Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 52

Thread: Phil Jackson calls Knicks roster "clumsy"

  1. #31

    Default

    Originally Posted by CA7
    idk Wilt is one of those guys from the black and white era who I think would dominate in this era
    he played against little white guys and russel and whenever he played russel he lost.

  2. #32
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by fender0577
    It's subjective, on who are the top 5, i'm taking KOBE AND shaq, over bird and Wilt.But to just dismiss Kobe and Shaq, like there not even in the discussion is crazy.
    These comments show a clear lack of understanding of the history of the game. How old are you?

  3. #33
    Evacuee Crazy⑧s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    日本
    Posts
    6,488
    Rep Power
    28

    Default

    Phil's right until proven wrong. It took the absence of one or both of our MAX players to get wins this year. It took a coaching change to inspire the drive of Anthony and Stoudemire, Chandler the only high earning individual that played inspired ball of their own accord.

    I don't believe Dolan was ever truly committed to signing Jackson as HC, as he'd be overshadowed by his status and would be belittled by his intelligence. And what coach in their right mind would work for an interfering prick the likes of Dolan? We're talking about a man whose dedication to basketball apparently has nothing to do with basketball itself.

    100% Dolan fears Jackson, who has often used the media to call out individuals for the sake of winning. Dolan is not about winning, and Jackson, IMO, never wanted to come here in the first place because of that.

  4. #34
    Evacuee Crazy⑧s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    日本
    Posts
    6,488
    Rep Power
    28

    Default

    Regarding the Shaq, Wilt, Kobe, Bird argument, it's a tough call.

    Bill Russell, I don't think, would have had anywhere near the impact in the modern game that he did in Boston's amazing run under Auerbach. The guy was 6'9 - 220 and lithe. I'm pretty sure that's on par with Caron Butler in terms of size. If he were to play the modern game from a young age, he'd undoubtedly be a lot heavier muscle wise, but you have to also take in to account the level of competition he was against at the time in comparison to what he'd be against in the present ~ including the 90s version of the modern game. But, if you were to inject Amar'e Stoudemire in to the past's way against its competition, I think he'd have Wilt like numbers.

    The evolution of the game as well as the players (and their regimes) makes it basically impossible to know.

    SHAQ V Wilt.

    If there were any player of the distant past that'd still make an impact in today's game, it's Chamberlain. But, in terms of size and skill, he was lightyears ahead of his time. His competition was nothing compared to Shaq's. He was 7'1 - 275. He was playing against modern day sized small forwards a lot of the time. One of those SF sized players, Bill Russell, got the better of him on a number of occasions, and Wilt came away with 1 title for all his individual accomplishments.

    SHAQ would have easily had equivalent numbers to Wilt's back in the day, perhaps even eclipsed them.

    But Wilt would still be a starting center, probably an All Star in the league today. Can't really gauge anything beyond that, but 7'1 - 275 is 7'1 - 275.

    The question here isn't about who'd dominate who, because it's like pitting a Spitfire against a Harrier: different eras of dominance against different counterparts.

    The same goes for Larry Bird, who was brilliant in an era that had far less competent and physically gifted players.

    You can't gauge it.

  5. #35
    Member REALHEAT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    162
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally Posted by orangeblobman
    Hahaha, oh man.

    I remember back in, what was it, March? telling guys that Phil Jackson wouldn't touch this roster with his big ten-foot shlong.

    But you had the fans that thought Phil Jackson could come in, work some magic, make Melo into Jordan.

    The trouble is that, and as everyone with eyeballs can see, Melo and the Knicks in general just plain suck.

    We have Tony Campbell on our hands here. Phil Jackson is not coming back to coach Tony Campbell.
    +100000
    sad but true.

  6. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    232
    Rep Power
    3

    Default

    I don't think anyone ever said that Phil would make Melo into Jordan. If so, that's completely ridiculous. But Phil is good at managing egos and he certainly managed Kobe and MJ's pretty well so Melo probably wouldn't be.

    With that being said, just because he snubbed the Knicks doesn't take away from the fact that he is a hall of fame coach. There are plenty of other great teams with talent that didn't win championships every year. Hell, we had a star studded cast in the 90s and the Bulls still beat us every time when Jordan was on the team. You don't get 11 championships by just talent alone.

