The Flawed Logic of the N8 H8rs.

[KBlack25]

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.'

1. I do not like Larry Hughes. In fact I don't really like anyone on this roster not named Danilo Gallinari.

2. Yes, we could have had Brook Lopez, but Brook Lopez wasn't a sure thing. There were many people who thought this guy would be a boom, but several scouts thought he would bust. I understand the importance of a big man, I would love to build this team around rebounders. But for every 1 Brook Lopez, you get the "Curtis Borchardt"s, the "Todd Fuller"s, the "Frederic Weis"s, even Greg Oden and now it looks like Hasheem Thabeet is going to fall in that same category. Picking a big man is a risky venture, even "sure things" like Greg Oden bust. It seems centers and guys with size fool teams into picking them because they fall in love with height.

Yes, every once in a while they look good, every once in a while you get a Brook Lopez and even more rarely you get a Tim Duncan. But Centers bust very very frequently, which is why I am okay with the Gallinari pick. Would Lopez be nice on this team now? Sure, I don't disagree with you. But if he busted (as some predicted) the Knicks would be even further back than where they are now. I feel as though they needed a scorer, a shooter, for D'Antoni's offense. They needed a guy like him to run the offense Mike D'Antoni wanted to run. I like Gallinari, I don't love him, but I like him.

You also talk about the Cavaliers, but if you watched a Cavs game this season, you would know their best lineup is when they go small (and Shaq and Z are out of the game). When they go Williams-Gibson-Moon/West-James-Varejao they are so difficult to match up with because they have so much perimeter athleticism. Everyone who knows the Cavs knows their small lineup is their best lineup. Shaq is a waste.

3. You rambled on and on about "I don't trust our bigs" but didn't address the one key fact in my entire statement: When Nate is on the floor, everyone else has to pick up his slack at the defensive end. Nate makes it harder on our big men, who aren't good defenders to begin with, to play defense. THAT'S why he's not the guy I want out there. He never ever ever ever gets through a pick, my 17 year old sister could set a pick on this dude and he wouldn't get through it.

You can't just say that defensively everything falls on the big man. I understand they have to rebound etcetera, and that guys will get past you, but when guys are crashing the paint because Nate couldn't guard his own shadow, you have to consider that maybe this team defensively is better suited to deal with a decent team when Nate isn't on the floor. Nate Robinson lets his guy get by him every time...I understand it will happen at least now and then, but every once in a while, you have to put a body on someone and stop him. Nate doesn't do that. To ask Lee and Jefferies to guard their guys and Nate's guys is a little absurd, if you ask me.

4. I understand your point about "pulling Nate aside" and talking to him. The fact is, when Nate shot that shot after the buzzer in that game versus the Nets, D'Antoni got mad at Nate, tried to talk to him and Nate snapped back. Love or hate D'Antoni, he's the coach, you don't talk back to him. I don't care who the coach is, when you do something he doesn't like, you don't make excuses. You just don't do it again, period. But Nate started snapping back, and he got benched.

Like I said, during the 14-game layoff, it looks like Nate worked on his game. But he still dribbles into trouble, he still throws up wild layups, he still makes horrible passes. Did he do it on his own? Maybe, but I think someone in the Knicks organization told him to keep working. I understand he's a good teammate, that's fine. But from my understanding Mark Madsen was also a good teammate, that doesn't mean I am trusting him to win the game.

5. I'm pretty sure more than one person agrees with me that one game does not a great player make. In fact, several people on this thread have said that it's "one game", and you should "get over it".

But then again, I never accused you of being able to read.

 

[KING~POETIQ]

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?

I'm not sure which is a bigger failure, your post or that user name.


I bet you cried like a bitch when crawful went 2-12. :lol:


Seriously though, you need to get the fukk out of this site. Why don't you join up a Hawks site or something. Cause over here you're failing as a knicks fan for real.

 

[Kiyaman]

Rebuild...or 2010 Plan ???

