holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/7916347/new-york-knicks-mike-woodson-says-team-absolutely-re-sign-guard-jeremy-lin

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfischer/2012/03/16/were-all-jeremy-lin-fans-now/

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/woodson-jeremy-guys-better-article-1.1207292

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/16/linsanity-is-dead-welcome-to-woodsons-knicks/

Nice links but I wish you would respond to the question I asked regarding what you wrote. Again, Lin played 7 games under Woodson before getting hurt. The team went 6-1. What was your issue with Woodson/Lin when the Knicks were winning at such a high rate?

as soon as d'antoni resigned it was no longer lin's team.

I am not going to address who's team it was but the Knicks had lost 6 straight, 8-10 and had what should have been one of the best frontlines in the league. Woodson took over and won. He also continued to start Lin until he got hurt.

they were destroyed by miami 4-1, cementing woodson's legacy as a jayvee season coach.

100-67
104-94
87-70
87-89
106-94

the heat toyed with the knicks, winning by an average margin of 15.5 points.

the first game was a "send them a message game" that they have no chance. in fact the game was over by the middle of the second quarter.

this is only one example of woodson being on the receiving end of an ass-whupping in the playoffs. there's a pattern, and a preponderance of blowouts, which is the case with woodson if you care to look at his record in the playoffs and the margin of loss, is demonstrative of an inferior coach, both strategically and in terms of leadership.

as i said, he will not get another head coaching job in the nba. that's indictment enough, wouldn't you say?

Not sure what that has to do with Woodson/Lin which is what I asked you about. Also, that was a horrible series. The Knicks lost the rest of their backcourt, Amare punched the fire extinguisher, and I believe that was the first round of Tyson getting over the flu in his Knick career.

not interested in chitchat of this nature as it is all surface stuff and white noise.

it's about culture war, factions, internecine struggle, chaotic management, meddling ownership, meddling agents.

this has been the knicks since dolan became the owner. now that phil jackson is here-- someone who loves the knicks more than dolan does and has a deeper connection to the knicks than dolan ever will-- we are on the road to recovery and perhaps respectability.

woodson was one of the symptoms of what has been wrong with the knicks, who were never capable of handling prosperity and professionalism. they have been an extension of dolan, a walking disease.

so it is not surprising to me that certain posters are bemoaning the present state of and direction of this team, while other posters are rejoicing.

You have a tendency to deflect and distract when you write things that are factually wrong and get called out on it. I get it. Hard to argue with the results of the Woodson/Lin dynamic that you were critical of. Lin was Woodson's point guard for 7 games. They went 6-1. The goal is to win. None of the other stuff you are posting relates to how Woodson used Lin which is what the dialogue was about.

mental midgets are only capable of seeing numbers in a vacuum and lack the ability to see numbers in context. then there are those who know better but still insist on denying this aspect of rational thought.

conclusion: you are either stupid, deceitful or a combination of the two... not a good look, sister

The problem when you start judging teams by anything other than wins and losses, it's left up to the individual's interpretation. So you could endlessly continue to write the BS you write...It has no meaning because winning is never in the equation..17 win season is great because it's a "culture change"..LB 23 win season was "playing the right way"..Phil is bringing in guys from "good families"..We are bringin back scrubs from last year's awful team to "establish continuity"...Who the heck wants to continue anything off a 17 win season...You guys don't need basketball people, you need speech writers..Know what that all means, we aren't winning because that's what they would have been talking about if they were winning..So until you come to Church and embrace "winning", everything else is Bull****..

sorry but you're wrong about winning. it's not *that* you win but *how* you win that matters. this is one of the great things that bill bradley said.

you will notice that the playoff format allows for 16 teams in a 30 team league. this by definition rewards mediocrity. nate silver is trying to address some of this issue by not rewarding division winners with a top 4 guaranteed seed. this, because portland had no business being seeded as high as it was, and the way they were dispatched is proof positive that a win is definitely not a win. and you may extrapolate from this phenomenon that a second seed may not actually be a true second seed. with 82 games there is plenty of wiggle room, unlike with football, where a win is a win.

in order to win it all you have to play the right way. only about 6 teams in any given year play the right way, and all 6 of those teams will be playing in the conference semi-finals. the remaining two teams who appear do not play the right way, so even some second-round series have one team that just doesn't belong. the knicks against indiana is a classic example of this.

much of this has to do with coaching. the knicks allowed an overmatched boston team some life, allowing them to win two games in a row-- this was the dressed in black for a boston funeral series. in a stiffer test they then lost the first game against indiana, losing home court. carmelo stunk up the joint and woodson was outcoached.

why did they lose home court: the woodson/melo/smith triumverate was exposed for the frauds that they are.

Here is why you never win these arguments..Your arguments never are based on facts or truths..2 questions..Was Indiana the better team? and Did a Woodson coached team exceed your expectations??..I always get you with these two truths..

according to your "reasoning" the knicks were the better team because their regular-season record said so.

the answer to the first question is that the pacers were the better team, and by answering this way you are forced to concede that a win is not a win.

check.

the answer to the second question is directly linked to the first question, and the answer here is "no."

checkmate.

