islesfan wrote:

fishmike wrote:

islesfan wrote:

fishmike wrote:

islesfan wrote:

fishmike wrote:wheres the option that says "one of the most amazing sports stories in decades is happening on my team but Im too big a douche to enjoy it, so instead I hate on the coach"

I beg to differ. I'm enjoying this as much as anybody. The fact that I'm thinking as big as a championship should tell you that I've bought in on the players on this team (in fact I've been one of the few defending the makeup of the team while others still pine for the New York Nuggets). With Antoni being a lame duck coach, and with you claiming in another thread that extending his contract is the only option at this point, I thought it was a very legitimate topic to discuss whether or not Antoni was the right coach for this team as it hopes to compete for a championship.

Just because I can separate the two issues and not be pollyannaish like you and others that doesn't mean that I'm not enjoying the Jeremy Lin story.

if your enjoying then enjoy. You sound like a powerball winner bitching about the taxes. Nobody cares.

Also your suggest of Woodson as an interim coach stinks. He's got a losing record in regular and post season. When you find someone better let me know.

Your like a fish out of water here... running out of things to throw mud about.

Wait a minute. I'm only allowed to enjoy this the way you want me to enjoy it?

It's ok for you to say "Extend D'Antoni!" but it's not ok for me to question whether or not he's the right coach to take us to a championship?

sure... just like its ok to question whether your wife is the right woman to raise your children. Only your doing it when she's 8 mos pregnant.

You can question anything you want but your timing is not appropriate.

The season is turning around the there is an more excitement around this team then... well, then ever.
So NO. You cant. Bring it up at the end of the season when its appropriate to evaluate how this coach navigated this season and what the results were.

That's just an awful analogy. I don't even know where to begin.

Antoni is a lame duck coach with only a few months left on his contract. Why was it the right time for you to say "extend him" but it's not the right time for me to question it?

So if you want to see Lin become the best player he can be and do so on the Knicks then MDA is the logical choice.

Also I didnt say extend him now.

title: "with Lin in the fold how do you NOT extend MDA?"
body: "is there a better fit for this team and this PG? You want to see Phil Jackson coaching this kid? Curious what the sentiment is..."

I did rip apart Isle's post calling MDA nothing but a bystander in Linsanity as thats a pathetic dig. Pretty sure Linsanity didnt happen in GS or Hous. It happened because this 'gimmicky' system puts players like Lin in a position to do great things. That is the job of the coach. Put your player in a position to succeed.

islesfan wrote:

fishmike wrote:sure... just like its ok to question whether your wife is the right woman to raise your children. Only your doing it when she's 8 mos pregnant.

You can question anything you want but your timing is not appropriate.

The season is turning around the there is an more excitement around this team then... well, then ever.
So NO. You cant. Bring it up at the end of the season when its appropriate to evaluate how this coach navigated this season and what the results were.

That's just an awful analogy. I don't even know where to begin.

Antoni is a lame duck coach with only a few months left on his contract. Why was it the right time for you to say "extend him" but it's not the right time for me to question it?

Right. We need to get back to the restaurant analogies. The restaurant is full of happy paying customers, everyone loves the food, they are drinking the wine, the waiters are making tips, the diswasher is dancing while he washes the pots, the restaurant got an A rating from the healt department and no one is getting food poisoning.

Is this the time to start talking about firing the head chef?

eViL wrote:

eViL wrote:

martin wrote:wait, was the backcourt of Duhon, Q supposed to lead us to .500? did I miss something?

yes. we were supposed to compete in those throwaway seasons. this is NY. we do it big.

or actually: since they were throwaway seasons and we were supposed to lose anyway -- we should have force-fed our young players to help them rapidly improve. because thrusting young players on the floor all at the same time helps develop great players and great teams faster. just look at the Kings and the Wizards. Mike should have dumped his vets on the scrap heap and went all in with youth. that's the ticket.

CrushAlot wrote:

eViL wrote:

eViL wrote:

martin wrote:wait, was the backcourt of Duhon, Q supposed to lead us to .500? did I miss something?

yes. we were supposed to compete in those throwaway seasons. this is NY. we do it big.

or actually: since they were throwaway seasons and we were supposed to lose anyway -- we should have force-fed our young players to help them rapidly improve. because thrusting young players on the floor all at the same time helps develop great players and great teams faster. just look at the Kings and the Wizards. Mike should have dumped his vets on the scrap heap and went all in with youth. that's the ticket.

