Traditionally, we have been a team of veterans with a win now mentality, but we are now in rebuild mode and have some good young talent. Are we going to approach this differently now then we did last year or in the past? Is it the coaching staff? Do we need more assistants whose job is specifically to development young players and draft picks? What is it that other teams are doing differently to successfully develop their players - Draymond Green, Jimmy Butler, Kawhi Leonard for example.

We have a terrible track record at developing young players, so are we just kidding our selves here?

tj23 wrote:Just recently? I thought we did well with Nate, David Lee, Gallo, Wilson, and Moz. Galloway made some strides. Not every player is going to be a hit.

I would agree about that. With Lee, we wanted him to add consistent midrange shot, which he did and it made him an all-star. We wanted Gallo to attack the basket more and get to the free throw line. Moz was a project and we didn't get the chance to fully develop him, but the focus while he was here was to jump straight up on defense and not get into foul trouble. They tried to make Nate a better floor general, but in the end they just told him to do what he does. All smart moves that maximize a player's potential with the mindset of adding one more dimension to your game each year.

With Phils' Knicks, all I have heard is if you want minutes, play better defense and from the players perspective it's been, I don't understand the triangle. So it would seem a crash course in force feeding the system that the players are having trouble with and asking them to be better defenders. All I can do is look at the results which are to purge the roster and I don't see where players like Gallo, Early, Hardway, or Shump made any progress at all but more specifically, they all regressed.

Rookie wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Rookie wrote:We have a new roster with some talented young players who haven't reached their potential, and this years and last years draft picks. History shows us that we are not good at developing young players. Recent history gives Iman Shumpert who is still wildly inconsistent. Hardaway who regressed with the Knicks, Our Greek freak who looks like he has made zero progress in one year with us. Early who looks like he still isn't ready to be a rotation player and now have a project in Williams who has yet to live up to his potential as a former #2 pick.

Traditionally, we have been a team of veterans with a win now mentality, but we are now in rebuild mode and have some good young talent. Are we going to approach this differently now then we did last year or in the past? Is it the coaching staff? Do we need more assistants whose job is specifically to development young players and draft picks? What is it that other teams are doing differently to successfully develop their players - Draymond Green, Jimmy Butler, Kawhi Leonard for example.

We have a terrible track record at developing young players, so are we just kidding our selves here?

the "culture change" phil jackson announced upon his hiring is meant to create the very stability that will allow for the development and retaining of players. he also said recently that before he leaves he wants to leave a culture that will last.

one thing to consider too-- and i am not sure this is what he has in mind but it kind of makes sense to me-- is that having a system like the triangle is the framework upon which to maintain that culture change.

looking at the first year's disaster as some sort of harbinger is setting up a straw man. last year was mostly about ridding the franchise of players who don't play the right way, have character issues, are not coachable. in the case of ty chandler i think that was a concession to melo that phil jackson regretted a little bit.

regardless of the record next year-- i think it will range from 29-38 wins-- i am looking forward to seeing a different kind of basketball being played for once, one where you see clearly a work in progress with an eye to the future, ie an eye to the next 5-7 years.

So far, culture change has taken the shape of purge the roster and resign Amundson and Thomas. While we added a few vets, we are predominantly a young team with a bad track record in player development

dk7th wrote:

smackeddog wrote:Fans, media and the organization all play a part (as well as the players themselves)- some fans need to look in the mirror

please explain what effect you or i have on the development of players?

We could put them under nore pressure,we also contribute to setting the expectations. But i will say its mostly the players character

dk7th wrote:

Rookie wrote:We have a new roster with some talented young players who haven't reached their potential, and this years and last years draft picks. History shows us that we are not good at developing young players. Recent history gives Iman Shumpert who is still wildly inconsistent. Hardaway who regressed with the Knicks, Our Greek freak who looks like he has made zero progress in one year with us. Early who looks like he still isn't ready to be a rotation player and now have a project in Williams who has yet to live up to his potential as a former #2 pick.

Traditionally, we have been a team of veterans with a win now mentality, but we are now in rebuild mode and have some good young talent. Are we going to approach this differently now then we did last year or in the past? Is it the coaching staff? Do we need more assistants whose job is specifically to development young players and draft picks? What is it that other teams are doing differently to successfully develop their players - Draymond Green, Jimmy Butler, Kawhi Leonard for example.

