Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 29

Thread: Just when you thought D'ant was bad, he shows you he's worse that you thought!

  1. #1
    Veteran mafra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,384
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Just when you thought D'ant was bad, he shows you he's worse that you thought!

    I'm sorry to vent... But I cannot stand this style of basketball anymore. I don't mind losing, but this is not effort.... This is quitting!

    To make it worse... we did (played) the same game in CHA, and the coach learned nothing!

    15-45 from the 3-point arc! HOw does a COACH PERMIT THIS?

    We have 9 points in the 4th quarter? A semi-decent coach could manage that with a few TOs and well-devised plays.

    Look at the play-by-play for the 4th quarter. Can you believe it.... One missed layup, one blocked layup, a missed tip in, 1 missed 9-foot shot, a few free throws... EVRY OTHER POSSESSION was a brick 3-point shot.

    How do you play an entire quarter and don't bother to drive into the paint?

    They did this in the 1st half, as a 17-point lead went bye-bye... Bricking (missing) 10 consecutive 3s.... Wouldn't a halfway decent & lucid coach, who cared one iota... call a TO and tell his team to stop the madness?

    Knicks are 8-34 from 3 on their last 34 attempts.


    WOW!

    I wont even mention how CHI announcer basically said D'ant blew this game by pulling Harrington after he scored 14 quick points.

    HOw CHI laughed about NY's THIRTY missed 3-point shots (more than any opponent has even attemnpted against CHI this season).

    What we saw tonight was a coach who could care less, and a team who could care less.... L-A-Z-Y... Wanted no part to earn their millions.... Just go through the motions and shoot 3 pointers.

    We play 12 minutes in the 4th quarter and don't score one basket in the paint? We take 3-4 attempts even within 10-feet? This after a 4th quarter collapse our last game.

    See everyone in July. If these cats don't care, why should I?

    -CHI announcers just repeat the line: D'ant just blew this game. They talked about how coach went with Curry, Douglas, Gallo together when the knicks were hot and NY saw 17 point lead disappear, and NY never recovered.

    WOW.... they are ripping coach D'ant!

  2. #2
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,845
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Hey, at least Jordan Hill showed us some fire.

    This is indeed horrible coaching/management.

    Our future is: Hill, Gallo, Douglas....maybe Lee, maybe Chandler.

    Every single thing we do should be based around developing: Hill, Gallo, Douglas.

    Our future success is based on this, as well as dumping Jeffries and Curry pretty much *BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY* providing the names Hill, Gallo, and Douglas are not mentioned.

    Play N8....why? Give him his minutes and his stats so we can use his ass to achieve aims within the aforesaid.

    Harrington, and to a more nuanced extent, Chandler and Lee....relish their success...why? SO we can trade their asses to help in achieving the aforesaid.

    This season is an abortion the way it is playing out, and major changes must happen throughout the trade period regarding Jeffries/Curry, and perhaps giving us a legitimate PG.

  3. #3
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Bitch bitch bitch. Seriously. If the players didn't want to take threes, they wouldn't be taking them.

    A coach can only do so much.

    Does he give them freedom? Hell yeah. Too much? Certainly appears so with how dumb our team is.

    But is it his game plan to shoot 45 3s? Maybe you think that if you're retarded.

  4. #4
    Veteran mafra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,384
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by iSaYughh
    Hey, at least Jordan Hill showed us some fire.

    This is indeed horrible coaching/management.

    Our future is: Hill, Gallo, Douglas....maybe Lee, maybe Chandler.

    Every single thing we do should be based around developing: Hill, Gallo, Douglas.

    Our future success is based on this, as well as dumping Jeffries and Curry pretty much *BY WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY* providing the names Hill, Gallo, and Douglas are not mentioned.

    Play N8....why? Give him his minutes and his stats so we can use his ass to achieve aims within the aforesaid.

    Harrington, and to a more nuanced extent, Chandler and Lee....relish their success...why? SO we can trade their asses to help in achieving the aforesaid.

    This season is an abortion the way it is playing out, and major changes must happen throughout the trade period regarding Jeffries/Curry, and perhaps giving us a legitimate PG.
    This season is going so bad.... I think it's actually going to hurt the progress of all the kids, which is going to set us back next year.

    Chandler, Gallo especially are only learning BAD habbits. For Gallo to sit there and take 17 shots, with 15 of them being from DEEP 3 range, and only get 1 free throw (which he missed).... Yikes.

    CHI announcer goes: Man Chandler is making some dumb decisions tonight, after airing yet another 40-foot bomb.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    165
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    PLAY NATE! All I gotta say!

  6. #6
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by bfab99
    PLAY NATE! All I gotta say!
    Lets sign Steve Francis and Stephon Marbury while we're at it.

  7. #7
    Sexy Stud knickzrulezH20's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,781
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    Lets sign Steve Francis and Stephon Marbury while we're at it.
    talking about steve francis, d rose looks like hes headed for that route, rose has got to improve his defense

  8. #8
    Member Torp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    92
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    Bitch bitch bitch. Seriously. If the players didn't want to take threes, they wouldn't be taking them.

    A coach can only do so much.

    Does he give them freedom? Hell yeah. Too much? Certainly appears so with how dumb our team is.

    But is it his game plan to shoot 45 3s? Maybe you think that if you're retarded.
    Exactly the point... the players DO want to take the threes because they can't do anything else. It is not that it is Coach D's SOLE GAMEPLAN to shoot 45 3's. It is the fact that he gives them free reign to shoot a 3 (without repercussions or punishment) whenever anyone has 1 cm of space that is the problem.