He didn't play the young players at all and many around here give him credit when the Knicks draft well so I would I think that he at least was involved in the process of picking Hill and Douglas. How the 8th pick in the draft gets 29 dnps in 53 games while Jeffries and Bender are getting minutes nightly didn't make sense at the time and still doesn't. Douglas had 26 dnps in the first 62 games until the Texas road trip when Walsh traveled with the team. Douglas doubled his minutes for the entire season in the final 20 games. I don't think anyone was saying don't play the vets. I think the complaint was that the first round picks were not playing at all. Duhon, Bender, Jeffries, Nate all were gone after that season and none of that lot brought much of anything to the court. It truly was a throwawy season as the Knicks did not have their draft pick and they were not going to make the playoffs. It was pretty annoying listening to the coach talk about the playoffs until the team was finally mathematically eliminated. That was a year where player development should have been part of the goal of the coach. Sending out the brokendown guys with expiring contracts while he was and saying they were making a run at the playoffs was so off base. The rooks could have and should have gotten at least 10-15 minutes a game. That wouldn't ruffle any vets feathers nearly as much as the communication issues the coach was having with some of his vets that season.

absolutely and categorically false, and you know it too, but you keep denying it. And this is why when you post most ignore any positive statements when you may have them. If you have them.

Lee, Gallo, Chandler, Nate. TD, Walker, Giddens, Hill. All played. Some played too much. You have a blind eye for TD who no one thinks is a PG and should get any minutes at that position in year 3, regardless of shooting ability.

CrushAlot wrote:

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

eViL wrote:

eViL wrote:

martin wrote:wait, was the backcourt of Duhon, Q supposed to lead us to .500? did I miss something?

yes. we were supposed to compete in those throwaway seasons. this is NY. we do it big.

or actually: since they were throwaway seasons and we were supposed to lose anyway -- we should have force-fed our young players to help them rapidly improve. because thrusting young players on the floor all at the same time helps develop great players and great teams faster. just look at the Kings and the Wizards. Mike should have dumped his vets on the scrap heap and went all in with youth. that's the ticket.

He didn't play the young players at all and many around here give him credit when the Knicks draft well so I would I think that he at least was involved in the process of picking Hill and Douglas. How the 8th pick in the draft gets 29 dnps in 53 games while Jeffries and Bender are getting minutes nightly didn't make sense at the time and still doesn't. Douglas had 26 dnps in the first 62 games until the Texas road trip when Walsh traveled with the team. Douglas doubled his minutes for the entire season in the final 20 games. I don't think anyone was saying don't play the vets. I think the complaint was that the first round picks were not playing at all. Duhon, Bender, Jeffries, Nate all were gone after that season and none of that lot brought much of anything to the court. It truly was a throwawy season as the Knicks did not have their draft pick and they were not going to make the playoffs. It was pretty annoying listening to the coach talk about the playoffs until the team was finally mathematically eliminated. That was a year where player development should have been part of the goal of the coach. Sending out the brokendown guys with expiring contracts while he was and saying they were making a run at the playoffs was so off base. The rooks could have and should have gotten at least 10-15 minutes a game. That wouldn't ruffle any vets feathers nearly as much as the communication issues the coach was having with some of his vets that season.

absolutely and categorically false, and you know it too, but you keep denying it. And this is why when you post most ignore any positive statements when you may have them. If you have them.

Lee, Gallo, Chandler, Nate. TD, Walker, Giddens, Hill. All played. Some played too much. You have a blind eye for TD who no one thinks is a PG and should get any minutes at that position in year 3, regardless of shooting ability.

I was referring to 09-10. And he didn't play Hill and Douglas hardly at all. Hill had 29 dnps in 53 games. He played 252 minutes as a Knick about 4 mins for every game he suited up. Douglas had 26 dnps in 62 games. This happened. It is not categorically false. I was upset that it happened and I am not going to dismiss it or forget it as you seem ready to do.

you are showing serious lack of English skills. "Not at all" is not the same thing as "hardly" which is not the same thing as "not enough for me". I think what you meant is the last.

