Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 48

Thread: Nate out of rotation with Celtics

  1. #1
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default Nate out of rotation with Celtics

    Tony Is In, Nate and Marquis Are Out

    According to Doc, the playoff rotation is set. Tony Allen is in. Marquis Daniels and Nate Robinson are out. Interesting. Very interesting.

    "I told the guys that was the rotation that we'll use, that's pretty much our playoff rotation, and, minute-wise, the only concern there was conditioning, and I don't know if that played a factor in it or not."

    Notably absent was Marquis Daniels and Nate Robinson, who never shed their warm-ups Sunday. To their credit, both players were active in supporting their teammates throughout the game, but Boston utilized a five-man bench of Allen, Glen Davis, Shelden Williams, Rasheed Wallace, and Michael Finley. Williams logged a little more than two minutes as the Celtics let Wallace cool off on the pine after a second-half technical foul, but it appears his role will be limited to situations of foul trouble with the bigs.

    Allen logged 18:43 and, in a very short time, has made himself the sixth man that neither Daniels or Robinson could cement themselves as recently.

    If you had told me at the beginning of the season that TA would beat out Marquis, I never would have believed you. If you had told me a month ago that TA would be Rondo's backup instead of Nate, I would have had a good laugh at your expense.

    This is Tony Allen right? The same Tony Allen that played himself out of the rotation heading into each of the last two playoffs? The guy that Danny Ainge tried to give away for nothing this offseason (to which the Pacers ...the PACERS... said, "no thanks")?



    Yet there he is. He's an energizer bunny. He defends (it helps that he knows the system down pat). He attacks the basket. He even handles the ball. Basically, he's doing everything Marquis was brought here to do. He's even having fewer and fewer "Bad Tony" moments. What more can you ask for?

    "[Allen] just plays hard," said Rivers. "He's our best defensive player. He's just bought in completely to the team and the way the team plays. He's no longer trying to score; scoring just happens. He's trying to be the best defensive player on our team, and I think he's figured out --‘That's how I'm going to play.' He gives our team energy. He really does."

    Credit his health as well. He's been largely without injury for the last several months and perhaps that has led to his increased confidence.

    With that said, if Daniels and Robinson are both out of the rotation, that doesn't speak well to those personnel moves. Daniels was supposed to be our swiss army knife but instead he's been cut from the rotation (couldn't resist, sorry). Nate cost us Eddie House and two young (if unproven) players. If they don't play, what good are they?

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    Where are all the people that crucified D'Antoni for benching Nate? He might not even play at all in the playoffs.

    That deal is looking better by the minute.

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

    Default

    But but but...

    Originally Posted by OGKnickFan
    IMO, Nate makes the Celtics contenders, when before the trade they were not, because of his ability to, on any given night, in the clutch, light a team up. They already win games, Nate gets them a few that they would otherwise fall short of winning.
    Originally Posted by Kiyaman
    Say it right.....Head Coach Doc Rivers will teach Nate like he taught KG, Pierce, and Ray Allen, how to leave the "individual-performance" on the shelve when he come to the game.
    And then some people that got it right:

    Originally Posted by Starks
    I tell you one thing. Nate is going get ugly lesson real quick if he tries chucking up Js with Allen and Paul open. His FGA are going to down by like 70%
    Originally Posted by skisloper
    Do you not understand that ZERO TEAMS offered Nate any kind of deal when he was a restricted free agent. Not a single team wanted him. Now its D'Antonio's fault ?

    I love Nate and his whole persona but here we go again with people on this board being more intelligent then every coach and GM in thinking Nate is better then D'Antonio allows him to be.

    I told you this guy was, at the very least, extremely overrated. Nate Robinson NEEDS to dominate the ball to truly be effective, otherwise he's got really nothing. He can't dominate the ball on the Celts.
    Last edited by KBlack25; Apr 06, 2010 at 10:28.

  3. #3
    Hannibal Lecter TR1LL10N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Dark side of the Moon
    Posts
    2,743
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Vindication. I am confident that we will all be vindicated on Lee, Gallo and Dant too. We will knockem back one at a time.