    What he said was uncalled for and a low blow but it doesn't take away from his greatness as an NBA coach.

  7. #37
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,270
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    meh...sounds like a sour puss to me. From what I've heard and read... Dolan and the rest of the brass didn't really want him because they were concerned with his age and health issues. Funny how you hear this now after we already inked Woody. I still think he's a bit over rated. Without Jordan and Kobe he would probably still be ringless. He'll get my respect once he's able to get a chip without the most dominating players in the game on his team.

  8. #38
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    929
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    These comments show a clear lack of understanding of the history of the game. How old are you?
    How old am i?Smh, if you ask 100 people who are the 5 greatest ballers ever, you'll get about 85 different answers, that's called subjective my friend, you have your opinion i have mine, why try insulting me because my opinon differs from yours. How old are you?

  9. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    232
    Rep Power
    3

    Default

    Originally Posted by Real NY Baller
    meh...sounds like a sour puss to me. From what I've heard and read... Dolan and the rest of the brass didn't really want him because they were concerned with his age and health issues. Funny how you hear this now after we already inked Woody. I still think he's a bit over rated. Without Jordan and Kobe he would probably still be ringless. He'll get my respect once he's able to get a chip without the most dominating players in the game on his team.
    But u can say that about any team that's won a championship. The Rockets wouldn't have a ring without Olajuwon. Popovich wouldn't have rings without Duncan. Mavericks wouldn't have a ring without Dirk. Do they not deserve rings bc they had a dominant player on their team?

  10. #40
    Moderator
    CoolClyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    2,493
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Originally Posted by Crazy⑧s
    Phil's right until proven wrong. It took the absence of one or both of our MAX players to get wins this year. It took a coaching change to inspire the drive of Anthony and Stoudemire, Chandler the only high earning individual that played inspired ball of their own accord.

    I don't believe Dolan was ever truly committed to signing Jackson as HC, as he'd be overshadowed by his status and would be belittled by his intelligence. And what coach in their right mind would work for an interfering prick the likes of Dolan? We're talking about a man whose dedication to basketball apparently has nothing to do with basketball itself.

    100% Dolan fears Jackson, who has often used the media to call out individuals for the sake of winning. Dolan is not about winning, and Jackson, IMO, never wanted to come here in the first place because of that.
    BELIEVE!

  11. #41
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,270
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by NYNYK
    But u can say that about any team that's won a championship. The Rockets wouldn't have a ring without Olajuwon. Popovich wouldn't have rings without Duncan. Mavericks wouldn't have a ring without Dirk. Do they not deserve rings bc they had a dominant player on their team?
    Jordan and Kobe are rare talents. He just so happen to have both of them...and in their primes. Along with "Pippen" "Shaq"and others ..

    Here's legacy clearly falls on the phenomenal talent he had at his disposal. Like "The HEAT" has "Spo" for their coach. (who I also think is over rated) however, its the talent getting HIM to the FINALS 2 times back to back, lucky him. ...

  12. #42
    Member gaknickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    227
    Rep Power
    5

    Default

    Originally Posted by fender0577
    I was thinking the same thing, he only wants jobs with the best players ever, he's a good at coaching ego's, i'll give him that, but c'mon man.The dude coached, MJ, Kobe, and Shaq, those guys are literally 3 of the top 5 to ever play.So i'm not crying over not getting Jack, he would be sleeping on the bench sometimes, that's how much talent he had, he would actually have to coach this team, and at his age, i don't think he's up to it.

    exactly!!!! the guy wants the OKC job !!!! thats why Red Auerbach never respected him..... only wants to coach the best players in the league .... real hard job doing that

  13. #43
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by fender0577
    How old am i?Smh, if you ask 100 people who are the 5 greatest ballers ever, you'll get about 85 different answers, that's called subjective my friend, you have your opinion i have mine, why try insulting me because my opinon differs from yours. How old are you?
    Subjective is a convenient out in this regard.

    You either know the game or you don't. Go look at Wilt's numbers.

    They are an emaculate collection of proliferation for the most part unseen throughout NBA history (Jordan's consistent efficient and high scoring for his entire career withstanding). Dude averaged over 20 rebounds for the majority of his career. One season he averaged 50 ppg and 25 rpg. I can't say definitively, but I simply do not believe Shaq could put those kinds of numbers up in any era. He's a legit all-time great big, but he's not Wilt.