How is a team supposed to run a PnR system, or any system, with a PG who acts like he is running around like a headless chicken? How is the team supposed to develop guys like Lee, Chandler, Gallo, guys who were MUCH more important to develop in 09-10 with the upcoming LeBron sweepstakes?

Duhon, who we all know sucks, still could manage a team, and you need to keep the value of Lee, Gallo, Chandler going and developing.

This is not a black hole, vacuum type of environment, which you do not seem to understand.

martin wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

eViL wrote:

eViL wrote:

martin wrote:wait, was the backcourt of Duhon, Q supposed to lead us to .500? did I miss something?

yes. we were supposed to compete in those throwaway seasons. this is NY. we do it big.

or actually: since they were throwaway seasons and we were supposed to lose anyway -- we should have force-fed our young players to help them rapidly improve. because thrusting young players on the floor all at the same time helps develop great players and great teams faster. just look at the Kings and the Wizards. Mike should have dumped his vets on the scrap heap and went all in with youth. that's the ticket.

He didn't play the young players at all and many around here give him credit when the Knicks draft well so I would I think that he at least was involved in the process of picking Hill and Douglas. How the 8th pick in the draft gets 29 dnps in 53 games while Jeffries and Bender are getting minutes nightly didn't make sense at the time and still doesn't. Douglas had 26 dnps in the first 62 games until the Texas road trip when Walsh traveled with the team. Douglas doubled his minutes for the entire season in the final 20 games. I don't think anyone was saying don't play the vets. I think the complaint was that the first round picks were not playing at all. Duhon, Bender, Jeffries, Nate all were gone after that season and none of that lot brought much of anything to the court. It truly was a throwawy season as the Knicks did not have their draft pick and they were not going to make the playoffs. It was pretty annoying listening to the coach talk about the playoffs until the team was finally mathematically eliminated. That was a year where player development should have been part of the goal of the coach. Sending out the brokendown guys with expiring contracts while he was and saying they were making a run at the playoffs was so off base. The rooks could have and should have gotten at least 10-15 minutes a game. That wouldn't ruffle any vets feathers nearly as much as the communication issues the coach was having with some of his vets that season.

absolutely and categorically false, and you know it too, but you keep denying it. And this is why when you post most ignore any positive statements when you may have them. If you have them.

Lee, Gallo, Chandler, Nate. TD, Walker, Giddens, Hill. All played. Some played too much. You have a blind eye for TD who no one thinks is a PG and should get any minutes at that position in year 3, regardless of shooting ability.

Douglas should have gotten 62 DNPs not 26. Toney Douglas is and has always been a third string scrub. Not sure exactly why you keep regurgitating this. It is not an NBA head coach's job to try to develop third tier "talent" that have no role in the long term picture on any NBA team. You can find hundreds of examples of bad players who didn't get playing time on bad teams no idea what you are trying to prove with this. Your agenda completely clouds your judgment on this topic.

BasketballJones wrote:

islesfan wrote:

fishmike wrote:sure... just like its ok to question whether your wife is the right woman to raise your children. Only your doing it when she's 8 mos pregnant.

You can question anything you want but your timing is not appropriate.

The season is turning around the there is an more excitement around this team then... well, then ever.
So NO. You cant. Bring it up at the end of the season when its appropriate to evaluate how this coach navigated this season and what the results were.

That's just an awful analogy. I don't even know where to begin.

Antoni is a lame duck coach with only a few months left on his contract. Why was it the right time for you to say "extend him" but it's not the right time for me to question it?

Right. We need to get back to the restaurant analogies. The restaurant is full of happy paying customers, everyone loves the food, they are drinking the wine, the waiters are making tips, the diswasher is dancing while he washes the pots, the restaurant got an A rating from the healt department and no one is getting food poisoning.

Is this the time to start talking about firing the head chef?

That's not much of an analogy either. Unless of course the Knicks are a team on cruise control to the top seed and are favorites to win the championship.

