The Flawed Logic of the N8 H8rs.

Just to rub it in some more, I decided I should create a thread dedicated to exposing all of you people who built your egos, over the past month, on your blind allegiance to D'Antoni's persecution of Nate.

And what was your logic, the entire time? The Knicks happened to go on a winning streak at a time when Nate was on the bench, which meant, in your simple, black-and-white minds, that Nate being able to play was the cause of previous losses.

Well, one big problem with your logic is that the Knicks lost many games, early in the season, while Nate was injured and not playing.

Another is that events that coincide don't necessarily have an effect on one another, while others do. For example, the fact that Nate happened to be benched, during a Knick winning streak, doesn't mean that Nate's benching, anymore than wearing lucky socks during the month of December, had anything to do with the win streak.

Then you talk about Nate's lack of teamwork, etc., when you don't blame the team for their crappy performance, instead opting to go after individual guys. Some actually go after the team, only to contradict yourselves by singling Nate out. The team went on a win streak because they began playing defense, for the first time in a very long time: perhaps since 2003, when we had Nazr Mohammed and Kurt Thomas.

With Nate back, if the Knicks playing defense, his efforts will not be for naught. This is what you idiots don't get: Nate can't help the Knicks win, if he scores on one end, only to have Lee, Gallinari, Wilson and Jeffries allow open layups on the other end. If they continue to play D, Nate, though he will have his ups and downs, will help us win some ball games.

That's a big IF, however. No matter what, you can always jump on the N8 H8 bandwagon.

Great thread, OG.


During Nate's banishment, the nate-haters and d'antoni-boy lovers were going out of their way to crucify Nate the Great. It was as if Nate himself had raped all the mothers of these haters.


Homos like tranny-faggot were involving Nate in their sick perverted fantasies (a dicksucking contest, tuner??? Really?? Smfh).


Even now, they can't give Nate props for the great game he had last night.

Yes, but your logic is flawed in saying that Nate can't help us win if every other guy on the floor allows open layups, but Nate has some responsibility in that. That is, I don't think this team is a good defensive team, or even a mediocre defensive team, when Nate is on the floor.

His help-defense (or lack there-of) is startling. He doesn't rotate well off the ball, can't get through a single pick (ever). So yes, Nate can't help if he scores on the offensive end only to have the defense give up easy layups. But the fact that the defense gives up easy layups is, at least partially, Nate's fault.

Not to mention, I don't think this offense runs better with Nate on the floor. Yes, last night he played well and single-handidly had us win. But some of these passes Nate makes puzzle me (there was one in particular where he tried to throw it through 3 or 4 Hawks defenders). Also, Nate dribbles into trouble a lot and then jumps with nowhere to go. Now, last night, Nate threw shots up and they went in. But to count on that every night is like saying you've got a sure-fire lottery ticket.

Also, to me it looked like Nate was working hard on his shot. My problem is he has too much confidence in it. He took one three pointer on a fast break when it was 1 Knick (Nate) v. 4 Hawks. He just pulled up and took a three. My problem is that even a stellar 3-point shooter is going to miss that shot half the time, and Nate is going to miss that shot half the time. Sure THIS TIME, THIS NIGHT, it went in, but all too often we get nights like this from Nate, that make everyone a believer, and then he goes and shoots 2-24 the next night.

I just think it's hilarious that you point the finger at us for singling out Nate for not helping us win, but then you blame everyone EXCEPT for Nate for lack of defense. Nate's defense isn't good, he's not good at fighting through screens, not good on the perimeter (where a 5'9" guy needs to make his living).

SLY1984 said:

Great thread, OG.


During Nate's banishment, the nate-haters and d'antoni-boy lovers were going out of their way to crucify Nate the Great. It was as if Nate himself had raped all the mothers of these haters.


Homos like tranny-faggot were involving Nate in their sick perverted fantasies (a dicksucking contest, tuner??? Really?? Smfh).


Even now, they can't give Nate props for the great game he had last night.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I'll give Nate props for a good game last night. But he has holes in his game. Serious holes.

The fact is I feel like when Nate plays significant minutes this team sinks or swims on whether Nate is hitting his jumpshots. Last night he made them, last night he drove to the hoop, last night he made the plays this team needed to win. But I've seen him do it before. I've seen him make huge shots, I've seen him take over.

I've also seen him lay eggs, I've seen him fall in love with a jumpshot that couldn't fall in the ocean, I've seen him drive to the whole and take a crazy spinning layup with 3 point shooters open on the perimeter while the defenders collapse.

I've seen him unable to fight through picks, even last night. I've seen him lose his guy on the perimeter. I've seen him make bonehead passes.

Last night was a good night, but remember Chris Duhon had 22 assists one night. One night does not a great player make. A serviceable one? Perhaps.

