loweyecue wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Cosmic wrote:

franco12 wrote:

TMS wrote:

Again, NONE OF US watch practice. NONE OF US know what happens in practice. What happens in PRACTICE has a bearing on WHO PLAYS IN THE GAMES.

you're the one making these end all announcements about Jordan Hill's lazyness during practice... stop talkin' out yo ass dude... u haven't seen jack but sporadic play over 24 games to come to your expert analysis of this kid's game.

Plus one on this - because if you honestly believe that, then Duhon must be a completely different player in practice.

Because that is the ONLY way to explain how Douglas got no time all year.

Douglas was behind players and was a rookie and when he proved his worth he got in the game and has stayed there. What's the issue at hand? I don't see one. I saw a team with numerous veterans and rookies who needed to earn their time. Douglas did and when he was sitting he obviously worked so hard that he forced Mike to give him time. He got the time and hasn't looked back. It's been a great growth for Douglas. Again, what's the issue?

Hill was buried even further behind veteran players and he clearly wasn't nearly as ready to play as Douglas was. But even Hill started getting time and if he weren't traded he'd likely also be getting 15-20mpg as the Rockets have given him.

Again, what's the issues here? We should have started Hill and Douglas all year? And we'd have done what with the season that's any different than the position we're in now?

I think people look too far into these things. Mike hung onto the veterans a bit too long but not so long that he was some sort of idiot for doing so.

Toney Douglas is flourishing. To me that means he was handled just right.

Douglas got minutes when Walsh traveled with the team on the March road trip and not before that. It doesn't make sense but it wasn't until then that he was given minutes. I think it had alot more to do with walsh being on the trip then Douglas suddenly out working everyone in practice.

LOL, now that's what I call desperate. So, um, Walsh gave him minutes did he? And why didn't Walsh give same minutes to the precious commodity in Jordan Hill?

i think having been already traded may have had something to do with that one.

CrushAlot wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Cosmic wrote:

franco12 wrote:

TMS wrote:

Again, NONE OF US watch practice. NONE OF US know what happens in practice. What happens in PRACTICE has a bearing on WHO PLAYS IN THE GAMES.

you're the one making these end all announcements about Jordan Hill's lazyness during practice... stop talkin' out yo ass dude... u haven't seen jack but sporadic play over 24 games to come to your expert analysis of this kid's game.

Plus one on this - because if you honestly believe that, then Duhon must be a completely different player in practice.

Because that is the ONLY way to explain how Douglas got no time all year.

Douglas was behind players and was a rookie and when he proved his worth he got in the game and has stayed there. What's the issue at hand? I don't see one. I saw a team with numerous veterans and rookies who needed to earn their time. Douglas did and when he was sitting he obviously worked so hard that he forced Mike to give him time. He got the time and hasn't looked back. It's been a great growth for Douglas. Again, what's the issue?

Hill was buried even further behind veteran players and he clearly wasn't nearly as ready to play as Douglas was. But even Hill started getting time and if he weren't traded he'd likely also be getting 15-20mpg as the Rockets have given him.

Again, what's the issues here? We should have started Hill and Douglas all year? And we'd have done what with the season that's any different than the position we're in now?

I think people look too far into these things. Mike hung onto the veterans a bit too long but not so long that he was some sort of idiot for doing so.

Toney Douglas is flourishing. To me that means he was handled just right.

Douglas got minutes when Walsh traveled with the team on the March road trip and not before that. It doesn't make sense but it wasn't until then that he was given minutes. I think it had alot more to do with walsh being on the trip then Douglas suddenly out working everyone in practice.

LOL, now that's what I call desperate. So, um, Walsh gave him minutes did he? And why didn't Walsh give same minutes to the precious commodity in Jordan Hill?

If you remember when Walsh went on the trip Douglas still was not getting minutes and had a couple of dnp's in March. Walsh said he was going on the trip to evaluate his team and there was speculation that this might include forcing D'Antoni to change his coaching staff and hire someone who would coach the team on defense. It was on that trip that Douglas, a good defender and Donnie's other first round pick was given minutes and the starting job. Here is part of an article from just after the road trip.

