turned around and shot in the opposing teams basket, I may never play you again.

11.) Nate was not a loser in NY. None of the players know what it takes to win. From Nate to DLee to Gallinari to Chandler to Curry to Douglas. We were trying to teach all of them. But unfortunately if a player as good as Nate is not "buying in" then it begins to spread. The young guys see one of the 5 year mainstays ignoring the coach and it spreads. In Boston it would not spread. On losing teams it does. If you ever plan to break the cycle some coach has to make a stand. I guess another solution is to keep firing coaches.

12.) Google "fire doc rivers"(and other comparable searches) adn read all the articles from Boston fans and columnists about how incompetent Doc Rivers is as a coach. They used to chant "fire doc" at the games I went to. He was slaughtered here. Winning changes everything. I dont' support D'Antoni because I think he's an infallible coach. I have gone on record as saying he would not have been my choice. But I also understand how fans react to losing. And when teams lose the first reaction is to nitpick the coach, say he stinks and scream for firings. Doesn't matter if he won a title a couple years before. Doesn't matter if he has coach of the year trophies. Doesn't matter if won 50-60 games a few years in a row. If he comes to your team and they don't win, then fans think the coach stinks. I don't buy into that. So I will continue to be a LB lover, a Doc lover(like I was a few years ago) a Chaney lover, a Wilkens lover, a D'Antoni lover because I've been there and I know you can't win if you don't have the players. And you can't turn around a losing program if some guys aren't buying in.