Fact is, I'm not ready to win or lose at Nate's hands. If you are, that's your opinion. But I feel like when Nate plays big minutes, you can see whether they won or lost by how many shots NATE made (because he's always going to shoot), I'm just not ready to accept that as the fate of this team.

its funny how ppl only talking about his scoring...LOL. nate had great passes as well...unlike duhon where he is so predictable, nate when penetrating will either score or pass it while duhon dribbles around and try to force a pass...on all of al harrigton FG's made, nate robinson got em 2 easy dunks and one open 3...nate did much more then score...of course has negatives just like the whole team but i dont trust anybody wit the ball down the stretch more then nate....close games like yesterday, down the stretch, we rely so damn much on dat pick and roll wit duhon and David Lee that has cost us so many games

Nate is not part of the post 2010 plans so no need to keep defending him. D'Antoni is staying on the Knicks longer than Nate so after April, most of you will be Nate who?

crawford said:

Nate is not part of the post 2010 plans so no need to keep defending him. D'Antoni is staying on the Knicks longer than Nate so after April, most of you will be Nate who?

Click to expand...

This is true... in order to effectively go into the 2010 free agent market we will need to get rid of Jeffries and/or Curry and i only see them really getting traded with Robinson and/or Chandler (My fav. Knick on the team)..

Nate Robinson is better than Chris Duhon, Larry Hughes, Toney Douglas, and Marcus Landry. He should be a starter.

In my opinion, the only reason Mike D'Anphony put Robinson back into the lineup was because Walsh probably told him to. Walsh probably told him that in order to trade Nate Robinson, he has to give him minutes.

Nate Robinson is an excellent spark plug. Teams like the New Orleans Hornets, Atlanta Hawks, Miami Heat, Detroit Pistons, Los Angeles Lakers, Boston Celtics, Houston Rockets, etc. would greatly benefit from having a guy like Robinson.

The Knicks could have benefited from having him on their roster, but they traded all of the team's talent and didn't try to get a real center when presented with the opportunity.

It's not Nate's fault that Walsh refused to draft a center, or that D'Anphony uses favoritsm when he plays the 36% fg Hughes and Duhon ahead of him.

Nate Robinson is clearly a team player. Not once did he complain about being put on the bench, since his career started. He even said, during the Isiah Thomas era, in an interview, that he would like to start but would not mind playing off the bench, if it meant helping the team win. SMH at the H8ers.

lol just give up man. Nate won one game. Big deal. That doesn't prove anything.

Asimov said:

lol just give up man. Nate won one game. Big deal. That doesn't prove anything.

Click to expand...

you may be right about that, but i'll tell you one thing, i would rather have Nate then that sorry for that sorry for an excuse point guard that we have DUHON.. that guys is str8 trash...

As great as N8 was last night.... How about those 3 missed free throws! CHOKE! He wont shoot 18-24 every night.... Most nights we get 6-14.

SO, let's not get all in a tizzy. N8 was great last night. I was more impressed with the 8 assists than the 41 points! I was also impressed that he finall hit big shots down the stretch with the game on the line.

I applaud his effort to get to the rim... not to settle for jumpers.

BUT.... which N8 will we get moving fwd?

NOW I DO NOT THINK NATE DESERVED TO BE BENCHED FOR 14 games, and I don't think we won b/c he was sitting or lost b/c he played....

BUT.... I just find it funny how people can call out D'ant when NY just finished their best month in a decade. 9 wins is huge for a Knicks team.

KBlack25 said:

Yes, but your logic is flawed in saying that Nate can't help us win if every other guy on the floor allows open layups, but Nate has some responsibility in that. That is, I don't think this team is a good defensive team, or even a mediocre defensive team, when Nate is on the floor.

His help-defense (or lack there-of) is startling. He doesn't rotate well off the ball, can't get through a single pick (ever). So yes, Nate can't help if he scores on the offensive end only to have the defense give up easy layups. But the fact that the defense gives up easy layups is, at least partially, Nate's fault.

Not to mention, I don't think this offense runs better with Nate on the floor. Yes, last night he played well and single-handidly had us win. But some of these passes Nate makes puzzle me (there was one in particular where he tried to throw it through 3 or 4 Hawks defenders). Also, Nate dribbles into trouble a lot and then jumps with nowhere to go. Now, last night, Nate threw shots up and they went in. But to count on that every night is like saying you've got a sure-fire lottery ticket.

Also, to me it looked like Nate was working hard on his shot. My problem is he has too much confidence in it. He took one three pointer on a fast break when it was 1 Knick (Nate) v. 4 Hawks. He just pulled up and took a three. My problem is that even a stellar 3-point shooter is going to miss that shot half the time, and Nate is going to miss that shot half the time. Sure THIS TIME, THIS NIGHT, it went in, but all too often we get nights like this from Nate, that make everyone a believer, and then he goes and shoots 2-24 the next night.