    Wilt played against guys that were for the most part smaller no doubt, but IMO the players and the way game was played was alot tougher then than it is now or was even in the 90s. Back then you could get away with all kinds of pushing and holding. Also the height of most bigs on average compared to the tallest players I don't think is that drastically from what it is now (on NBA teams today you still have few 7 footers). Almost every team had guy that was atleast 6'9". Wilt would always be doubled, tripled and many times quadruple teamed and it didn't matter. He wasn't JUST bigger than everyone else. He was an unbelivably skilled and athletic big for his size. He also played against some nice centers that included Russell, guys like Walt Belamy, Wes Unseld and one Willis Reed. There was definitely comp in 60s to 70s era.

    Russell was the similar. I believe he'd dominate in this era also. He would out hustle and outsmart most players in the league today. Russell was also very athletic. Probably his greatest assets were his will and smarts. He boasted bball IQ that is probably amongst the highest of any player in the history of the league. Let us not forget, Russell is the only baller to ever win a title as a player/coach. That's some boss ****. And he won 11 championships. He is the greatest winner in any sport, ever.

    These two guys, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain would ROCK the league as it's presently constituted.

    Make no mistake, I'm not one of these guys who thinks talent cannot travel across eras. I think they'd put in work similar to what they put in in their day. If Rodman can average 14- 18 rebounds multiple seasons why couldn't Russell or Wilt average their 20 or more in this era. To say otherwise does not make sense logically. If Jordan can average 30-37 throughout his career, why couldn't Wilt average 40, or even 50.

    Some of you really don't understand the talent level of the old era players.

    And to the person who said Bird wouldn't work over dudes in this era because of some athleticism deficit.

    Smh..

    Bird would absolutely **** on most of today's league of more athletic players as he did throughout the 80's against players that were more athletic than he. Bird was just one unbelievably skilled whiteboy, who at 6'9" could handle it well (like a guard), get a shot off virtually anywhere in the gym and whos IQ was off the charts as well. Bird like Russell and Magic for that matter, played the game at a higher plane mentally than than almost all of the players from their respective eras. Combine that with their skills and you have the kind of foundation that a team can feed off of for a shot at mutliple championships during their respective career windows.

    Basketball smarts makes up for soooooooooo much in the league, no matter what era you happen to be from.

    Yes Kobe and Shaq have their rightful places in NBA historical hierarchy, but one mustn't get **** twisted. As I said, top 10-15 and you can bring them into the discussion.

    There's 2 players I'd put ahead of Kobe at his position and at least 4 players I'd put ahead of Shaq at his:

    1. Jordan
    2. Oscar Robertson
    3. Kobe
    4. West
    5. Wade

    1. Russell
    2. Wilt
    3. Abdul-Jabbar
    4. Olajawon
    5. Shaq

    I'm not just talking just to talk.

    Ranking players is subjective, yes... But you also have to use logic and have context.

    As i said:

    Wilt - probably the most potent combo of scoring and rebounding the league has ever seen - 1 title

    Russell - greatest winner of all-time -11 titles

    Bird - could play all five positions. The greatest shooter of all-time IMO, clutch, great passer and rebounder - 5 titles

    Jordan - the GOAT nuff said - 6 titles

    Magic - at 6'9" guy with freakish ball skills, clutch, off the charts awareness - 5 titles
    Last edited by ronoranina; Jun 18, 2012 at 23:39. Reason: typos

  14. #44
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    929
    Rep Power
    4

    Default

    Originally Posted by ronoranina
    Subjective is a convenient out in this regard.

    You either know the game or you don't. Go look at Wilt's numbers.

    They are an emaculate collection of proliferation for the most part unseen throughout NBA history (Jordan's consistent efficient and high scoring for his entire career withstanding). Dude averaged over 20 rebounds for the majority of his career. One season he averaged 50 ppg and 25 rpg. I can't say definitively, but I simply do not believe Shaq could put those kinds of numbers up in any era. He's a legit all-time great big, but he's not Wilt.