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/7916347/new-york-knicks-mike-woodson-says-team-absolutely-re-sign-guard-jeremy-lin

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfischer/2012/03/16/were-all-jeremy-lin-fans-now/

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/woodson-jeremy-guys-better-article-1.1207292

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/16/linsanity-is-dead-welcome-to-woodsons-knicks/

Nice links but I wish you would respond to the question I asked regarding what you wrote. Again, Lin played 7 games under Woodson before getting hurt. The team went 6-1. What was your issue with Woodson/Lin when the Knicks were winning at such a high rate?

as soon as d'antoni resigned it was no longer lin's team.

I am not going to address who's team it was but the Knicks had lost 6 straight, 8-10 and had what should have been one of the best frontlines in the league. Woodson took over and won. He also continued to start Lin until he got hurt.

they were destroyed by miami 4-1, cementing woodson's legacy as a jayvee season coach.

100-67
104-94
87-70
87-89
106-94

the heat toyed with the knicks, winning by an average margin of 15.5 points.

the first game was a "send them a message game" that they have no chance. in fact the game was over by the middle of the second quarter.

this is only one example of woodson being on the receiving end of an ass-whupping in the playoffs. there's a pattern, and a preponderance of blowouts, which is the case with woodson if you care to look at his record in the playoffs and the margin of loss, is demonstrative of an inferior coach, both strategically and in terms of leadership.

as i said, he will not get another head coaching job in the nba. that's indictment enough, wouldn't you say?

Not sure what that has to do with Woodson/Lin which is what I asked you about. Also, that was a horrible series. The Knicks lost the rest of their backcourt, Amare punched the fire extinguisher, and I believe that was the first round of Tyson getting over the flu in his Knick career.

not interested in chitchat of this nature as it is all surface stuff and white noise.

it's about culture war, factions, internecine struggle, chaotic management, meddling ownership, meddling agents.

this has been the knicks since dolan became the owner. now that phil jackson is here-- someone who loves the knicks more than dolan does and has a deeper connection to the knicks than dolan ever will-- we are on the road to recovery and perhaps respectability.

woodson was one of the symptoms of what has been wrong with the knicks, who were never capable of handling prosperity and professionalism. they have been an extension of dolan, a walking disease.

so it is not surprising to me that certain posters are bemoaning the present state of and direction of this team, while other posters are rejoicing.

You have a tendency to deflect and distract when you write things that are factually wrong and get called out on it. I get it. Hard to argue with the results of the Woodson/Lin dynamic that you were critical of. Lin was Woodson's point guard for 7 games. They went 6-1. The goal is to win. None of the other stuff you are posting relates to how Woodson used Lin which is what the dialogue was about.

mental midgets are only capable of seeing numbers in a vacuum and lack the ability to see numbers in context. then there are those who know better but still insist on denying this aspect of rational thought.

conclusion: you are either stupid, deceitful or a combination of the two... not a good look, sister

The problem when you start judging teams by anything other than wins and losses, it's left up to the individual's interpretation. So you could endlessly continue to write the BS you write...It has no meaning because winning is never in the equation..17 win season is great because it's a "culture change"..LB 23 win season was "playing the right way"..Phil is bringing in guys from "good families"..We are bringin back scrubs from last year's awful team to "establish continuity"...Who the heck wants to continue anything off a 17 win season...You guys don't need basketball people, you need speech writers..Know what that all means, we aren't winning because that's what they would have been talking about if they were winning..So until you come to Church and embrace "winning", everything else is Bull****..

sorry but you're wrong about winning. it's not *that* you win but *how* you win that matters. this is one of the great things that bill bradley said.

you will notice that the playoff format allows for 16 teams in a 30 team league. this by definition rewards mediocrity. nate silver is trying to address some of this issue by not rewarding division winners with a top 4 guaranteed seed. this, because portland had no business being seeded as high as it was, and the way they were dispatched is proof positive that a win is definitely not a win. and you may extrapolate from this phenomenon that a second seed may not actually be a true second seed. with 82 games there is plenty of wiggle room, unlike with football, where a win is a win.

in order to win it all you have to play the right way. only about 6 teams in any given year play the right way, and all 6 of those teams will be playing in the conference semi-finals. the remaining two teams who appear do not play the right way, so even some second-round series have one team that just doesn't belong. the knicks against indiana is a classic example of this.

much of this has to do with coaching. the knicks allowed an overmatched boston team some life, allowing them to win two games in a row-- this was the dressed in black for a boston funeral series. in a stiffer test they then lost the first game against indiana, losing home court. carmelo stunk up the joint and woodson was outcoached.

why did they lose home court: the woodson/melo/smith triumverate was exposed for the frauds that they are.

Here is why you never win these arguments..Your arguments never are based on facts or truths..2 questions..Was Indiana the better team? and Did a Woodson coached team exceed your expectations??..I always get you with these two truths..

according to your "reasoning" the knicks were the better team because their regular-season record said so.

the answer to the first question is that the pacers were the better team, and by answering this way you are forced to concede that a win is not a win.

check.

the answer to the second question is directly linked to the first question, and the answer here is "no."

checkmate.

1. Well the Pacers were the better team so the Knicks should have lost the series which they did...So you have no point saying Woodson was out coached when you just admitted Indy was the better team..This happens a lot with you...I'm not sure what you extra commentary means other than you were caught saying a win is a win one day, and you were also caught saying a win is not a win the following day..You said both to support one argument or the other and I proved it..You aren't really honest or never consistent in your dialogue...