Donnie Walsh spent nine days on the road with his basketball team, evaluating everything from Mike D'Antoni to the equipment manager.

Walsh, the Knicks' president, saw the good and bad of his team as well as the promising and the hopeless. No one knows exactly what Walsh, a lawyer at heart, is thinking because he's an old-school executive who likes to play it close to the vest. But several players and moments definitely stick out and we are free to assume what impressions the Knicks left him. Here are a few:

Toney Douglas: The rookie point guard was promoted to the starting lineup and performed well, particularly on the defensive end. One Celtics scout raved about Douglas' toughness and competitive spirit. That's not surprising since Walsh saw those same characteristics in Douglas when he decided to buy his draft rights from the Lakers for $3 million.

Whether Douglas can be a starting point guard on a championship-caliber team is debatable. Of course, that was also the knock on Charlie Ward, another physically and mentally tough guard from Florida State who guided the Knicks to the NBA Finals.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/2010/03/19/2010-03-19_knicks_road_has_highs_lows.html#ixzz16Vp3Xz3o

didn't Mike go on record as saying TD would start seeing more minutes a long time before the road trip but that never seemed to materialize? i seem to recall him making a statement to Tina C or Al Trautwig to that effect... was curious to me why he never followed through on that until Donnie Walsh started to travel with the team... i doubt Donnie ever openly commanded MDA to play the kid, but u have to wonder if that didn't at least influence his decision to finally put the kid into the regular rotation.

CrushAlot wrote:Lopez is owning the Pistons tonight and it looks like the Nets are going to get another win. Lopez has 35 and 10 and has done a nice job passing out of the post.

What a difference a day makes... 2/11, 6 R in 30 minutes

I like Lopez, but Detroit's frontlne is hardly a "yardstick" opponent for judging Lopez as a player.

Pharzeone wrote:

Paladin55 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Lopez is owning the Pistons tonight and it looks like the Nets are going to get another win. Lopez has 35 and 10 and has done a nice job passing out of the post.

What a difference a day makes... 2/11, 6 R in 30 minutes

I like Lopez, but Detroit's frontlne is hardly a "yardstick" opponent for judging Lopez as a player.

What does that say about our frontline? Because Lopez manage to punk us most of the time. Need I remind you that two of their 8 wins come against the Knicks where he was manhandling our frontline.

TMS wrote:

didn't Mike go on record as saying TD would start seeing more minutes a long time before the road trip but that never seemed to materialize? i seem to recall him making a statement to Tina C or Al Trautwig to that effect... was curious to me why he never followed through on that until Donnie Walsh started to travel with the team... i doubt Donnie ever openly commanded MDA to play the kid, but u have to wonder if that didn't at least influence his decision to finally put the kid into the regular rotation.

Yes, he did, and Toney didn't.

I doubt Walsh forced Mike to do anything but you have to remember that GMs and Coaches certainly talk frequently about the team and players. Maybe Walsh brought up the rookies and the Knicks' record and suggested Mike plays them and Mike agreed. I doubt this is a parent whipping a child into shape kind of situation. I highly doubt it.

In regards to Mike's comments you have to remember that you're looking at a coach who is being grilled by 35 members of the press and it's not an easy situation to deal with. So maybe sometimes Mike says things he's considering and it comes across as something he's going to act on right away - but - he didn't mean it to come across that way.

In the end both Hill and Douglas did start getting minutes. Douglas is now a starter. Hill if still here would, no doubt in my mind, be also getting 20 odd minutes per game.

I don't think the rookie thing is as big a deal as it's made out to be. (I'm about to go a bit overboard here)

You have fans who thought we were making trades to win games and they are now upset that we're not winning games and they trash Mike and use the Rookie thing as the newest reason to trash him. When in fact the trades were all made to strip the roster down and little else.