The restaurant analogy would be a spending more on top flight ingredients while the service remained horrible and customers going away angry. Then one day a box with a special ingredient shows up. The manager just lets it sit in the walk-in for weeks because he has no idea what he's doing and is just going through the motions at that point. Eventually someone opens it up and it magically ties all of the other ingredients together and all of the customers are so happy with the food that they ignore the still suspect service. Now some of the more discerning regulars see the vast potential and dream of seeing the restaurant get 3 stars and a regular mention with other top restaurants but the only thing standing in the way of that happening is the manager. With the manager coming up on his yearly review and looking for a raise, naturally people close to the restaurant are talking about the merits of keeping him or replacing him with someone else.

fishmike wrote:

islesfan wrote:

fishmike wrote:

islesfan wrote:

fishmike wrote:

islesfan wrote:

fishmike wrote:wheres the option that says "one of the most amazing sports stories in decades is happening on my team but Im too big a douche to enjoy it, so instead I hate on the coach"

I beg to differ. I'm enjoying this as much as anybody. The fact that I'm thinking as big as a championship should tell you that I've bought in on the players on this team (in fact I've been one of the few defending the makeup of the team while others still pine for the New York Nuggets). With Antoni being a lame duck coach, and with you claiming in another thread that extending his contract is the only option at this point, I thought it was a very legitimate topic to discuss whether or not Antoni was the right coach for this team as it hopes to compete for a championship.

Just because I can separate the two issues and not be pollyannaish like you and others that doesn't mean that I'm not enjoying the Jeremy Lin story.

if your enjoying then enjoy. You sound like a powerball winner bitching about the taxes. Nobody cares.

Also your suggest of Woodson as an interim coach stinks. He's got a losing record in regular and post season. When you find someone better let me know.

Your like a fish out of water here... running out of things to throw mud about.

Wait a minute. I'm only allowed to enjoy this the way you want me to enjoy it?

It's ok for you to say "Extend D'Antoni!" but it's not ok for me to question whether or not he's the right coach to take us to a championship?

sure... just like its ok to question whether your wife is the right woman to raise your children. Only your doing it when she's 8 mos pregnant.

You can question anything you want but your timing is not appropriate.

The season is turning around the there is an more excitement around this team then... well, then ever.
So NO. You cant. Bring it up at the end of the season when its appropriate to evaluate how this coach navigated this season and what the results were.

That's just an awful analogy. I don't even know where to begin.

Antoni is a lame duck coach with only a few months left on his contract. Why was it the right time for you to say "extend him" but it's not the right time for me to question it?

because the team changed. The Knicks players changed, and Lin is obviously the starter for the forseeable future. Now the 'fit' has changed. This is now a team with a monster frontcourt but its built around the play of Lin, no ifs about it. So who is the best coach in the NBA for a high caliber high IQ PG? Thats MDA. If this was a halfcourt walk it up team with Dwight Howard and some shooters then yea... I dont think I would want MDA either. But its not.

So if you want to see Lin become the best player he can be and do so on the Knicks then MDA is the logical choice.

Also I didnt say extend him now.

title: "with Lin in the fold how do you NOT extend MDA?"
body: "is there a better fit for this team and this PG? You want to see Phil Jackson coaching this kid? Curious what the sentiment is..."

I did rip apart Isle's post calling MDA nothing but a bystander in Linsanity as thats a pathetic dig. Pretty sure Linsanity didnt happen in GS or Hous. It happened because this 'gimmicky' system puts players like Lin in a position to do great things. That is the job of the coach. Put your player in a position to succeed.

If the PG was so important to his system, why did they wait until year 4 to address it? And why did it take catching lightning in a bottle?

If you want to go with semantics concerning your other thread go ahead. The point was still the same, to extend D'Antoni.

Antoni was a bystander, he threw the kid into the fire out of pure desperation with a nudge from Carmelo. Linsanity didn't happen in GS or Houston because those teams weren't desperate enough to make a complete unknown a starter off of a couple of DNP's. If by "system" you mean putting the ball in the PG's hands, running the PnR and breaking down the defense, that's hardly endemic to Antoni's "system".

The bottom line is that in the next few months the decision to extend Antoni's contract is going to have to be made and if winning a championship is the goal then Antoni's ability to get a team there is open for debate.

JrZyHuStLa wrote:Forget this restaurant bull****.

If you don't care for defense, you won't win a championship.

Drunk talk clarifies everything.

Excellent point.