Nate The Great Robinson made a dynamic 41 crusade of a statement on the same day of his release from celebrity coach Damntoni's Dog-House Jail.


An indirect statement performance:
DNP me now...

After game quote:

Nate Robinson in his fifth season, said he felt like a rookie, but was determine to take advantage of the long-awaited oportunity.

If this is how a fifth-season NBA player feel under celebrity coach Damntoni.....could u imagine how rookie Jordan Hill and Toney Douglas feel under the same presure???

Rebuilding a winning team with young players: Nate, Lee, and Chandler's depths....is (still) much easier with less complications than this so-call 2010 Plan of searching for a money-hungry super-star.

Celebrity coach Dantoni has proved he is not a developing-coach for NBA young-players, which leaves him out of any "rebuilding-team" situation.
Coach Dantoni is best used for a team that already have 2 to 3 All-Star players on the roster. Which means his signing should've been during selecting or after the 2010-Plan was fully in affect.
We could have hired Patrick Ewing Sr. as assistant coach to headcoach Herb Williams, for half the price of Dantoni and received 10 times the amount of Fan-Base, plus a hire population in MSG.

Rebuilding or 2010 Plan???

 

[Kiyaman]

1. I do not like Larry Hughes. In fact I don't really like anyone on this roster not named Danilo Gallinari.

2. Yes, we could have had Brook Lopez, but Brook Lopez wasn't a sure thing. There were many people who thought this guy would be a boom, but several scouts thought he would bust. I understand the importance of a big man, I would love to build this team around rebounders. But for every 1 Brook Lopez, you get the "Curtis Borchardt"s, the "Todd Fuller"s, the "Frederic Weis"s, even Greg Oden and now it looks like Hasheem Thabeet is going to fall in that same category. Picking a big man is a risky venture, even "sure things" like Greg Oden bust. It seems centers and guys with size fool teams into picking them because they fall in love with height.

Yes, every once in a while they look good, every once in a while you get a Brook Lopez and even more rarely you get a Tim Duncan. But Centers bust very very frequently, which is why I am okay with the Gallinari pick. Would Lopez be nice on this team now? Sure, I don't disagree with you. But if he busted (as some predicted) the Knicks would be even further back than where they are now. I feel as though they needed a scorer, a shooter, for D'Antoni's offense. They needed a guy like him to run the offense Mike D'Antoni wanted to run. I like Gallinari, I don't love him, but I like him.

You also talk about the Cavaliers, but if you watched a Cavs game this season, you would know their best lineup is when they go small (and Shaq and Z are out of the game). When they go Williams-Gibson-Moon/West-James-Varejao they are so difficult to match up with because they have so much perimeter athleticism. Everyone who knows the Cavs knows their small lineup is their best lineup. Shaq is a waste.

3. You rambled on and on about "I don't trust our bigs" but didn't address the one key fact in my entire statement: When Nate is on the floor, everyone else has to pick up his slack at the defensive end. Nate makes it harder on our big men, who aren't good defenders to begin with, to play defense. THAT'S why he's not the guy I want out there. He never ever ever ever gets through a pick, my 17 year old sister could set a pick on this dude and he wouldn't get through it.

You can't just say that defensively everything falls on the big man. I understand they have to rebound etcetera, and that guys will get past you, but when guys are crashing the paint because Nate couldn't guard his own shadow, you have to consider that maybe this team defensively is better suited to deal with a decent team when Nate isn't on the floor. Nate Robinson lets his guy get by him every time...I understand it will happen at least now and then, but every once in a while, you have to put a body on someone and stop him. Nate doesn't do that. To ask Lee and Jefferies to guard their guys and Nate's guys is a little absurd, if you ask me.

4. I understand your point about "pulling Nate aside" and talking to him. The fact is, when Nate shot that shot after the buzzer in that game versus the Nets, D'Antoni got mad at Nate, tried to talk to him and Nate snapped back. Love or hate D'Antoni, he's the coach, you don't talk back to him. I don't care who the coach is, when you do something he doesn't like, you don't make excuses. You just don't do it again, period. But Nate started snapping back, and he got benched.