You have the media that does what the media does. Stir up BS and make a story out of it. They too are using the rookie thing as a vehicle to vent about the Knicks not winning 50 games.

Bottom line is this: When Walsh and Mike took over the plan from the start was to rip the roster down to nothing and start over. Clearly, this is what we did. They gave lip service about remaining competitive but you had to read between those lines. Anyone who really saw what was going on knew the idea was to rip the roster down to nothing. Whatever we got back in return wasn't meant to win games. Albeit you have to give Donnie some credit for returning pieces that were part of a balanced roster and pieces that had played well in the past. Secondly, the rookies, were behind veteran players and were raw. One excelled earlier than the other and he got more minutes as a result. Both eventually played despite behind buried behind a glut of veterans.

Too much is made of the last two years being losing seasons (As if they were supposed to be winning seasons) and too much is made of the rookie situation (as if starting and playing Hill and Douglas full games would have led to a 45-26 record and not the other way around).

It's a pile of bull****. Drummed up by impatient fans and media looking to score a story. It's a giant snowball that's been rolling along for two years and it doesn't exist in real life only in this dramatized internet setting does it survive.

Cosmic wrote:

TMS wrote:

didn't Mike go on record as saying TD would start seeing more minutes a long time before the road trip but that never seemed to materialize? i seem to recall him making a statement to Tina C or Al Trautwig to that effect... was curious to me why he never followed through on that until Donnie Walsh started to travel with the team... i doubt Donnie ever openly commanded MDA to play the kid, but u have to wonder if that didn't at least influence his decision to finally put the kid into the regular rotation.

Yes, he did, and Toney didn't.

I doubt Walsh forced Mike to do anything but you have to remember that GMs and Coaches certainly talk frequently about the team and players. Maybe Walsh brought up the rookies and the Knicks' record and suggested Mike plays them and Mike agreed. I doubt this is a parent whipping a child into shape kind of situation. I highly doubt it.

In regards to Mike's comments you have to remember that you're looking at a coach who is being grilled by 35 members of the press and it's not an easy situation to deal with. So maybe sometimes Mike says things he's considering and it comes across as something he's going to act on right away - but - he didn't mean it to come across that way.

In the end both Hill and Douglas did start getting minutes. Douglas is now a starter. Hill if still here would, no doubt in my mind, be also getting 20 odd minutes per game.I don't think the rookie thing is as big a deal as it's made out to be. (I'm about to go a bit overboard here)

You have fans who thought we were making trades to win games and they are now upset that we're not winning games and they trash Mike and use the Rookie thing as the newest reason to trash him. When in fact the trades were all made to strip the roster down and little else.

You have the media that does what the media does. Stir up BS and make a story out of it. They too are using the rookie thing as a vehicle to vent about the Knicks not winning 50 games.

Bottom line is this: When Walsh and Mike took over the plan from the start was to rip the roster down to nothing and start over. Clearly, this is what we did. They gave lip service about remaining competitive but you had to read between those lines. Anyone who really saw what was going on knew the idea was to rip the roster down to nothing. Whatever we got back in return wasn't meant to win games. Albeit you have to give Donnie some credit for returning pieces that were part of a balanced roster and pieces that had played well in the past. Secondly, the rookies, were behind veteran players and were raw. One excelled earlier than the other and he got more minutes as a result. Both eventually played despite behind buried behind a glut of veterans.

Too much is made of the last two years being losing seasons (As if they were supposed to be winning seasons) and too much is made of the rookie situation (as if starting and playing Hill and Douglas full games would have led to a 45-26 record and not the other way around).

It's a pile of bull****. Drummed up by impatient fans and media looking to score a story. It's a giant snowball that's been rolling along for two years and it doesn't exist in real life only in this dramatized internet setting does it survive.

Paladin55 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Paladin55 wrote:

Pharzeone wrote:

Paladin55 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Lopez is owning the Pistons tonight and it looks like the Nets are going to get another win. Lopez has 35 and 10 and has done a nice job passing out of the post.

