GustavBahler wrote:Still can't believe Jeffries was on the floor. The more I think about it the more pissed I get. I've had it with Jeffries, I hope he is gone, and if D'Antoni gives him the same role next season(if he's here) I hope they fire his ass with extreme prejudice.
JJ played his ass of last night it was tough play...have to give KG his due on that one.
CashMoney wrote:GustavBahler wrote:Still can't believe Jeffries was on the floor. The more I think about it the more pissed I get. I've had it with Jeffries, I hope he is gone, and if D'Antoni gives him the same role next season(if he's here) I hope they fire his ass with extreme prejudice.
JJ played his ass of last night it was tough play...have to give KG his due on that one.
I give KG credit for the timeout but Jeffries practically handed him the ball. Yeah, Jeffries played his ass off, its more D'Antoni's fault than anyone else's for putting him in that situation. Still don't want him back though, whatever Jeffries contributes on the defensive end, he all too frequently finds a way to negate it with a piss poor play when it matters.
I still don't understand this line of thinking. Jeffries was in there to keep the possession alive should the shot miss. The guy was involved in virtually every offensive board or tip-back for the Knicks.
It's unfortunate that he turned into a fifth-grader with a bladder problem at the worst possible time, but it is what it is.
Gymkata wrote:I still don't understand this line of thinking. Jeffries was in there to keep the possession alive should the shot miss. The guy was involved in virtually every offensive board or tip-back for the Knicks.It's unfortunate that he turned into a fifth-grader with a bladder problem at the worst possible time, but it is what it is.
The play was for him. You don't set up a play for Jeffries no matter the circumstances. It should have been Turiaf or Shelden in there in that situation.
Childs2Dudley wrote:Gymkata wrote:I still don't understand this line of thinking. Jeffries was in there to keep the possession alive should the shot miss. The guy was involved in virtually every offensive board or tip-back for the Knicks.It's unfortunate that he turned into a fifth-grader with a bladder problem at the worst possible time, but it is what it is.
The play was for him. You don't set up a play for Jeffries no matter the circumstances. It should have been Turiaf or Shelden in there in that situation.
Shelden didn't play a single second and Jeffries had a much better game than Turiaf, who blew more than a few layups too. At least Jeffries gives you a slight bump in odds of crashing the boards, though it still is a case of Pick Your Groin Punch.
Childs2Dudley wrote:Gymkata wrote:I still don't understand this line of thinking. Jeffries was in there to keep the possession alive should the shot miss. The guy was involved in virtually every offensive board or tip-back for the Knicks.It's unfortunate that he turned into a fifth-grader with a bladder problem at the worst possible time, but it is what it is.
The play was for him. You don't set up a play for Jeffries no matter the circumstances. It should have been Turiaf or Shelden in there in that situation.
the play was for jeffries? so if they decide to man-up 1-on-1 then Carmelo would have still passed to JJ? the play was to put the ball in Melo's hands and let him make a decision based on how the defense played it.
eViL wrote:Childs2Dudley wrote:Gymkata wrote:I still don't understand this line of thinking. Jeffries was in there to keep the possession alive should the shot miss. The guy was involved in virtually every offensive board or tip-back for the Knicks.It's unfortunate that he turned into a fifth-grader with a bladder problem at the worst possible time, but it is what it is.
The play was for him. You don't set up a play for Jeffries no matter the circumstances. It should have been Turiaf or Shelden in there in that situation.
the play was for jeffries? so if they decide to man-up 1-on-1 then Carmelo would have still passed to JJ? the play was to put the ball in Melo's hands and let him make a decision based on how the defense played it.
Yes, the way it was set up was pretty clear. I'm pretty sure D'Antoni alluded to this too. Everyone knew Carmelo was going to get double teamed so the play was to pass it off to a cutting Jeffries who could possibly catch the Celtics off-guard again and put in another layup. The play failed when Jeffries tried to do too much with the ball instead of shooting it.
Childs2Dudley wrote:eViL wrote:Childs2Dudley wrote:Gymkata wrote:I still don't understand this line of thinking. Jeffries was in there to keep the possession alive should the shot miss. The guy was involved in virtually every offensive board or tip-back for the Knicks.It's unfortunate that he turned into a fifth-grader with a bladder problem at the worst possible time, but it is what it is.
The play was for him. You don't set up a play for Jeffries no matter the circumstances. It should have been Turiaf or Shelden in there in that situation.
the play was for jeffries? so if they decide to man-up 1-on-1 then Carmelo would have still passed to JJ? the play was to put the ball in Melo's hands and let him make a decision based on how the defense played it.
Yes, the way it was set up was pretty clear. I'm pretty sure D'Antoni alluded to this too. Everyone knew Carmelo was going to get double teamed so the play was to pass it off to a cutting Jeffries who could possibly catch the Celtics off-guard again and put in another layup. The play failed when Jeffries tried to do too much with the ball instead of shooting it.
yeah, i guess. it's really tough to defend the decision to keep JJ in there. i'm not really much into second-guessing at this point. watching the play over and over only makes me realize how close it was to actually working. woulda been a spectacular result.
we still winning this, baby! don't fuck around C2D you have the whole summer to be a drag. get up, bro!
Actually I will be happy in the offseason (if Donnie stays) because we can actually sign good bench guys and capable big men for this team and make a run at it next year. Of course I'd for the coach to get fired too but you can't have everything.
Childs2Dudley wrote:Actually I will be happy in the offseason (if Donnie stays) because we can actually sign good bench guys and capable big men for this team and make a run at it next year. Of course I'd for the coach to get fired too but you can't have everything.
word. the coach has polarized the board for sure. there's no convincing anyone on either side to sway.
eViL wrote:Childs2Dudley wrote:Actually I will be happy in the offseason (if Donnie stays) because we can actually sign good bench guys and capable big men for this team and make a run at it next year. Of course I'd for the coach to get fired too but you can't have everything.
word. the coach has polarized the board for sure. there's no convincing anyone on either side to sway.
Besides Donnie I am hard pressed to find a coach or GM over the past 10 years who has not polarized in some way, I think it's more a factor of the fans than the objects of attention.