  4. #4
    Hannibal Lecter TR1LL10N's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Dark side of the Moon
    Posts
    2,743
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Am I the only one that notices a pattern? I am not saying everyone falls under the pattern but it seems like the same people who hate Walsh, Dant, Gallo and Lee are the same people who defend players like Nate and Marbury. I could be wrong but that is my general impression.

  5. #5
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by TR1LL10N
    Am I the only one that notices a pattern? I am not saying everyone falls under the pattern but it seems like the same people who hate Walsh, Dant, Gallo and Lee are the same people who defend players like Nate and Marbury. I could be wrong but that is my general impression.
    I've noticed the same, posted on another thread that ever since the Marbury thing it feels like D'Antoni could do no right in some people's eyes...

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

    Default

    Early thread on Nate worth reading. You can see who knows their **** and who doesn't.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

  7. #7
    Veteran nyk_nyk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,529
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    The benching by Dantoni and this situation are totally unrelated. Rivers called TA the teams's best defensive player, so why would Rivers put him behind Nate or Daniels in the depth chart??

    Dantoni simply did not like Nate. I admit that Nate did some things in NY to warrant a benching here and there BUT this situation has nothing to do with his play on the court. It does however have everything to do with TA and his rapid improvement.

    Don't be so quick to try and throw dirt on Nate. This is just a a classic case of a player proving his worth and climbing up the depth chart.

  8. #8
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    42
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally Posted by nyk_nyk
    The benching by Dantoni and this situation are totally unrelated. Rivers called TA the teams's best defensive player, so why would Rivers put him behind Nate or Daniels in the depth chart??

    Dantoni simply did not like Nate. I admit that Nate did some things in NY to warrant a benching here and there BUT this situation has nothing to do with his play on the court. It does however have everything to do with TA and his rapid improvement.

    Don't be so quick to try and throw dirt on Nate. This is just a a classic case of a player proving his worth and climbing up the depth chart.
    I beg to differ, I believe it has everything to do with nate. If it wasn't for nate they would still have eddie house (walker and giddens might still be on the bench). I'm sure they could use eddie house more effectively than the knicks have. Nate is still showing his immaturity on the court, thats why he's being benched. He had his opportunities but he did no make anything out of it and TA siezed it instead.

  9. #9
    Veteran KBlack25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,668
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Originally Posted by nyk_nyk
    The benching by Dantoni and this situation are totally unrelated. Rivers called TA the teams's best defensive player, so why would Rivers put him behind Nate or Daniels in the depth chart??

    Dantoni simply did not like Nate. I admit that Nate did some things in NY to warrant a benching here and there BUT this situation has nothing to do with his play on the court. It does however have everything to do with TA and his rapid improvement.

    Don't be so quick to try and throw dirt on Nate. This is just a a classic case of a player proving his worth and climbing up the depth chart.
    Wait, wait, wait...are you really trying to say that Nate losing his spot in the rotation in Boston has nothing to do with Nate's play?

    Now, it's one thing to say "D'Antoni plays favorites, etc..." but now Rivers has benched Nate also. Even if you don't believe D'Antoni had a reason to bench Nate, Rivers went out TRADED for Nate and after playing him decided he wasn't worth being in the rotation. If he had played well (as some Nostradamus-like people on this board aptly predicted), he would keep his spot, he was certainly given a chance to earn it...especially because the Celtics made a trade to go out and get him!

  10. #10
    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 KBlack25
    Wait, wait, wait...are you really trying to say that Nate losing his spot in the rotation in Boston has nothing to do with Nate's play?

    Now, it's one thing to say "D'Antoni plays favorites, etc..." but now Rivers has benched Nate also. Even if you don't believe D'Antoni had a reason to bench Nate, Rivers went out TRADED for Nate and after playing him decided he wasn't worth being in the rotation. If he had played well (as some Nostradamus-like people on this board aptly predicted), he would keep his spot, he was certainly given a chance to earn it...especially because the Celtics made a trade to go out and get him!
    Lets also remember that House was always part of the Celtics rotation so losing him should have opened up a spot.

  11. #11
    KnicksonLIN.com
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,073
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Originally Posted by LJ4ptplay
    Where are all the people that crucified D'Antoni for benching Nate? He might not even play at all in the playoffs.