Like I said, during the 14-game layoff, it looks like Nate worked on his game. But he still dribbles into trouble, he still throws up wild layups, he still makes horrible passes. Did he do it on his own? Maybe, but I think someone in the Knicks organization told him to keep working. I understand he's a good teammate, that's fine. But from my understanding Mark Madsen was also a good teammate, that doesn't mean I am trusting him to win the game.

5. I'm pretty sure more than one person agrees with me that one game does not a great player make. In fact, several people on this thread have said that it's "one game", and you should "get over it".

But then again, I never accused you of being able to read.

All this writing to bash a great athletic (humorous) player that brings excitement, plus a deep depth-chart of energy to regroup the team and fans.

Is Nate Robinson weaker on defense than the Spurs PG-Parker?
Hell NO! Nate is more pesty on defense than Parker.
Why Nate dont go around or through picks is b/c we dont have (or did'nt have) a defensive minded coach making our bigmen defenders call-out the picks so a help-defender could prepare for a slasher, or Nate could run around the pick and try to block the shot if his man is a shooter once he goes around the sceen set for him.
The Spurs in the last decade kept plenty of big centers and big PF on their roster and on the court with help-defenders Malik Rose and Bowen to give PG-Avery Johnson & PG-Parker less to do on the defensive end of the court, which resulted into how many Championship Trophies since meeting us in the FINALS in 1999???

 

[RunningJumper]

I think people are confused by Duhon causing less bad chemistry than Nate would.The only times Duhon actually makes plays is usually for David Lee, and it's largely because of David Lee being good at it with his timing and his great ability to catch the ball.Nate Robinson starting might be sorta like Iverson, except less consistent, but way better than Duhon.And maybe now since it's been a while since his injury, he might get more steals now like last season.

 

[KING~POETIQ]

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.

Listen, I get what you're saying, but I'm looking at the positives that Nate brings to the table. His playmaking ability, the energy and enthusiasm, and the heart that this team lacks. Everyone has negatives. Most of Nate's negatives can be corrected by good coaching. But we don't have good coaching, especially on DEFENSE.


One thing that you and the other anti-nate posters fail to recognize, for some strange reason, is that we have the worst point guard of all-time (duhon) playing ahead of Nate for the last year and half. Plugging in Nate into duhon's position would have made us a better team overall.


Now, in this fast paced style wouldn't have Nate been a better option than duhorrible??? Of course. But we never got to see that. Why? Because of bad coaching strategy.


All I'm saying is that there are many other people(players and coach) that have had more fault in the Knicks blunders than Nate has. But all the haters stick to blaming nate over and over again. Its very ignorant in their part.


Also, its d'antoni's choice to win or lose at Nate's hands, especially when the coach is calling iso's at the end of the game for him. We saw this a lot last year as well. I just want Nate to have a bigger role than duhorrible.

 

[KingCharles34]

I dont care what happens with Nate, hes not untouchable but it doesnt make sense to bench him while giving Duhomo big minutes. With Duhorn averaging only 6 and a half assists while playing for D'antoni, i cant consider him much more of a point guard then Nate. The only thing he does well is work the pick and roll with David Lee. Other then that hes not far from useless, which is what has confused me more then anything with this Nate Robinson situation...so I cant understand why anyone wouldnt want him getting minutes for us, but I also cant understand why any Knicks fan would label him as being untouchable...Nates a good role player but because of his height im sorry to say but he'll never be a star. We should all know this by now.

 

[_______√ictory_______]

I'm gonna say what i said in a previous post.unless donnie gets blown away by some deal involving nate, he's not going anywhere.this is new york city.if you can't win, the least you can do is put on a show.nate can put on a show.we've been witnesses to it.his entertainment value is not taken into consideration when people try to gauge his bball value.

that's why shit franchises memphis wanted him.

 

[mafra]

And then the real N8 arrives.... AGAIN.... for every 30-40 point explosion, you have to endure 8-11 nights like tonight....