We have a terrible track record at developing young players, so are we just kidding our selves here?

the "culture change" phil jackson announced upon his hiring is meant to create the very stability that will allow for the development and retaining of players. he also said recently that before he leaves he wants to leave a culture that will last.

one thing to consider too-- and i am not sure this is what he has in mind but it kind of makes sense to me-- is that having a system like the triangle is the framework upon which to maintain that culture change.

looking at the first year's disaster as some sort of harbinger is setting up a straw man. last year was mostly about ridding the franchise of players who don't play the right way, have character issues, are not coachable. in the case of ty chandler i think that was a concession to melo that phil jackson regretted a little bit.

regardless of the record next year-- i think it will range from 29-38 wins-- i am looking forward to seeing a different kind of basketball being played for once, one where you see clearly a work in progress with an eye to the future, ie an eye to the next 5-7 years.

"During exit interviews, Melo told Phil that Tyson was the teammate he trusted most," according to a person familiar with the conversation.

Rookie wrote:Maybe you guys can explain why we fired the 'triangle' guy in Westchester and are looking at replacements who are 'development' guys.

Also, you have to have a team full of high character, hard working veterans in the fold, leadership, and a very good coach and coaching staff.
With no veterans and leadership the process is slow, and patience has never been a NY trait, so they get traded.

Phil needs at least 7 to 10 yrs to change the culture, and you need to win games now to convince ppl (fans, players, owner) that the culture is worth buying into. It's just too much invested into this franchise to take baby steps, so if you don't see a stark change from yr to yr, your going to blow it up, and here comes a new regime.

stopstandthere wrote:The reason is that we do not value the draft seriously over years. When an organisation do not treat the draft pick properly, it is impossible to talk about development of young players.

Another thing is we were bad at drafting players. I doubt if the office had been doing with due diligence in this respect.

I hope Phil can really alter the things here.

That's just false. Tj23 just listed a bunch of guys we drafted that developed with the Knicks. The Knicks traded their players teeing to get star players. That's where we went wrong. Also trading away picks to get star players.

Right now we are doing the best you can with the guys were picking up. Players need to take responsibility for their own careers. Shump and THJR were too fixed on improving their stock. Cleananthony I think is going to really develop here. Kristaps and Grant too.... they are a different type of person entirely.

Phil has stated his philosophy on the type of player he wants. So far he had been bringing in those types of players.

Bottom line is the player has to want it

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Rookie wrote:We have a new roster with some talented young players who haven't reached their potential, and this years and last years draft picks. History shows us that we are not good at developing young players. Recent history gives Iman Shumpert who is still wildly inconsistent. Hardaway who regressed with the Knicks, Our Greek freak who looks like he has made zero progress in one year with us. Early who looks like he still isn't ready to be a rotation player and now have a project in Williams who has yet to live up to his potential as a former #2 pick.

Traditionally, we have been a team of veterans with a win now mentality, but we are now in rebuild mode and have some good young talent. Are we going to approach this differently now then we did last year or in the past? Is it the coaching staff? Do we need more assistants whose job is specifically to development young players and draft picks? What is it that other teams are doing differently to successfully develop their players - Draymond Green, Jimmy Butler, Kawhi Leonard for example.

We have a terrible track record at developing young players, so are we just kidding our selves here?

the "culture change" phil jackson announced upon his hiring is meant to create the very stability that will allow for the development and retaining of players. he also said recently that before he leaves he wants to leave a culture that will last.

one thing to consider too-- and i am not sure this is what he has in mind but it kind of makes sense to me-- is that having a system like the triangle is the framework upon which to maintain that culture change.

looking at the first year's disaster as some sort of harbinger is setting up a straw man. last year was mostly about ridding the franchise of players who don't play the right way, have character issues, are not coachable. in the case of ty chandler i think that was a concession to melo that phil jackson regretted a little bit.

regardless of the record next year-- i think it will range from 29-38 wins-- i am looking forward to seeing a different kind of basketball being played for once, one where you see clearly a work in progress with an eye to the future, ie an eye to the next 5-7 years.

I think you are mistaken about Chandler/Melo.

"During exit interviews, Melo told Phil that Tyson was the teammate he trusted most," according to a person familiar with the conversation.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/knicks-trade-tyson-chandler-raymond-felton-to-dallas-1403744236
Also, Jackson's words that upset Tyson and called out his character at the time of the trade indicate that it was done in part because of how Tyson had approached everything about being a knick that final year.

you are using a 3rd hand quote and then make your own assertion/conjecture that jackson upset chandler somehow by citing "chemistry issues" on the team.

http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/_/id/11554074/tyson-chandler-dallas-mavericks-says-character-allegations-wrong

do i have that right?