I just think it's hilarious that you point the finger at us for singling out Nate for not helping us win, but then you blame everyone EXCEPT for Nate for lack of defense. Nate's defense isn't good, he's not good at fighting through screens, not good on the perimeter (where a 5'9" guy needs to make his living).

Click to expand...

Nate, like every other player that, because you worship them, you don't cynically dismiss and lie about, isn't perfect.

And everyone in this league requires defensive help, by the way, once their guy has made it into the paint. The fact that the Knick bigs haven't provided done that, until very recently, means that whether it was Nate or anyone else scoring for the Knicks, it was wasted: the Knick bigs would allow the other team an easy score on the other end.

As for Nate going 1-24 or whatever garbage, fantasy stat you put up, if D'Antoni allowed Nate to do something like that, it would just make your boyfriend D'Antoni look like even more of a shit coach.

It's very simple. If Nate plays poorly, you pull him. It's easy enough to do, at a point before it hurts the team. It's better than arbitrarily benching him for a month and saying it's all or nothing. Sometimes, you have to coach to a player's strengths. I know that's a novelty for you and your clan.

As for your other points, they're all emotion and opinion; so, I won't address them. You don't think the team's offense works well with Nate, etc. Well, that's your problem.

Keep H8ing, We'll be N8in.

KBlack25 said:

Yes, but your logic is flawed in saying that Nate can't help us win if every other guy on the floor allows open layups, but Nate has some responsibility in that. That is, I don't think this team is a good defensive team, or even a mediocre defensive team, when Nate is on the floor.

His help-defense (or lack there-of) is startling. He doesn't rotate well off the ball, can't get through a single pick (ever). So yes, Nate can't help if he scores on the offensive end only to have the defense give up easy layups. But the fact that the defense gives up easy layups is, at least partially, Nate's fault.

Not to mention, I don't think this offense runs better with Nate on the floor. Yes, last night he played well and single-handidly had us win. But some of these passes Nate makes puzzle me (there was one in particular where he tried to throw it through 3 or 4 Hawks defenders). Also, Nate dribbles into trouble a lot and then jumps with nowhere to go. Now, last night, Nate threw shots up and they went in. But to count on that every night is like saying you've got a sure-fire lottery ticket.

Also, to me it looked like Nate was working hard on his shot. My problem is he has too much confidence in it. He took one three pointer on a fast break when it was 1 Knick (Nate) v. 4 Hawks. He just pulled up and took a three. My problem is that even a stellar 3-point shooter is going to miss that shot half the time, and Nate is going to miss that shot half the time. Sure THIS TIME, THIS NIGHT, it went in, but all too often we get nights like this from Nate, that make everyone a believer, and then he goes and shoots 2-24 the next night.

I just think it's hilarious that you point the finger at us for singling out Nate for not helping us win, but then you blame everyone EXCEPT for Nate for lack of defense. Nate's defense isn't good, he's not good at fighting through screens, not good on the perimeter (where a 5'9" guy needs to make his living).

Click to expand...

Ha ha ha ha

u are talking about Jamal Crawford
ha ha ha ha ha ha

OGKnickfan said:

Nate, like every other player that, because you worship them, you don't cynically dismiss and lie about, isn't perfect.

And everyone in this league requires defensive help, by the way, once their guy has made it into the paint. The fact that the Knick bigs haven't provided done that, until very recently, means that whether it was Nate or anyone else scoring for the Knicks, it was wasted: the Knick bigs would allow the other team an easy score on the other end.

As for Nate going 1-24 or whatever garbage, fantasy stat you put up, if D'Antoni allowed Nate to do something like that, it would just make your boyfriend D'Antoni look like even more of a shit coach.

It's very simple. If Nate plays poorly, you pull him. It's easy enough to do, at a point before it hurts the team. It's better than arbitrarily benching him for a month and saying it's all or nothing. Sometimes, you have to coach to a player's strengths. I know that's a novelty for you and your clan.

As for your other points, they're all emotion and opinion; so, I won't address them. You don't think the team's offense works well with Nate, etc. Well, that's your problem.

Keep H8ing, We'll be N8in.

Click to expand...

As to your point about Nate playing poorly, so you pull him: Nate DID play poorly, and Nate DID get benched for 14 games. Then everyone got their panties in a bunch over it.

He played well last night, but it was one night. You keep wanting to blame the Knicks bigs, but the fact is when Nate's guys blow past him on the perimeter time after time after time, the big man has to collapse to the key and stop Nate's man from running free which leaves his own big open. If Nate can hold his guy on the perimeter, if even the weakest of screens didn't stop Nate, then you would be right. But you can't say that because the guy on the perimeter is allowing his guy to drive on him over and over again that this somehow is the big man's fault. No, the Knicks bigs are NOT great defenders, but with Nate on the floor they are asked to carry MORE than their share, that's the problem.

crawford said:

Nate is not part of the post 2010 plans so no need to keep defending him. D'Antoni is staying on the Knicks longer than Nate so after April, most of you will be Nate who?