    That deal is looking better by the minute.
    The funny thing about the article was that Doc Rivers clearly stated that he told Nate Robinson and Marquis Daniels about the lineup change, unlike D'Antoni who likes to do things behind people backs and likes to say insults aboout players to the media. Ex: When he said "I don't play bad rookies" when referring to Jordan Hill and "Id play satan, if I could win" when referring to Nate Robinson.

    Is the purpose of this thread to say that D'Antoni was right for benching Robinson for 14 games and starting the 35% from the field Chris Duhon?
    If so, lol in advance.

    Nate Robinson only got 14.9 minutes per game, in Boston. How many NBA players do you know that can average big numbers in 14.9 minutes per game?

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

    Default

    Originally Posted by TR1LL10N
    Lets also remember that House was always part of the Celtics rotation so losing him should have opened up a spot.
    Yeah it opened up a spot for Tony Allen. Nothing your saying is making sense. Rivers CLEARLY stated why he made the rotation change yet you are trying so hard to throw Nate under the bus.

  13. #13
    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
    Yeah it opened up a spot for Tony Allen. Nothing your saying is making sense. Rivers CLEARLY stated why he made the rotation change yet you are trying so hard to throw Nate under the bus.
    So Tony Allen is better then Nate? Does that not prove our point? Nate was being being touted by some on this board as an Allstar PG...only if Dant had not had a personal grudge against Nate we would all see his true potential. Well that line of thinking has so far been proven wrong. I would say that nothing you havce said made sense but you haven't said anything...

    EDIT***Go look at my post history on Nate including the thread I started when he was traded. Tell me how I threw him under the bus. You can't. Why? Because I didn't. I have always been measured in my critique of Nate. This thread has less to do with Nate and more to do with the inaccurate rants of some that Dant was holding him back and responsible for his shortcomings.

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

    Default

    Originally Posted by TR1LL10N
    So Tony Allen is better then Nate? Does that not prove our point? Nate was being being touted by some on this board as an Allstar PG...only if Dant had not had a personal grudge against Nate we would all see his true potential. Well that line of thinking has so far been proven wrong. I would say that nothing you havce said made sense but you haven't said anything...

    EDIT***Go look at my post history on Nate including the thread I started when he was traded. Tell me how I threw him under the bus. You can't. Why? Because I didn't. I have always been measured in my critique of Nate. This thread has less to do with Nate and more to do with the inaccurate rants of some that Dant was holding him back and responsible for his shortcomings.
    In your earlier post you stated "Vindication". For what??? Are you happy to see Nate benched by Rivers because it makes your precious Dantoni look good? Well it doesn't because the reasons (once again) are totally different.

    Tony Allen is 6 inches taller and plays better defense. A well rounded coach like Rivers knows the value of a good defender over offense. Your acting like Nate isn't capable of playing great basketball. He'll never be an all-star but he can be of use on any NBA team.

    Your unconditional love for Dantoni is troublesome. Hard to believe your a diehard knicks fan. If you knew the team's history prior to all the losing then you would understand why people are uncomfortable with Dantoni leading this team.

  15. #15
    Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    11
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally Posted by TR1LL10N
    Am I the only one that notices a pattern? I am not saying everyone falls under the pattern but it seems like the same people who hate Walsh, Dant, Gallo and Lee are the same people who defend players like Nate and Marbury. I could be wrong but that is my general impression.
    You got it arsewards aka wrong way around. People who love Dant blame his conflicts with the players on the players and hate N8, which is natural (how a love object and a personal fetish not be a peoples person?). But since you take internets too seriously you separete people here on "us" and "them". And "them" (evil orcs, Dant hating Boston fans in disguise) must love Nate in your head, since you dislike him.

    In fact Knicks fans I know very rarely dislike Gallo _and_ Lee.

Similar Threads

  1. Knicks @ Celtics 23/02/10
    By smokes in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: Feb 24, 2010, 09:39
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: Feb 15, 2010, 21:19
  3. Replies: 19
    Last Post: Jan 21, 2010, 09:10
  4. The main reason Nate should start tommorow!
    By New New York in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Jan 03, 2010, 15:40
  5. Nate Robinson MVP
    By Kiyaman in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: Aug 06, 2007, 21:30

Posting Permissions

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