    He needs to be strict. When he clearly does not want anyone to shoot threes (i.e. when we are up 17), he better get out there and say "if you shoot a non-wide open 3, you will be benched." Yet he clearly did not convey this message since the knicks kept on shooting threes. This IS CLEARLY the fault of the coach.

    A coach is the single most important factor when our team is inherently filled with bad players. Because his gameplan can at least attempt to prevent having to shoot 45 3's. Clearly this did not happen.

  9. #9
    Member NYKChevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    68
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    I'm not going to sit here and say that D'Antoni was completly right this game simply because playing 6 guys for 48 mins is suicide and realy thats why they took so many threes. The simple fact was the team was tired at the end of the game, you dont have the legs to go on a full on drive when u play 48 non stop minutes. I just didnt think the knicks had the energy at the end of the game

    I dont think the answer is "play right or your benched" because than u have the isiah thomas era where people were afraid to be benched at any moment so their play was unnatural in a way. I think the defined roles are good for the team, it creates stability, and lord knows we havent had that in a while.

  10. #10
    Member Dirk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    298
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    The Knicks are f**king CURSED.

  11. #11
    Member LOIOSH30's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    203
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    All the threes aside...What the hell was coach thinking playing the starters so many minutes, they all looked burnt in the fourth quarter. He does know the team has to fly home and play another game tonight doesn't he? I'm not saying Toney and Eddy should have played 20 minutes apiece, but damn 4 min...Why bother...Tonights game should be real fun...

  12. #12
    Veteran nyk_nyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,529
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Danphony can and should have done something about the team taking that many threes. I know he usually lets his players play but there is a point when you have to actually coach a game and he failed to do that. The players are at fault for relying on them too much even when only down by 5 or 6 and Danphony gets a fail for not coming up with a late gameplan that included drives to the basket.

    I think it was absolutely stupid how he only played 7 guys (2 of which saw barely any minutes) with a game the following night. He constantly overlooks Hill and even though he has issues with Nate, should have at least given him minutes to help keep the starters fresh. He removed a hot Harrington and kept Curry in the game too long only to see the lead dissapear. Its like they learned nothing from their 4 gm winning streak. Back to basics for them.

    I was never a fan of Dantoni's coaching... especially for my Knicks. I don't think he's a good coach when it comes to figuring out how to win games. Hate to compare, but good coaches like Phil Jack, either Van Gundy and L Brown would have never allowed this madness to take place.

  13. #13
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    683
    Rep Power
    11

    Default Three Point Shots

    I did not see the game so I do not know how many of those 47 three point shots were reasonable. 47, however, is a large number, but there is an argument for taking lots of threes.

    The Knicks took a total of 86 shots. 47 were three point shots and 16 were successful. The shooting percentage on three point shots was .3404. But the 16 made shots produced 48 points. It would take 24 successful two point shots to produce that number. If there had been 47 two point shots of which 24 were successful, the percentage would be over 50%.

    39 of the Kincks total 86 shots were two point shots. They were successful on 15 of them. Their 2 point shooting percentage was .3846 and their 2 point shots produced 30 points.

    If the Knicks took all their 86 shots within two point range and were successful at 38.46 percent -- the 2 point percentage --, they would have made slightly over 33 shots or about 66 points. With the 11 made foul shots, they would have scored 77 points.

    If the Knicks took all of their 86 shots from three point range and were successful at 34.04 %-- the 3 point percentage-- they would have made over 29 shots or about 87 points. With the 11 made foul shots, they would have scored 98 points.

    I do not advocate three point shots only, it would make the game boring and involve very little foul shooting, but clearly they can be productive.




  14. #14
    Veteran nyk_nyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,529
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Originally Posted by Oldtimer
    I did not see the game so I do not know how many of those 47 three point shots were reasonable. 47, however, is a large number, but there is an argument for taking lots of threes.

    The Knicks took a total of 86 shots. 47 were three point shots and 16 were successful. The shooting percentage on three point shots was .3404. But the 16 made shots produced 48 points. It would take 24 successful two point shots to produce that number. If there had been 47 two point shots of which 24 were successful, the percentage would be over 50%.

    39 of the Kincks total 86 shots were two point shots. They were successful on 15 of them. Their 2 point shooting percentage was .3846 and their 2 point shots produced 30 points.

    If the Knicks took all their 86 shots within two point range and were successful at 38.46 percent -- the 2 point percentage --, they would have made slightly over 33 shots or about 66 points. With the 11 made foul shots, they would have scored 77 points.

    If the Knicks took all of their 86 shots from three point range and were successful at 34.04 %-- the 3 point percentage-- they would have made over 29 shots or about 87 points. With the 11 made foul shots, they would have scored 98 points.

    I do not advocate three point shots only, it would make the game boring and involve very little foul shooting, but clearly they can be productive.
    Is this a joke?

  15. #15
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Originally Posted by TunerAddict
    Bitch bitch bitch. Seriously. If the players didn't want to take threes, they wouldn't be taking them.

    A coach can only do so much.

    Does he give them freedom? Hell yeah. Too much? Certainly appears so with how dumb our team is.

    But is it his game plan to shoot 45 3s? Maybe you think that if you're retarded.
    Man, while I was gone, you just turned into more of a fag. The guy makes a great point, about the ridiculous number of threes shot in a game that I didn't watch, by the way, and you call him bitch for it.

    Even if he was wrong, you made a real bitch bitch bitch move in replying in that manner.

    I bet you anything you wouldn't say any of that to his face.

Posting Permissions

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