2. I have proof that you predicted the Knicks would be as low as a 7th seed and would exit the playoffs in the first round...The Knicks were a 2nd seed and exited in the 2nd round, but yet you said a Woodson coached team didn't exceed your expectations...And you still won't admit it even after I proved you said it at least 5 times...

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/7916347/new-york-knicks-mike-woodson-says-team-absolutely-re-sign-guard-jeremy-lin

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfischer/2012/03/16/were-all-jeremy-lin-fans-now/

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/woodson-jeremy-guys-better-article-1.1207292

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/16/linsanity-is-dead-welcome-to-woodsons-knicks/

Nice links but I wish you would respond to the question I asked regarding what you wrote. Again, Lin played 7 games under Woodson before getting hurt. The team went 6-1. What was your issue with Woodson/Lin when the Knicks were winning at such a high rate?

as soon as d'antoni resigned it was no longer lin's team.

I am not going to address who's team it was but the Knicks had lost 6 straight, 8-10 and had what should have been one of the best frontlines in the league. Woodson took over and won. He also continued to start Lin until he got hurt.

they were destroyed by miami 4-1, cementing woodson's legacy as a jayvee season coach.

100-67
104-94
87-70
87-89
106-94

the heat toyed with the knicks, winning by an average margin of 15.5 points.

the first game was a "send them a message game" that they have no chance. in fact the game was over by the middle of the second quarter.

this is only one example of woodson being on the receiving end of an ass-whupping in the playoffs. there's a pattern, and a preponderance of blowouts, which is the case with woodson if you care to look at his record in the playoffs and the margin of loss, is demonstrative of an inferior coach, both strategically and in terms of leadership.

as i said, he will not get another head coaching job in the nba. that's indictment enough, wouldn't you say?

Not sure what that has to do with Woodson/Lin which is what I asked you about. Also, that was a horrible series. The Knicks lost the rest of their backcourt, Amare punched the fire extinguisher, and I believe that was the first round of Tyson getting over the flu in his Knick career.

not interested in chitchat of this nature as it is all surface stuff and white noise.

it's about culture war, factions, internecine struggle, chaotic management, meddling ownership, meddling agents.

this has been the knicks since dolan became the owner. now that phil jackson is here-- someone who loves the knicks more than dolan does and has a deeper connection to the knicks than dolan ever will-- we are on the road to recovery and perhaps respectability.

woodson was one of the symptoms of what has been wrong with the knicks, who were never capable of handling prosperity and professionalism. they have been an extension of dolan, a walking disease.

so it is not surprising to me that certain posters are bemoaning the present state of and direction of this team, while other posters are rejoicing.

You have a tendency to deflect and distract when you write things that are factually wrong and get called out on it. I get it. Hard to argue with the results of the Woodson/Lin dynamic that you were critical of. Lin was Woodson's point guard for 7 games. They went 6-1. The goal is to win. None of the other stuff you are posting relates to how Woodson used Lin which is what the dialogue was about.

mental midgets are only capable of seeing numbers in a vacuum and lack the ability to see numbers in context. then there are those who know better but still insist on denying this aspect of rational thought.

conclusion: you are either stupid, deceitful or a combination of the two... not a good look, sister

The problem when you start judging teams by anything other than wins and losses, it's left up to the individual's interpretation. So you could endlessly continue to write the BS you write...It has no meaning because winning is never in the equation..17 win season is great because it's a "culture change"..LB 23 win season was "playing the right way"..Phil is bringing in guys from "good families"..We are bringin back scrubs from last year's awful team to "establish continuity"...Who the heck wants to continue anything off a 17 win season...You guys don't need basketball people, you need speech writers..Know what that all means, we aren't winning because that's what they would have been talking about if they were winning..So until you come to Church and embrace "winning", everything else is Bull****..

sorry but you're wrong about winning. it's not *that* you win but *how* you win that matters. this is one of the great things that bill bradley said.

you will notice that the playoff format allows for 16 teams in a 30 team league. this by definition rewards mediocrity. nate silver is trying to address some of this issue by not rewarding division winners with a top 4 guaranteed seed. this, because portland had no business being seeded as high as it was, and the way they were dispatched is proof positive that a win is definitely not a win. and you may extrapolate from this phenomenon that a second seed may not actually be a true second seed. with 82 games there is plenty of wiggle room, unlike with football, where a win is a win.

in order to win it all you have to play the right way. only about 6 teams in any given year play the right way, and all 6 of those teams will be playing in the conference semi-finals. the remaining two teams who appear do not play the right way, so even some second-round series have one team that just doesn't belong. the knicks against indiana is a classic example of this.

much of this has to do with coaching. the knicks allowed an overmatched boston team some life, allowing them to win two games in a row-- this was the dressed in black for a boston funeral series. in a stiffer test they then lost the first game against indiana, losing home court. carmelo stunk up the joint and woodson was outcoached.

why did they lose home court: the woodson/melo/smith triumverate was exposed for the frauds that they are.

Here is why you never win these arguments..Your arguments never are based on facts or truths..2 questions..Was Indiana the better team? and Did a Woodson coached team exceed your expectations??..I always get you with these two truths..

according to your "reasoning" the knicks were the better team because their regular-season record said so.

the answer to the first question is that the pacers were the better team, and by answering this way you are forced to concede that a win is not a win.

check.

the answer to the second question is directly linked to the first question, and the answer here is "no."

checkmate.

