So...

RunningJumper

Super Moderator
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.
 

Crazy⑧s

Evacuee
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.
 

JayJ44

Starter
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.
 

Toons

is the Bo$$
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.
 

nyk_nyk

All Star
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.
 

TR1LL10N

Hannibal Lecter
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.
 

clumsy

Rotation player
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.
 

nyk_nyk

All Star
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.
 

Starks

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

KBlack25

Starter
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:

JayJ44

Starter
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.
 

TunerAddict

Starter
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.
 

KBlack25

Starter
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.
 

JayJ44

Starter
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.

Do you have any proof that D'antoni thinks Marbury quit on him? Like a link to a quote from him? I'm fairly sure that he never once said that he feels Marbury quit on him. His excuse was that his playing would hinder the progress of our young players. The problem with that is, the same could be said about Larry Hughes, Al Harrington, Jared Jeffries, etc. D'antoni doesn't even want to play our young players anyway.

In your example, the boss would be completely in the wrong for holding old grudges. Just like D'antoni would be completely in the wrong for holding personal grudges. However, like I said before, I'm pretty sure D'antoni never stated such a thing.

Marbury may have acted immaturely at times, but in no way is he 100% to blame. In fact, in Isiah's case, most if not all of the blame falls on Isiah. The incident when Marbury left the team has many conflicting reports, including one in which Isiah told Marbury to leave. This is the first I'm hearing of him being a bad teammate in NJ. Do you have any proof (links, quotes, etc)? In any case, why should any of these events matter, when everyone on the team supposedly had a clean slate? Furthermore, if D'antoni felt that Marbury isn't right for the team, why string him along through the offseason and preseason as if he's going to play, then inexplicably bench him in the season opener? Besides the fact that it is silly to sacrifice wins because of personal grudges and/or past events that D'antoni had nothing to do with, he handled it completely wrong.
 

knickzrulezH20

Sexy Stud
come on guys lets stop the marbury wars. it was somewhat relevant a year ago b/c thats when all that shit happened. but now? it has no use to us. he was a good player rotted by isiah thomas. face it, isiah ruined him, the old steph isnt there anymore, and he isnt coming back. let go of marbury, its gonna be gallo's team sooner or later, marbury had his chance, but its over.
 
Top