He goes 2-11.... 0-5 from 3.... SO, let's recap: He was red hot the other night.... did he settle for 3s? Nope.... He kept drivng to the rack. Tonight, he's ice cold.... Yet he keeps chucking 3s? Half his shots from 3?

He had 8 assists the other night, 3 tonight. 2 turnovers.

AGAIN.... until N8 becomes consistent, he's nothing more than a gimmick.

OF COURSE, i'm only looking at the box score.... Didn't see the game. Still, this is and always has been Mr. Robinson.

 

[SSj4Wingzero]

I don't think you can really count this game that much. I mean, he was sent in the play the fourth quarter when the Knicks were up by 40 and the game was over, he and Landry were chucking for half of it

 

[RunningJumper]

There was no need for one player to be hot like that Atlanta game, it was just a great team game.

 

[Crazy⑧s]

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.

You love to speak of others flaws and call them idiots etc. but you include a bold IF in your own logic.

The only thing that is flawed in this thread is your belligerent side taking and belittling of anyone who's ever disagreed with your arrogance.

You are a flawless example of a bored hater.

A hater stupid enough to pull his/her penis over one 41 point outing from your latest excuse to impress your bum chums on the internet.

 

[TunerAddict]

I don't think you can really count this game that much. I mean, he was sent in the play the fourth quarter when the Knicks were up by 40 and the game was over, he and Landry were chucking for half of it

He played more than just the 4th. He was chucking the entire time.

When he and Al came in with the first subsitutions our team struggled a bit.

 

[Kiyaman]

There was no need for one player to be hot like that Atlanta game, it was just a great team game.

The game before the Hawks was a Knick loss to the bottomless Nets.
After the first 4 minutes of the 4th quarter in the Hawks game we seen a Knick-Team with no effort for the win being down 13 points with 8 minutes remaining.

Nate the Great Robinson 25 points in the 4th quarter, and 11 points of our 13 points in overtime for the WIN......Shows every NBA B-Ball Fan:
Nate The Great Robinson wanted a WIN on his return.

Stop acting like u dont remember all the times coach Charlie Brown and coach Clueless Isiah Thomas pulled Nate out of the game when he was on FIRE...

Nates 2nd game back was like a jolt of energy to all his teammates, when Nate entered the game with Harrington the Knicks had the Pacers 27-12. The next 10 minutes of Nate running the point the Knicks lead increase to 58-24.
And not from Nate's scoring but from his top speed at the run n gun game.

 

[clumsy]

Al Harrington is a much better 6th man than Nate....just saying (it is both where they should be playing).

 

[nyk_nyk]

And then the real N8 arrives.... AGAIN.... for every 30-40 point explosion, you have to endure 8-11 nights like tonight....

He goes 2-11.... 0-5 from 3.... SO, let's recap: He was red hot the other night.... did he settle for 3s? Nope.... He kept drivng to the rack. Tonight, he's ice cold.... Yet he keeps chucking 3s? Half his shots from 3?

He had 8 assists the other night, 3 tonight. 2 turnovers.

AGAIN.... until N8 becomes consistent, he's nothing more than a gimmick.

OF COURSE, i'm only looking at the box score.... Didn't see the game. Still, this is and always has been Mr. Robinson.

You can say the same thing for every other player on the team except for Lee. The majority of guys on this team aren't consistent. Why are you only throwing Nate under the bus?

 

[KING~POETIQ]

All the Nate Haters throw Nate under the bus because they hate on his swag. There were a bunch of Knicks playing worse than Nate during our first 20 games, guys like duhomo (20% shooting) and chandler (30% shooting), but Nate was the one being shitted on.


IMO, the Nate Haters are closet-duhomo fans. You never see them bash duhon.

 

[KBlack25]

Listen, I get what you're saying, but I'm looking at the positives that Nate brings to the table. His playmaking ability, the energy and enthusiasm, and the heart that this team lacks. Everyone has negatives. Most of Nate's negatives can be corrected by good coaching. But we don't have good coaching, especially on DEFENSE.