1. Well the Pacers were the better team so the Knicks should have lost the series which they did...So you have no point saying Woodson was out coached when you just admitted Indy was the better team..This happens a lot with you...I'm not sure what you extra commentary means other than you were caught saying a win is a win one day, and you were also caught saying a win is not a win the following day..You said both to support one argument or the other and I proved it..You aren't really honest or never consistent in your dialogue...

2. I have proof that you predicted the Knicks would be as low as a 7th seed and would exit the playoffs in the first round...The Knicks were a 2nd seed and exited in the 2nd round, but yet you said a Woodson coached team didn't exceed your expectations...And you still won't admit it even after I proved you said it at least 5 times...

holfresh, listen carefully now:

1) when i said "a win is a win" i was being sarcastic... scout's honor. for some reason the sarcasm went over your head. since i do not have the wherewithal to look up the specific post you can do so and when you do so i will try, once again, to show you how and why i was being sarcastic. i believe i did so once already but lets try again.

2) if you want to dredge up the exact posts where i predicted 7th seed please do so. i believe you will find that i *actually* said something along the lines of "they may be the second seed record-wise but they're actually playing like something closer to a 7th seed." and this assertion is directly related to my assertion that it is not *that* you win but *how* you win that ultimately matters.

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/7916347/new-york-knicks-mike-woodson-says-team-absolutely-re-sign-guard-jeremy-lin

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfischer/2012/03/16/were-all-jeremy-lin-fans-now/

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/woodson-jeremy-guys-better-article-1.1207292

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/16/linsanity-is-dead-welcome-to-woodsons-knicks/

Nice links but I wish you would respond to the question I asked regarding what you wrote. Again, Lin played 7 games under Woodson before getting hurt. The team went 6-1. What was your issue with Woodson/Lin when the Knicks were winning at such a high rate?

as soon as d'antoni resigned it was no longer lin's team.

I am not going to address who's team it was but the Knicks had lost 6 straight, 8-10 and had what should have been one of the best frontlines in the league. Woodson took over and won. He also continued to start Lin until he got hurt.

they were destroyed by miami 4-1, cementing woodson's legacy as a jayvee season coach.

100-67
104-94
87-70
87-89
106-94

the heat toyed with the knicks, winning by an average margin of 15.5 points.

the first game was a "send them a message game" that they have no chance. in fact the game was over by the middle of the second quarter.

this is only one example of woodson being on the receiving end of an ass-whupping in the playoffs. there's a pattern, and a preponderance of blowouts, which is the case with woodson if you care to look at his record in the playoffs and the margin of loss, is demonstrative of an inferior coach, both strategically and in terms of leadership.

as i said, he will not get another head coaching job in the nba. that's indictment enough, wouldn't you say?

Not sure what that has to do with Woodson/Lin which is what I asked you about. Also, that was a horrible series. The Knicks lost the rest of their backcourt, Amare punched the fire extinguisher, and I believe that was the first round of Tyson getting over the flu in his Knick career.

not interested in chitchat of this nature as it is all surface stuff and white noise.

it's about culture war, factions, internecine struggle, chaotic management, meddling ownership, meddling agents.

this has been the knicks since dolan became the owner. now that phil jackson is here-- someone who loves the knicks more than dolan does and has a deeper connection to the knicks than dolan ever will-- we are on the road to recovery and perhaps respectability.

woodson was one of the symptoms of what has been wrong with the knicks, who were never capable of handling prosperity and professionalism. they have been an extension of dolan, a walking disease.

so it is not surprising to me that certain posters are bemoaning the present state of and direction of this team, while other posters are rejoicing.

You have a tendency to deflect and distract when you write things that are factually wrong and get called out on it. I get it. Hard to argue with the results of the Woodson/Lin dynamic that you were critical of. Lin was Woodson's point guard for 7 games. They went 6-1. The goal is to win. None of the other stuff you are posting relates to how Woodson used Lin which is what the dialogue was about.

mental midgets are only capable of seeing numbers in a vacuum and lack the ability to see numbers in context. then there are those who know better but still insist on denying this aspect of rational thought.

conclusion: you are either stupid, deceitful or a combination of the two... not a good look, sister

The problem when you start judging teams by anything other than wins and losses, it's left up to the individual's interpretation. So you could endlessly continue to write the BS you write...It has no meaning because winning is never in the equation..17 win season is great because it's a "culture change"..LB 23 win season was "playing the right way"..Phil is bringing in guys from "good families"..We are bringin back scrubs from last year's awful team to "establish continuity"...Who the heck wants to continue anything off a 17 win season...You guys don't need basketball people, you need speech writers..Know what that all means, we aren't winning because that's what they would have been talking about if they were winning..So until you come to Church and embrace "winning", everything else is Bull****..

sorry but you're wrong about winning. it's not *that* you win but *how* you win that matters. this is one of the great things that bill bradley said.

you will notice that the playoff format allows for 16 teams in a 30 team league. this by definition rewards mediocrity. nate silver is trying to address some of this issue by not rewarding division winners with a top 4 guaranteed seed. this, because portland had no business being seeded as high as it was, and the way they were dispatched is proof positive that a win is definitely not a win. and you may extrapolate from this phenomenon that a second seed may not actually be a true second seed. with 82 games there is plenty of wiggle room, unlike with football, where a win is a win.

in order to win it all you have to play the right way. only about 6 teams in any given year play the right way, and all 6 of those teams will be playing in the conference semi-finals. the remaining two teams who appear do not play the right way, so even some second-round series have one team that just doesn't belong. the knicks against indiana is a classic example of this.

much of this has to do with coaching. the knicks allowed an overmatched boston team some life, allowing them to win two games in a row-- this was the dressed in black for a boston funeral series. in a stiffer test they then lost the first game against indiana, losing home court. carmelo stunk up the joint and woodson was outcoached.

why did they lose home court: the woodson/melo/smith triumverate was exposed for the frauds that they are.