    Wilt played against guys that were for the most part smaller no doubt, but IMO the players and the way game was played was alot tougher then than it is now or was even in the 90s. Back then you could get away with all kinds of pushing and holding. Also the height of most bigs on average compared to the tallest players I don't think is that drastically from what it is now (on NBA teams today you still have few 7 footers). Almost every team had guy that was atleast 6'9". Wilt would always be doubled, tripled and many times quadruple teamed and it didn't matter. He wasn't JUST bigger than everyone else. He was an unbelivably skilled and athletic big for his size. He also played against some nice centers that included Russell, guys like Walt Belamy, Wes Unseld and one Willis Reed. There was definitely comp in 60s to 70s era.

    Russell was the similar. I believe he'd dominate in this era also. He would out hustle and outsmart most players in the league today. Russell was also very athletic. Probably his greatest assets were his will and smarts. He boasted bball IQ that is probably amongst the highest of any player in the history of the league. Let us not forget, Russell is the only baller to ever win a title as a player/coach. That's some boss ****. And he won 11 championships. He is the greatest winner in any sport, ever.

    These two guys, Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain would ROCK the league as it's presently constituted.

    Make no mistake, I'm not one of these guys who thinks talent cannot travel across eras. I think they'd put in work similar to what they put in in their day. If Rodman can average 14- 18 rebounds multiple seasons why couldn't Russell or Wilt average their 20 or more in this era. To say otherwise does not make sense logically. If Jordan can average 30-37 throughout his career, why couldn't Wilt average 40, or even 50.

    Some of you really don't understand the talent level of the old era players.

    And to the person who said Bird wouldn't work over dudes in this era because of some athleticism deficit.

    Smh..

    Bird would absolutely **** on most of today's league of more athletic players as he did throughout the 80's against players that were more athletic than he. Bird was just one unbelievably skilled whiteboy, who at 6'9" could handle it well (like a guard), get a shot off virtually anywhere in the gym and whos IQ was off the charts as well. Bird like Russell and Magic for that matter, played the game at a higher plane mentally than than almost all of the players from their respective eras. Combine that with their skills and you have the kind of foundation that a team can feed off of for a shot at mutliple championships during their respective career windows.

    Basketball smarts makes up for soooooooooo much in the league, no matter what era you happen to be from.

    Yes Kobe and Shaq have their rightful places in NBA historical hierarchy, but one mustn't get **** twisted. As I said, top 10-15 and you can bring them into the discussion.

    There's 2 players I'd put ahead of Kobe at his position and at least 4 players I'd put ahead of Shaq at his:

    1. Jordan
    2. Oscar Robertson
    3. Kobe
    4. West
    5. Wade

    1. Russell
    2. Wilt
    3. Abdul-Jabbar
    4. Olajawon
    5. Shaq

    I'm not just talking just to talk.

    Ranking players is subjective, yes... But you also have to use logic and have context.

    As i said:

    Wilt - probably the most potent combo of scoring and rebounding the league has ever seen - 1 title

    Russell - greatest winner of all-time -11 titles

    Bird - could play all five positions. The greatest shooter of all-time IMO, clutch, great passer and rebounder - 5 titles

    Jordan - the GOAT nuff said - 6 titles

    Magic - at 6'9" guy with freakish ball skills, clutch, off the charts awareness - 5 titles
    That's my hole point, so i'm not gonna sit here and go back and forth with you about it, because we would get nowhere, you have your top 5, and i have mine.I'm sure if you started a thread about this, it would go on forever.You just have a habit of questioning someone's knowledge of the game, when their opinion differ from your's, there opinions for a reason.

  15. #45
    Fundamentally Sound ronoranina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,758
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by fender0577
    That's my hole point, so i'm not gonna sit here and go back and forth with you about it, because we would get nowhere, you have your top 5, and i have mine.I'm sure if you started a thread about this, it would go on forever.You just have a habit of questioning someone's knowledge of the game, when their opinion differ from your's, there opinions for a reason.
    What knowledge have you shown? You have backed up nothing. I gave my opinion but I back it up with basketball knowledge.

    All you said was that Kobe and Shaq were top 5 players all time. What is your basis for saying that?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: Dec 11, 2011, 21:08
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sep 11, 2011, 03:36
  3. Knicks @ Celtics 23/02/10
    By smokes in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: Feb 24, 2010, 09:39
  4. Knicks 2007-2008 Season Recap
    By abcd in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: Feb 24, 2008, 11:12
  5. Lampe signs with NY Knicks
    By KnickFan2080 in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Jan 27, 2008, 23:17

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •