But then there's people on this forum that brainwash themselves in believing he actually preaches it.

Get a life.

islesfan wrote:

loweyecue 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.

Really? I haven't seen you express any excitement anywhere on these threads, all I see is your one dimensional agenda driven bitching about MDA. How about you tell us what your plan is? Who would you hire at coach after firing MDA?

We all express our excitement in different ways.

Phil Jackson. Go ahead of argue against all those championship rings.

Argue why? I have already stated multiple times tat if PJAX is available we should get him. But I don't see that as a viable plan. You fire MDA and PJAX says he is not interested. Then what?

CrushAlot wrote:

loweyecue 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.

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.

People were pretty excited about Douglas's play that year when he finally got minutes in March.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=34510&page=3

When your team has sucked for 10 years straight people focus on whatever bright spot may present itself however unlikely it may be. It doesn't make him a good player. He is still a third string scrub. The ONLY thing I EVER liked about TD was his hustle. That was it.

loweyecue wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

loweyecue 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.

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.

People were pretty excited about Douglas's play that year when he finally got minutes in March.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=34510&page=3

When your team has sucked for 10 years straight people focus on whatever bright spot may present itself however unlikely it may be. It doesn't make him a good player. He is still a third string scrub. The ONLY thing I EVER liked about TD was his hustle. That was it.

Mike Dantoni is solely responsible for ruining the career of Douglas.

He forced a defensive minded guard into becoming a shooter, which he is clearly not.

This is what happens when you neglect a strength and focus on offense only.

Even Lin keeps saying that the team is buying into his system. Of course winning cures everything, but I think MDA deserves more credit than the NY fan base will ever give him. After seeing what's happened with Coughlin, who actually won a Super Bowl and was still almost run out of town AGAIN - I don't see the criticism of MDA changing even if we make it to the ECF this year.

loweyecue wrote:

islesfan wrote:

loweyecue 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.

Really? I haven't seen you express any excitement anywhere on these threads, all I see is your one dimensional agenda driven bitching about MDA. How about you tell us what your plan is? Who would you hire at coach after firing MDA?

We all express our excitement in different ways.

Phil Jackson. Go ahead of argue against all those championship rings.

Argue why? I have already stated multiple times tat if PJAX is available we should get him. But I don't see that as a viable plan. You fire MDA and PJAX says he is not interested. Then what?

Sorry, I thought you were one of those "There isn't another coach on the face of the earth that can do better than D'Antoni" people. At least you can admit that there's at least one coach out there that's better.

For some here is my restaurant analogy:

Restaurant is full. Everyone is enjoying the food. Isles and Crush start arguing that the food is not that good. Most disagree. Then they take a SHIT on the floor and say it stinks and try to ruin it for all.

loweyecue wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

loweyecue 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.

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.

People were pretty excited about Douglas's play that year when he finally got minutes in March.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=34510&page=3

When your team has sucked for 10 years straight people focus on whatever bright spot may present itself however unlikely it may be. It doesn't make him a good player. He is still a third string scrub. The ONLY thing I EVER liked about TD was his hustle. That was it.

Nalod wrote:MDA is not the GM. He works with what he got. There has not been too many viable point guards here.

For some here is my restaurant analogy:

Restaurant is full. Everyone is enjoying the food. Isles and Crush start arguing that the food is not that good. Most disagree. Then they take a SHIT on the floor and say it stinks and try to ruin it for all.

If the PG position is the most important piece in his system, don't you think Antoni would have mentioned that to Walsh on Day 1?

How many viable point guards have the Knicks passed on in the draft since Antoni has been here? How many in the 2009 draft alone while they were drafting Jordan Hill?

Great restaurant analogy. I'll have to try that sometime.