Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: So...

  1. #1
    Super Moderator RunningJumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,031
    Rep Power
    16

    Default So...

    I'm starting to think as bad as Marbury's history was, with that thing and Nate I'm wondering if this new regime just has this "not gonna take crap from anybody attitude" which is just as bad as a player rebelling against their team and/or coach.

    Anybody else feel this way?Don't get me wrong I understand their reactions partly, but it's gotten to the point where it seems like even the Marbury situation wasn't all his fault.

  2. #2
    Evacuee Crazy⑧s's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    日本
    Posts
    6,488
    Rep Power
    28

    Default

    Originally Posted by RunningJumper
    I'm starting to think as bad as Marbury's history was, with that thing and Nate I'm wondering if this new regime just has this "not gonna take crap from anybody attitude" which is just as bad as a player rebelling against their team and/or coach.

    Anybody else feel this way?Don't get me wrong I understand their reactions partly, but it's gotten to the point where it seems like even the Marbury situation wasn't all his fault.
    1.Why would we take any crap at all from a millionaire that's playing the game he loves? That's in n8's case not Curry's obviously.

    2. Whether or not it wasn't entirely Marbury's fault, the guy was a failure. Everywhere he went, he was far and above his team mates in raw ability, but the equivalent of a 3rd world country when it came to being the best player and leader he could. Especially in NY.

    I've had employees come and go as a manager and business owner in 2 countries and anyone that makes my company a worse place to be in any way gets booted.

    I don't know ALL the details about either scenario much as everyone else on here. But **** any c*&t that doesn't wanna chip in for the betterment of achieving the common goal.

  3. #3
    Veteran JayJ44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,700
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    The thing with Marbury, he never got a chance to prove that he was a team player/leader. D'antoni/Walsh came in with a preconceived notion of him based on biased reports that they heard from afar. They judged him based on his (undeserved) reputation. Marbury came in, in shape and ready to contribute. D'antoni decided not to play him for no basketball related reason. His motives were obviously personal and/or biased.

    Nate on the other hand was given many chances at proving he was a team player. He had a regular spot in the rotation the entire year, and he did not help us win games. Since his benching we've been playing much better and more cohesively. Therefore, his benching is fair and basketball related.

  4. #4
    is the Bo$$ Toons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bahamas
    Posts
    2,379
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by JayJ44
    The thing with Marbury, he never got a chance to prove that he was a team player/leader. D'antoni/Walsh came in with a preconceived notion of him based on biased reports that they heard from afar. They judged him based on his (undeserved) reputation. Marbury came in, in shape and ready to contribute. D'antoni decided not to play him for no basketball related reason. His motives were obviously personal and/or biased.

    Nate on the other hand was given many chances at proving he was a team player. He had a regular spot in the rotation the entire year, and he did not help us win games. Since his benching we've been playing much better and more cohesively. Therefore, his benching is fair and basketball related.
    Why does anyone think that marbury was in 'game shape'?
    were any of you there in practice?
    marbury wasnt good enought to win a starting spot over duhon or rondo
    if he was such a superstar, e would still be on boston.
    if duhon was in boston, they would win a championship.....the pg position is sooo easy in boston and marbs couldnt cut the mustard.

  5. #5
    Veteran nyk_nyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,529
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Originally Posted by Toons
    Why does anyone think that marbury was in 'game shape'?
    were any of you there in practice?
    marbury wasnt good enought to win a starting spot over duhon or rondo
    if he was such a superstar, e would still be on boston.
    if duhon was in boston, they would win a championship.....the pg position is sooo easy in boston and marbs couldnt cut the mustard.
    You could clearly see in the preseason games that he was in great shape.

    Marbury is leaps and bounds better than Duhon but they signed him to be the starter and Dantoni didn't want Marbury. It had nothing to do with raw talent.

    Why would Boston bring Marbury in to start over their championship pg???

    Boston was interested in bringing back Marbury but he wasn't interested in playing for the veterans minimum.

    If Duhon was in Boston, he'd be a backup like he's supposed to be. Nothing special there.

  6. #6
    Hannibal Lecter TR1LL10N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Dark side of the Moon
    Posts
    2,743
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Originally Posted by nyk_nyk
    You could clearly see in the preseason games that he was in great shape.

    Marbury is leaps and bounds better than Duhon but they signed him to be the starter and Dantoni didn't want Marbury. It had nothing to do with raw talent.

    Why would Boston bring Marbury in to start over their championship pg???

    Boston was interested in bringing back Marbury but he wasn't interested in playing for the veterans minimum.

    If Duhon was in Boston, he'd be a backup like he's supposed to be. Nothing special there.

    Individually Marbury is better than Duhon. Duhon is way better at running an offense than Marbury was at this late stage in his career. Add to it that Marbury was a self righteous cancer to most teams he ever played for and it's clear why Marbury was DNP on the Knicks.

  7. #7
    Superstar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    962
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    We'll never know about Marbury's ability to run a team he never got a chance. I take potential tho over right now all day (if the current potential is low)...Marbury's potential in this system is 10x Duhon's.

    I do know one thing about him tho...he is a head case.

  8. #8
    Veteran nyk_nyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,529
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    Originally Posted by TR1LL10N
    Individually Marbury is better than Duhon. Duhon is way better at running an offense than Marbury was at this late stage in his career. Add to it that Marbury was a self righteous cancer to most teams he ever played for and it's clear why Marbury was DNP on the Knicks.
    If that was the case then things should have been handled differently. Walsh came in saying that everyone had a clean slate as long as they showed up ready to play. Nothing was communicated to Marbury about the team not wanting his services during the offseason. He played well during preseason and was ready to contribute but then was benched and you know the rest. My point is it wasn't that clear why he was getting DNPs based on how he performed during preseason and the fact that he was part of the "clean slate" comment.