Click to expand...

Nate's "depth" not being apart of the 2010 Plan should make all Knick-Fan complain.
Lee's high IQ in passing, hustling, and rebounding not being apart of the 2010 plan should make all Knick-Fans complain.
Chandler's overall performance on offense/defense not being apart of the 2010 plan should make all Knick-Fans complain.

Selecting a defenseless headcoach Damntoni above those 3 players is barnyard crazy.

Walsh would be considered a double fool if he let Damntoni coach the 2010-11 season, while Nate & Lee walk unrestrictedly to the next team.
So all this hooray-talk about the several Knick wins in the last 15 games, which was done on hard-nose team-defense, player-defense, and help-defense should be the only thing which explains the teams recent .500 performance.

Headcoach Damntoni did not play one grain of defense in all of the 82 games lastseason, plus not one lick of defense the first 17 games of this season.
u want me to believe Damntoni became a defensive-minded coach over-night? LOL LOL LoL
I still can not recall Damntoni's Phoenix Suns holding "any" streak of oponents under a 100 points within his 5 year tour?

KBlack25 said:

As to your point about Nate playing poorly, so you pull him: Nate DID play poorly, and Nate DID get benched for 14 games. Then everyone got their panties in a bunch over it.

He played well last night, but it was one night. You keep wanting to blame the Knicks bigs, but the fact is when Nate's guys blow past him on the perimeter time after time after time, the big man has to collapse to the key and stop Nate's man from running free which leaves his own big open. If Nate can hold his guy on the perimeter, if even the weakest of screens didn't stop Nate, then you would be right. But you can't say that because the guy on the perimeter is allowing his guy to drive on him over and over again that this somehow is the big man's fault. No, the Knicks bigs are NOT great defenders, but with Nate on the floor they are asked to carry MORE than their share, that's the problem.

Click to expand...

Kiyaman already laughed you off of the thread, because of your obvious exaggeration/lie about Nate. When has Nate ever gone 2-24?

Now, you take my comment, suggesting D'Antoni act like a real coach and simply pull Nate, if he shows signs of playing poorly, and turn it into support for benching the man for 14 games. I don't think you're that stupid, or do you need me to split hairs and say that what I mean is he should pull him from a game in which he, like every other player, might make a mistake, talk to him about what is wanted and then maybe try him out later? Benching a good player, for 14 games, during which he even hinted at never playing him again, and Nate claimed he was never spoken to, is not competent coaching.

I Guess Dike Manphony is only a player's coach, when the players he's coaching are all-stars. I wonder why that is?

As for the Knick bigs, they suck defensively. So yes, I blame them for a lot. Offensively, I don't trust any of them, including Lee, to succeed on an NBA playoff roster. And, in the NBA, you rise and fall with your bigs' play. LA got Gasol, and now they're the best in the league, after years of being perennial bums. This should show anyone, even you, the importance of bigs. This is why I wanted Brook Lopez, instead of Gallinari, a couple of years ago.

Even Kobe couldn't get much done without a good big! Lebron is lucky he has Z and Shaq. Why? Because in the NBA, players will get around you. Period. It's your bigs whom you need to pick up a wing that gets around a perimeter defender and into the paint, so that the defensive wing can catch up and force a pass or steal. If need be, you want your big to put a guy on the freethrow line, rather than giving up an easy layup. Our bigs haven't done that for years. Everyone knows that it's only recently that Lee and Jeffries have begun sending guys to the line, instead of allowing easy layups.

Anyway, the only person in here who marginally agrees with you is Mafra, the same Mafra who claims that Nate usually shoots 6-14. Meanwhile, he's over on Paul's "we should keep hughes" thread, singing the praises of a true scrub: Hughes. I'm sure you like Hughes, too.

Like I said, you keep h8in' we'll keep n8in.'

Its one game.
Nate is Nate.
and will always be Nate.
Let him go and move on.

The Bottom Line

This is for any hater or lover of Nate.....

Nate is 100000 times better than Duhon which means that Nate should have never been benched. I am glad that he is playing again.

This once again adds to my year-long argument that D'Antoni will never give guys playing time unless they have great games....(Douglas, Gallo, now Nate)

metrocard said:

Its one game.
Nate is Nate.
and will always be Nate.
Let him go and move on.

Click to expand...

This would be a nice time to package him in a deal with Lee and Jeffries...ship all three so we can improve our defense.

if this Tootsie Roll midget gets traded before the All -Star game how many of you will still be rooting for him in the Slam Dunk Contest. Larry Hughes' number?