Here is why you never win these arguments..Your arguments never are based on facts or truths..2 questions..Was Indiana the better team? and Did a Woodson coached team exceed your expectations??..I always get you with these two truths..

according to your "reasoning" the knicks were the better team because their regular-season record said so.

the answer to the first question is that the pacers were the better team, and by answering this way you are forced to concede that a win is not a win.

check.

the answer to the second question is directly linked to the first question, and the answer here is "no."

checkmate.

1. Well the Pacers were the better team so the Knicks should have lost the series which they did...So you have no point saying Woodson was out coached when you just admitted Indy was the better team..This happens a lot with you...I'm not sure what you extra commentary means other than you were caught saying a win is a win one day, and you were also caught saying a win is not a win the following day..You said both to support one argument or the other and I proved it..You aren't really honest or never consistent in your dialogue...

2. I have proof that you predicted the Knicks would be as low as a 7th seed and would exit the playoffs in the first round...The Knicks were a 2nd seed and exited in the 2nd round, but yet you said a Woodson coached team didn't exceed your expectations...And you still won't admit it even after I proved you said it at least 5 times...

holfresh, listen carefully now:

1) when i said "a win is a win" i was being sarcastic... scout's honor. for some reason the sarcasm went over your head. since i do not have the wherewithal to look up the specific post you can do so and when you do so i will try, once again, to show you how and why i was being sarcastic. i believe i did so once already but lets try again.

2) if you want to dredge up the exact posts where i predicted 7th seed please do so. i believe you will find that i *actually* said something along the lines of "they may be the second seed record-wise but they're actually playing like something closer to a 7th seed." and this assertion is directly related to my assertion that it is not *that* you win but *how* you win that ultimately matters.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=50948&page=6

I don't know why I remember where you said these things..I know u suspect I bookmarked these but I really don't...

thius playing "gotcha" is dumb. but you know it is common internet practice to leave off the period at the end of a sentence to denote sarcasm, which is exactly what i did in that instance.

then a few posts down further you will notice that i said that i tossed you a softball, underlinng the sarcasm for you, since you missed it the first time.

and now you've managed to miss it another two times

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

holfresh wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/7916347/new-york-knicks-mike-woodson-says-team-absolutely-re-sign-guard-jeremy-lin

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfischer/2012/03/16/were-all-jeremy-lin-fans-now/

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/woodson-jeremy-guys-better-article-1.1207292

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/16/linsanity-is-dead-welcome-to-woodsons-knicks/

Nice links but I wish you would respond to the question I asked regarding what you wrote. Again, Lin played 7 games under Woodson before getting hurt. The team went 6-1. What was your issue with Woodson/Lin when the Knicks were winning at such a high rate?

as soon as d'antoni resigned it was no longer lin's team.

I am not going to address who's team it was but the Knicks had lost 6 straight, 8-10 and had what should have been one of the best frontlines in the league. Woodson took over and won. He also continued to start Lin until he got hurt.

they were destroyed by miami 4-1, cementing woodson's legacy as a jayvee season coach.

100-67
104-94
87-70
87-89
106-94

the heat toyed with the knicks, winning by an average margin of 15.5 points.

the first game was a "send them a message game" that they have no chance. in fact the game was over by the middle of the second quarter.

this is only one example of woodson being on the receiving end of an ass-whupping in the playoffs. there's a pattern, and a preponderance of blowouts, which is the case with woodson if you care to look at his record in the playoffs and the margin of loss, is demonstrative of an inferior coach, both strategically and in terms of leadership.

as i said, he will not get another head coaching job in the nba. that's indictment enough, wouldn't you say?

Not sure what that has to do with Woodson/Lin which is what I asked you about. Also, that was a horrible series. The Knicks lost the rest of their backcourt, Amare punched the fire extinguisher, and I believe that was the first round of Tyson getting over the flu in his Knick career.

not interested in chitchat of this nature as it is all surface stuff and white noise.

it's about culture war, factions, internecine struggle, chaotic management, meddling ownership, meddling agents.

this has been the knicks since dolan became the owner. now that phil jackson is here-- someone who loves the knicks more than dolan does and has a deeper connection to the knicks than dolan ever will-- we are on the road to recovery and perhaps respectability.

woodson was one of the symptoms of what has been wrong with the knicks, who were never capable of handling prosperity and professionalism. they have been an extension of dolan, a walking disease.

so it is not surprising to me that certain posters are bemoaning the present state of and direction of this team, while other posters are rejoicing.

