Bippity10 wrote: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.
We just gunna have to agree to disagree. I cant have you writing anymore of these damn essays, bruh. What do I look like Ms. crabtree and shyt? I tap.
6/16/2010 3:43 PM