What a difference a day makes... 2/11, 6 R in 30 minutes

I like Lopez, but Detroit's frontlne is hardly a "yardstick" opponent for judging Lopez as a player.

What does that say about our frontline? Because Lopez manage to punk us most of the time. Need I remind you that two of their 8 wins come against the Knicks where he was manhandling our frontline.

We have a guy playing out of position at the 5. Even Jeffries, a nice defender, was not a center. There's a reason why we sometimes get overwhelmed down low by bigger players. A motivated Darko would have been an interesting matchup for Lopez.

Ask yourself this fair question--other than perimeter shooting and ball handling--not passing--what else is Gallinari superior at compared to Lopez?
Lopez does have some mystical stinkers here and there[the last three on the back end of the B-B] but overall he's quite steady and very productive across the board. I think you put Lopez on this team and he is 21-10.5-2.3 2.7 53%--I think it's a fair prognostication.

Think about this stat--NJ is shooting 42% but Lopez is shooting over 50% on 14 shots per game and they take 79 as a team. That means without Lopez is they are shooting under 40%--unheard of in the NBA. Many teams focus on stopping Loping with double teams[like the Knicks] and for the most part his teammates have been unable to make opponents pay for it. Does Gallinari need double teaming? No Gallinari is sometimes guarded by guys 6-3. Gallinari has grabbed 3 rebounds or less 24 times this year at 6-10.5 and only avgs 1.5 assists in 33MPG[very poor number]--to be fair.

Briggs, you know that comparing the shooting %s of centers with players who don't operate out of the paint is a ridiculous thing to do. Most of his shots are within a few feet of the hoop, and he has had some people passing to him who make it easy for him to score at times.

I know you don't do this with Lee, but funny how Lee is seen as a stat-padder by some but Lopez- the only consistent rebounder and post player in his lineup, and a great beneficiary of the pick and roll-is not criticized for being the same kind of player.

I've been a very consistent and very strong supporter of Lee and have always been an advocate of FG% in any position on the floor. I've started 20 keep David Lee posts. I view it as one of the most important stats. In your post you say that many of Lopez shots are near the hoop[albeit in a derogatory manner]but you already made my case. Id rather take 2 footers than 26 footers any time of the day. Brook Lopez is 7-1 265 and can get those shots--that's why he can block shots rebound et al. That is why he is a more attractive player than Gallinari. Does it guarantee that he will be better than Gallinari long term--no. I think teams in the future are going to have to concede to guarding Gallinari with bigger players or they will be in for a nightmare. He's not guardable by a 6-3/6-4 player. You need a Kirelnko Josh Smith type 6-8+ with long arms and strength. If you keep Gallo back at that 3 point line--you will have success most nights-- if he is able to get into that mid range and post against 6-5 players--hes going to hit 50% of his shots and rebound the ball better.

But again we have one player who is a better % player who doubles Gallinari in rebounds blocks assists and shoots 8-9 points higher in % with more points scored and still tips him at the FT line.

Paladin55 wrote:

Cosmic wrote:
It's a pile of bull****. Drummed up by impatient fans and media looking to score a story. It's a giant snowball that's been rolling along for two years and it doesn't exist in real life only in this dramatized internet setting does it survive.

What...I'm not important??!!

Your words really put a dagger into my self-esteem.

Your posts are of utmost importance to me my prideful passionate friend.

Paladin55 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Paladin55 wrote:

Pharzeone wrote:

Paladin55 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:Lopez is owning the Pistons tonight and it looks like the Nets are going to get another win. Lopez has 35 and 10 and has done a nice job passing out of the post.

What a difference a day makes... 2/11, 6 R in 30 minutes

I like Lopez, but Detroit's frontlne is hardly a "yardstick" opponent for judging Lopez as a player.