    I'm not defending Marbs for being selfish at times but he did come to camp ready to play and contribute. I just didn't agree with how it was handled at all. Let guys know what the situation is from the beginning so both parties can figure out a quick and easy way to resolve the problem.

  9. #9
    Veteran Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bronx
    Posts
    1,472
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    The real question here is why on earth anyone still even has marbs on their mind. Its 2010, not 2007.

  10. #10
    OG GoKnIcKsDLEE42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    1,399
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by Toons
    marbury wasnt good enought to win a starting spot over duhon or rondo
    lmaooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

  11. #11
    OG GoKnIcKsDLEE42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    1,399
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by JayJ44
    The thing with Marbury, he never got a chance to prove that he was a team player/leader. D'antoni/Walsh came in with a preconceived notion of him based on biased reports that they heard from afar. They judged him based on his (undeserved) reputation. Marbury came in, in shape and ready to contribute. D'antoni decided not to play him for no basketball related reason. His motives were obviously personal and/or biased.

    Nate on the other hand was given many chances at proving he was a team player. He had a regular spot in the rotation the entire year, and he did not help us win games. Since his benching we've been playing much better and more cohesively. Therefore, his benching is fair and basketball related.
    Co-sign. Couldn't agree more.

  12. #12
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by JayJ44
    The thing with Marbury, he never got a chance to prove that he was a team player/leader. D'antoni/Walsh came in with a preconceived notion of him based on biased reports that they heard from afar. They judged him based on his (undeserved) reputation. Marbury came in, in shape and ready to contribute. D'antoni decided not to play him for no basketball related reason. His motives were obviously personal and/or biased.

    Nate on the other hand was given many chances at proving he was a team player. He had a regular spot in the rotation the entire year, and he did not help us win games. Since his benching we've been playing much better and more cohesively. Therefore, his benching is fair and basketball related.
    Responding to the bold...it's 100% false. Marbury played for D'Antoni, D'Antoni felt during that tenure that Marbury quit on him as Marbury quit on many coaches before, D'Antoni didn't want to have his starting PG be a guy that would quit on him, like he did before.

    I do agree with you about Nate, and comparing Nate to Marbury on this board is ridiculous. Fact is, an argument could have been made that Marbury would have helped us win games. I don't agree with the argument, but it's feasible. Nate had his chance, he was in the rotation and he lost his spot. Nate playing gives us a worse chance to win, he's a 5'9" guard that rebounds better than he passes, can't dribble and falls in love with his jumpshot to where if NATE isn't shooting well, he's shooting often enough for us to lose.

    Regardless of what you think about the Marbury benching (I believe it was justified, others don't), you HAVE to see that Nate is not like Marbury in any way, he had his spot and lost it, he didn't deserve to keep playing.
    Last edited by KBlack25; Dec 29, 2009 at 18:26.

  13. #13
    Veteran JayJ44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    1,700
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by KBlack25
    Responding to the bold...it's 100% false. Marbury played for D'Antoni, D'Antoni felt during that tenure that Marbury quit on him as Marbury quit on many coaches before, D'Antoni didn't want to have his starting PG be a guy that would quit on him, like he did before.

    I do agree with you about Nate, and comparing Nate to Marbury on this board is ridiculous. Fact is, an argument could have been made that Marbury would have helped us win games. I don't agree with the argument, but it's feasible. Nate had his chance, he was in the rotation and he lost his spot. Nate playing gives us a worse chance to win, he's a 5'9" guard that rebounds better than he passes, can't dribble and falls in love with his jumpshot to where if NATE isn't shooting well, he's shooting often enough for us to lose.

    Regardless of what you think about the Marbury benching (I believe it was justified, others don't), you HAVE to see that Nate is not like Marbury in any way, he had his spot and lost it, he didn't deserve to keep playing.
    Specifically, how did Marbury quit on D'antoni, or any other coach for that matter? Assuming D'antoni does in fact feel that Marbury quit on him in Phoenix, which I'm not entirely sure he does, that is no excuse to bench him here in New York. If anything, it just proves that I, and others, are right. D'antoni based his decision to bench Marbury on personal bias. He sacrificed wins because of a personal vendetta. Such an act is inexcusable for an NBA coach.

  14. #14
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    Marbury repeated the same behavior everywhere he went. Why would anyone think it'd be different? His behavior following his expulsion just further proved he had not changed, and that Mike had done the right thing.

  15. #15
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by JayJ44
    Specifically, how did Marbury quit on D'antoni, or any other coach for that matter? Assuming D'antoni does in fact feel that Marbury quit on him in Phoenix, which I'm not entirely sure he does, that is no excuse to bench him here in New York. If anything, it just proves that I, and others, are right. D'antoni based his decision to bench Marbury on personal bias. He sacrificed wins because of a personal vendetta. Such an act is inexcusable for an NBA coach.
    All I know is that D'Antoni thinks Marbury quit on him in Phoenix. Marbury made his own bed, then he had to lie in it. Let's say you worked at a place, and you quit on your boss, you showed up late didn't do your job, whatever. Then, you went to a new place, and at this new place your old boss was hired at your new job. How do you think your boss will respond? (Answer: you are likely getting a pink slip)

    He feuded with management in Minnesota
    He feuded with Larry Brown
    He feuded with Isiah Thomas
    He feuded with D'Antoni (twice)
    He was a bad teammate by most accounts in NJ

    At some point you have to think, is it EVERYBODY ELSE, or is it Marbury?

    The common thread is Marbury, I'm inclined to think that the simplest answer (that Marbury is near impossible to get along with, and as such everyone has problems with him) is the right one. I'm not going to buy there is some league wide conspiracy to bring Steph down.

Posting Permissions

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