One thing that you and the other anti-nate posters fail to recognize, for some strange reason, is that we have the worst point guard of all-time (duhon) playing ahead of Nate for the last year and half. Plugging in Nate into duhon's position would have made us a better team overall.


Now, in this fast paced style wouldn't have Nate been a better option than duhorrible??? Of course. But we never got to see that. Why? Because of bad coaching strategy.


All I'm saying is that there are many other people(players and coach) that have had more fault in the Knicks blunders than Nate has. But all the haters stick to blaming nate over and over again. Its very ignorant in their part.


Also, its d'antoni's choice to win or lose at Nate's hands, especially when the coach is calling iso's at the end of the game for him. We saw this a lot last year as well. I just want Nate to have a bigger role than duhorrible.

I see your point. Now, I'm not a coach, I'm not in the locker room but in my opinion what D'Antoni sees in Duhon that he does not see in Nate is ball control. Say what you will about Nate, for a 5'9" guy his ball handling is VERY suspect.

I just think D'Antoni believes Duhon is less likely to turn the ball over than Nate, I don't disagree. Duhon does slow the offense down considerably, I would almost expect D'Antoni to go with Nate for the faster pace. At the same time, I fear Nate trying to be an actual PG, I feel as though we'd see a new record in turnovers. I just think D'Antoni might prefer ball control to speed, in this instance.

My feeling is, however, on the Nate benching, during the 14-game layoff this team played well for the most part. Now, I understand OG saying that just because two things happen at the same time does not mean they are related, but the fact is just because two things happen at the same time does not mean they are UNRELATED. D'Antoni seemed to be banking on the fact that, for whatever reason, this team won without Nate, didn't want to rock the boat. I can't really fathom how you can disagree with this strategy. If the 8-man rotation you have is winning games against teams like Phoenix and Atlanta, why would you throw someone else in whom when he played earlier the team was on a skid? They started losing, needed an offensive spark and D'Antoni (prompted by Walsh or no) went back to him. I just don't see the issue.

 

[LJ4ptplay]

D'Antoni seemed to be banking on the fact that, for whatever reason, this team won without Nate, didn't want to rock the boat. I can't really fathom how you can disagree with this strategy. If the 8-man rotation you have is winning games against teams like Phoenix and Atlanta, why would you throw someone else in whom when he played earlier the team was on a skid? They started losing, needed an offensive spark and D'Antoni (prompted by Walsh or no) went back to him. I just don't see the issue.

This is it right here. D'Antoni got sick of Nate's antics and decided to bench him to send him a message.

The Knicks started winning after that. Not because Nate was benched but because the team as a whole played better (Duhon, Hughes, Harrington. etc.) and D'Antoni didn't want to alter his normally short rotation.

Then when they started losing, he played Nate. He plays the players (in a short rotation) that will help the team win games and sits the players that are playing poorly. It's as simple as that and everyone on here is getting pissed off for no reason.

Nate is playing well now and Hughes has been sucking. Now Hughes is benched. Lee didn't play much in the Atlanta game because he was getting worked.

He probably wanted to bench Duhon but realizes he has no choice. Who else can run the PG position on this roster? And don't say Nate or Douglas.

There needs to be a thread called "The Flawed Logic of the D'Antoni Haters". When we were losing it was all D'Antoni's fault and he should have been fired. He benches Nate and it's all D'Antoni's fault. But when we win it's because the players have been playing better. SMH.

Give credit where it's due and place blame where it's due. The players were playing poorly and giving up before the 1st half. D'Antoni coached poorly during that stretch as well. D'Antoni changed his style to fit the players and they have been playing with heart.

Both the coach and the players are to blame when things go bad and both the coach and the players deserve credit for the current success.

 

[crawford]

even the Nate supporters would admit that if the game was tied with five or less seconds left, you wouldn't want Nate taking the game winner. he ain't no clutch player like Kobe.