You have a tendency to deflect and distract when you write things that are factually wrong and get called out on it. I get it. Hard to argue with the results of the Woodson/Lin dynamic that you were critical of. Lin was Woodson's point guard for 7 games. They went 6-1. The goal is to win. None of the other stuff you are posting relates to how Woodson used Lin which is what the dialogue was about.

mental midgets are only capable of seeing numbers in a vacuum and lack the ability to see numbers in context. then there are those who know better but still insist on denying this aspect of rational thought.

conclusion: you are either stupid, deceitful or a combination of the two... not a good look, sister

The problem when you start judging teams by anything other than wins and losses, it's left up to the individual's interpretation. So you could endlessly continue to write the BS you write...It has no meaning because winning is never in the equation..17 win season is great because it's a "culture change"..LB 23 win season was "playing the right way"..Phil is bringing in guys from "good families"..We are bringin back scrubs from last year's awful team to "establish continuity"...Who the heck wants to continue anything off a 17 win season...You guys don't need basketball people, you need speech writers..Know what that all means, we aren't winning because that's what they would have been talking about if they were winning..So until you come to Church and embrace "winning", everything else is Bull****..

sorry but you're wrong about winning. it's not *that* you win but *how* you win that matters. this is one of the great things that bill bradley said.

you will notice that the playoff format allows for 16 teams in a 30 team league. this by definition rewards mediocrity. nate silver is trying to address some of this issue by not rewarding division winners with a top 4 guaranteed seed. this, because portland had no business being seeded as high as it was, and the way they were dispatched is proof positive that a win is definitely not a win. and you may extrapolate from this phenomenon that a second seed may not actually be a true second seed. with 82 games there is plenty of wiggle room, unlike with football, where a win is a win.

in order to win it all you have to play the right way. only about 6 teams in any given year play the right way, and all 6 of those teams will be playing in the conference semi-finals. the remaining two teams who appear do not play the right way, so even some second-round series have one team that just doesn't belong. the knicks against indiana is a classic example of this.

much of this has to do with coaching. the knicks allowed an overmatched boston team some life, allowing them to win two games in a row-- this was the dressed in black for a boston funeral series. in a stiffer test they then lost the first game against indiana, losing home court. carmelo stunk up the joint and woodson was outcoached.

why did they lose home court: the woodson/melo/smith triumverate was exposed for the frauds that they are.

Here is why you never win these arguments..Your arguments never are based on facts or truths..2 questions..Was Indiana the better team? and Did a Woodson coached team exceed your expectations??..I always get you with these two truths..

according to your "reasoning" the knicks were the better team because their regular-season record said so.

the answer to the first question is that the pacers were the better team, and by answering this way you are forced to concede that a win is not a win.

check.

the answer to the second question is directly linked to the first question, and the answer here is "no."

checkmate.

1. Well the Pacers were the better team so the Knicks should have lost the series which they did...So you have no point saying Woodson was out coached when you just admitted Indy was the better team..This happens a lot with you...I'm not sure what you extra commentary means other than you were caught saying a win is a win one day, and you were also caught saying a win is not a win the following day..You said both to support one argument or the other and I proved it..You aren't really honest or never consistent in your dialogue...

2. I have proof that you predicted the Knicks would be as low as a 7th seed and would exit the playoffs in the first round...The Knicks were a 2nd seed and exited in the 2nd round, but yet you said a Woodson coached team didn't exceed your expectations...And you still won't admit it even after I proved you said it at least 5 times...

holfresh, listen carefully now:

1) when i said "a win is a win" i was being sarcastic... scout's honor. for some reason the sarcasm went over your head. since i do not have the wherewithal to look up the specific post you can do so and when you do so i will try, once again, to show you how and why i was being sarcastic. i believe i did so once already but lets try again.

2) if you want to dredge up the exact posts where i predicted 7th seed please do so. i believe you will find that i *actually* said something along the lines of "they may be the second seed record-wise but they're actually playing like something closer to a 7th seed." and this assertion is directly related to my assertion that it is not *that* you win but *how* you win that ultimately matters.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/topic.asp?t=50948&page=6

I don't know why I remember where you said these things..I know u suspect I bookmarked these but I really don't...

thius playing "gotcha" is dumb. but you know it is common internet practice to leave off the period at the end of a sentence to denote sarcasm, which is exactly what i did in that instance.

then a few posts down further you will notice that i said that i tossed you a softball, underlinng the sarcasm for you, since you missed it the first time.

and now you've managed to miss it another two times

Thats not sarcasm, Crush also called you on it..but hey..Period at the end of the sentence???what????

hey you needed a softball and you knocked it out of the park. congrats and god bless.

It doesn't matter..U were defending Harden like you always do..But no worries, I didn't expect you to fess up...

i just told you that it was sarcasm. since when have i departed from my assertion that "a win is NOT a win"? just that once. yet you think that i am contradicting myself... idiot! lol

i don't *always* defend harden. i merely said that his defense is not as bad as you are making it out to be, that he has improved over previous seasons. while that improvement is not enough to make him a legit two-way player he at least got the message. he also got the message about ball movement and sharing the ball. the fact is he has improved a lot, he made a jump from two seasons ago to last season, and the results show in his team reaching the conference finals. so he must have been playing closer to the right way. maybe when they upgrade over jason terry they can do even better next season.

you obsess over harden's ability to draw fouls, that it somehow is cheating. that is laughable. paul pierce is a master at drawing fouls-- i suppose he's a cheater too? michael jordan? what about the greatest knick of all... walt frazier? you have a problem with him? or is just harden and gallinari and ginobili and durant? what about when melo goes to the line? lots of great foul-drawers here.

it's not west 4th it's reffed. would you rather they abolish calling fouls and awarding free throws altogether and basically turn it into a "battle royale" free for all?