What does that say about our frontline? Because Lopez manage to punk us most of the time. Need I remind you that two of their 8 wins come against the Knicks where he was manhandling our frontline.

We have a guy playing out of position at the 5. Even Jeffries, a nice defender, was not a center. There's a reason why we sometimes get overwhelmed down low by bigger players. A motivated Darko would have been an interesting matchup for Lopez.

Ask yourself this fair question--other than perimeter shooting and ball handling--not passing--what else is Gallinari superior at compared to Lopez?
Lopez does have some mystical stinkers here and there[the last three on the back end of the B-B] but overall he's quite steady and very productive across the board. I think you put Lopez on this team and he is 21-10.5-2.3 2.7 53%--I think it's a fair prognostication.

Think about this stat--NJ is shooting 42% but Lopez is shooting over 50% on 14 shots per game and they take 79 as a team. That means without Lopez is they are shooting under 40%--unheard of in the NBA. Many teams focus on stopping Loping with double teams[like the Knicks] and for the most part his teammates have been unable to make opponents pay for it. Does Gallinari need double teaming? No Gallinari is sometimes guarded by guys 6-3. Gallinari has grabbed 3 rebounds or less 24 times this year at 6-10.5 and only avgs 1.5 assists in 33MPG[very poor number]--to be fair.

Briggs, you know that comparing the shooting %s of centers with players who don't operate out of the paint is a ridiculous thing to do. Most of his shots are within a few feet of the hoop, and he has had some people passing to him who make it easy for him to score at times.

I know you don't do this with Lee, but funny how Lee is seen as a stat-padder by some but Lopez- the only consistent rebounder and post player in his lineup, and a great beneficiary of the pick and roll-is not criticized for being the same kind of player.

I've admitted that a case can be made for the Knicks taking Lopez. Hell, Briggs, why not make the case that he should have been the #2, 4, or 5th pick in his draft? Why didn't Miami or Minnesota take Lopez? A lot of teams saw him and passed on him. I don't know what the Knicks saw (or didn't see) in Lopez when they had him in for a look- but the Knicks, and many other teams thought a 7' center with some skills should not be a top 9 pick.

The only thing that really matters is that the draft is over, and Gallinari is a Knick.

Have we seen his game evolve this year? Yes
Has he shown himself to be infinitely better on D than anyone, including a Gallo suck-up like myself, thought? Yes
Does he seem to have some of the intangibles we look for in top players? Yes
Does he have room for improvement? Yes
Can I see him as a key component on a winning team with title aspirations? Yes
Can I see him as a leader on a top team competing for a title? Yes
Will he be a leader of a top team competing for a title? Maybe, but who knows.
Does he seem to have the intelligence, desire, and talent to be an upper tier player? Yes
Will he be an upper tier player someday? Maybe, but who knows?
Should we be happy that we got Gallinari and did not end up with Beasley, Love, Alexander, Augustin, Bayless, Thompson, Randolph (sorry man),Rush, and maybe even Mayo...? Yes, IMHO.

At this time, subject to change (for everyone)- the only guys in his draft I would have been happier, or as happy, with are Rose, Westbrook, Gordon, and B. Lopez, and I see nothing about these 4 players which makes me think that Gallinari could not be as good or better than them someday. I will also admit that Beasley, Love, Thompson, Randolph, and Mayo, as well as the 4 players just mentioned, may end up being better than Gallo if he does not make the improvements in his game which I expect him to make.

Paladin, that was a hell of a post.. I agree 100%

Panos wrote:

Cosmic wrote:

Paladin55 wrote:

Cosmic wrote:
It's a pile of bull****. Drummed up by impatient fans and media looking to score a story. It's a giant snowball that's been rolling along for two years and it doesn't exist in real life only in this dramatized internet setting does it survive.

What...I'm not important??!!

Your words really put a dagger into my self-esteem.

Your posts are of utmost importance to me my prideful passionate friend.

Wait a fookin' second!

*panics*

What did I do?

*gets ready to run*