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nba/story/_/id/7916347/new-york-knicks-mike-woodson-says-team-absolutely-re-sign-guard-jeremy-lin

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfischer/2012/03/16/were-all-jeremy-lin-fans-now/

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/woodson-jeremy-guys-better-article-1.1207292

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/16/linsanity-is-dead-welcome-to-woodsons-knicks/

Nice links but I wish you would respond to the question I asked regarding what you wrote. Again, Lin played 7 games under Woodson before getting hurt. The team went 6-1. What was your issue with Woodson/Lin when the Knicks were winning at such a high rate?

as soon as d'antoni resigned it was no longer lin's team.

I am not going to address who's team it was but the Knicks had lost 6 straight, 8-10 and had what should have been one of the best frontlines in the league. Woodson took over and won. He also continued to start Lin until he got hurt.

they were destroyed by miami 4-1, cementing woodson's legacy as a jayvee season coach.

100-67
104-94
87-70
87-89
106-94

the heat toyed with the knicks, winning by an average margin of 15.5 points.

the first game was a "send them a message game" that they have no chance. in fact the game was over by the middle of the second quarter.

this is only one example of woodson being on the receiving end of an ass-whupping in the playoffs. there's a pattern, and a preponderance of blowouts, which is the case with woodson if you care to look at his record in the playoffs and the margin of loss, is demonstrative of an inferior coach, both strategically and in terms of leadership.

as i said, he will not get another head coaching job in the nba. that's indictment enough, wouldn't you say?

Not sure what that has to do with Woodson/Lin which is what I asked you about. Also, that was a horrible series. The Knicks lost the rest of their backcourt, Amare punched the fire extinguisher, and I believe that was the first round of Tyson getting over the flu in his Knick career.

not interested in chitchat of this nature as it is all surface stuff and white noise.

it's about culture war, factions, internecine struggle, chaotic management, meddling ownership, meddling agents.

this has been the knicks since dolan became the owner. now that phil jackson is here-- someone who loves the knicks more than dolan does and has a deeper connection to the knicks than dolan ever will-- we are on the road to recovery and perhaps respectability.

woodson was one of the symptoms of what has been wrong with the knicks, who were never capable of handling prosperity and professionalism. they have been an extension of dolan, a walking disease.

so it is not surprising to me that certain posters are bemoaning the present state of and direction of this team, while other posters are rejoicing.

You have a tendency to deflect and distract when you write things that are factually wrong and get called out on it. I get it. Hard to argue with the results of the Woodson/Lin dynamic that you were critical of. Lin was Woodson's point guard for 7 games. They went 6-1. The goal is to win. None of the other stuff you are posting relates to how Woodson used Lin which is what the dialogue was about.

mental midgets are only capable of seeing numbers in a vacuum and lack the ability to see numbers in context. then there are those who know better but still insist on denying this aspect of rational thought.

conclusion: you are either stupid, deceitful or a combination of the two... not a good look, sister

Nice. You make a claim, don't back it up, post lots of links that don't back it up and then become defensive and flex your e-muscles. Anytime you want to explain the dynamic between Woodson and Lin feel free. Same goes for how a player wins player of the month the last month of the season for two consecutive years that you claim's conditioning declines as the season goes on. Until then I assume that you were just making claims that fit your agenda and have no bases in reality.

i have explained it several times. woodson likes playground-style one-on-one chuckers. his five minutes with red holzman did not rub off. he is basically a substitute teacher and has no real command of his players. i don't care about his going 6-1 with jeremy lin. he came across as lukewarm about lin in postgame interviews, and the articles i cited include references to his preference for veterans in contrast to d'antoni's approach. so in spite of the record with lin, the overarching culture of the knicks was informed by dolan and his henchmen. woodson was one of dolan's henchmen.

as to your hero winning player of the month, get ready:

the strike shortened season started in december, and the 11 games he played in april were games 44 through 55. in a true 82-game season that is basically the equivalent of games played in february. what were you saying about conditioning? bfd

check.

2012-2013? in april he played his 60th through 67th games... 8 whole games... and against the following teams and with an average usage of around 38%... disgusting when your assist rate is around 10%.... total fool's gold:

1)miami W who had wrapped up the conference and coasted
2)atlanta W a mediocre team also-ran playoff fodder destroyed by miami in the first round
3)milwaukee W 38-44
4)okc W this was a great win a game i really enjoyed
5)washington W 29-53
6)chicago L uh-oh cracks in the facade against a quality defensive opponent-- melo 13-34, TS46.7% loser number right there
7)cleveland W 24-58
8)indiana W 49-31 the seeding was already decided and melo went for a stellar 9-23

a little exploring beneath the surface reveals the truth.

checkmate and thanks for playing.

Ball movement creating efficient shots, and defense. Our 54 win season wasn't a fluke and wasn't only regular season basketball. We failed in the playoffs for other reasons then style of play.

Rick Carlisle won a championship with his style of play, and hasn't had any success in the playoffs over the last 4 yrs even with winning regular season records. Its not because he all of a sudden stopped playing playoff basketball its because he didn't have the pieces. Vs Indy Woodson didn't have the pieces once Kidd was shot, Jr went mental and Tyson caught the flu. There is no game plan that could have saved him.

Lin is also an average basketball player with durability concerns. Linsanity was amazing but not maintainable.

ChuckBuck wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Ball movement creating efficient shots, and defense. Our 54 win season wasn't a fluke and wasn't only regular season basketball. We failed in the playoffs for other reasons then style of play.

Rick Carlisle won a championship with his style of play, and hasn't had any success in the playoffs over the last 4 yrs even with winning regular season records. Its not because he all of a sudden stopped playing playoff basketball its because he didn't have the pieces. Vs Indy Woodson didn't have the pieces once Kidd was shot, Jr went mental and Tyson caught the flu. There is no game plan that could have saved him.

Lin is also an average basketball player with durability concerns. Linsanity was amazing but not maintainable.

Did we even have a playbook that year in that 54 win season? I think we had 3 or 4 plays tops that year.

I remember the Felton-Chandler pick and roll lob play, the "Horns" 2 way pick play at the top of the key with whoever is handling the ball, the post play with whatever big we had in (Amare, Sheed,etc), and the ISO Melo/ISO JR. If any of those plays got doubled, they'd swing it around the horn until a 3 pointer shooter was open, guess if you want to call finding the open shooter a play, then 5.

Not an imaginative offense any way you slice it, but guess that's what happens when you got an offensively limited coach, guards that can't penetrate, and bigs that can't pass well.

He's not a great offensive mind true, though I like that he adapted some of the principals when he was under MDA. Josh Smith had his first and only efficient all around season under Woodson when they won 53 games in ATL. And he moved Melo to the 4 for better defense and spacing. Playing Shumpert at the 2-3 also improved his efficiency that yr. And JR Smith won 6th man of the yr and had his best season of his career during the regular season under Woodson.

Rick Carlisle had Rondo Ellis Parsons Dirk Tyson and lost in the first round. Was it because Carlisle stopped coaching playoff basketball or was it because Rondo and Ellis pulled a Kidd and Smith whole Tyson pulled a Tyson?

ChuckBuck wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Ball movement creating efficient shots, and defense. Our 54 win season wasn't a fluke and wasn't only regular season basketball. We failed in the playoffs for other reasons then style of play.

Rick Carlisle won a championship with his style of play, and hasn't had any success in the playoffs over the last 4 yrs even with winning regular season records. Its not because he all of a sudden stopped playing playoff basketball its because he didn't have the pieces. Vs Indy Woodson didn't have the pieces once Kidd was shot, Jr went mental and Tyson caught the flu. There is no game plan that could have saved him.

Lin is also an average basketball player with durability concerns. Linsanity was amazing but not maintainable.

Did we even have a playbook that year in that 54 win season? I think we had 3 or 4 plays tops that year.

I remember the Felton-Chandler pick and roll lob play, the "Horns" 2 way pick play at the top of the key with whoever is handling the ball, the post play with whatever big we had in (Amare, Sheed,etc), and the ISO Melo/ISO JR. If any of those plays got doubled, they'd swing it around the horn until a 3 pointer shooter was open, guess if you want to call finding the open shooter a play, then 5.

Not an imaginative offense any way you slice it, but guess that's what happens when you got an offensively limited coach, guards that can't penetrate, and bigs that can't pass well.

What a stupid comment..We won 54 games...Did Cleveland have a playbook during this year's Finals, would you reject their Championship banner if you were a Clevelnad fan??..Did GS have more than 3 or 4 plays other than get the ball to Curry..Stop making excuses, they are all lame..Woodson found a way to win with what he had, period, end of story..U prefer to have a complicated offense that nets you 17 wins the it's plain stupid..It's lame..There aren't any glory is losing...

holfresh wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

Ball movement creating efficient shots, and defense. Our 54 win season wasn't a fluke and wasn't only regular season basketball. We failed in the playoffs for other reasons then style of play.

Rick Carlisle won a championship with his style of play, and hasn't had any success in the playoffs over the last 4 yrs even with winning regular season records. Its not because he all of a sudden stopped playing playoff basketball its because he didn't have the pieces. Vs Indy Woodson didn't have the pieces once Kidd was shot, Jr went mental and Tyson caught the flu. There is no game plan that could have saved him.

Lin is also an average basketball player with durability concerns. Linsanity was amazing but not maintainable.

Did we even have a playbook that year in that 54 win season? I think we had 3 or 4 plays tops that year.

I remember the Felton-Chandler pick and roll lob play, the "Horns" 2 way pick play at the top of the key with whoever is handling the ball, the post play with whatever big we had in (Amare, Sheed,etc), and the ISO Melo/ISO JR. If any of those plays got doubled, they'd swing it around the horn until a 3 pointer shooter was open, guess if you want to call finding the open shooter a play, then 5.

Not an imaginative offense any way you slice it, but guess that's what happens when you got an offensively limited coach, guards that can't penetrate, and bigs that can't pass well.

What a stupid comment..We won 54 games...Did Cleveland have a playbook during this year's Finals, would you reject their Championship banner if you were a Clevelnad fan??..Did GS have more than 3 or 4 plays other than get the ball to Curry..Stop making excuses, they are all lame..Woodson found a way to win with what he had, period, end of story..U prefer to have a complicated offense that nets you 17 wins the it's plain stupid..It's lame..There aren't any glory is losing...

JVG wasn't a good offensive mind just like Woodson and mostly played Iso ball through Spree or post ups with LJ yet the Knicks went to the finals while facing tough tough teams like Heat and Indy. Its not about offensive creativity. Its about balance and flexibility and matchups. The team with the most balance who has the most flexibility to matchup usually wins. And it goes without saying having great players to perform these duties.