Knicks · If You Cannot Watch The Knicks With A Fresh Outlook, Why Torture Yourself? (page 8)

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

misterearl wrote:Woody did some bad coaching.

As I remember it was 6 games and we won 2. JR played his worse ball. An underweight Chandler was dominated by Roy Hibbert. Lance Stephenson thought he was Michael Jordan. Ray Felton was not feeling it.

(Woody did some bad coaching?) WTF is bad coaching?

Indy was the better team.

bad regular season coaching gets revealed in the playoffs, just like fool's gold and jayvee players get exposed in the real season.

woodson's playoff record is embarrassing because his flaws as a coach are hidden in the regular season.

bad coaching is when you coddle and enable certain players and play favorites instead of molding an identity at the expense of a few regular-season wins.

i would have preferred a 5th or 6th seed last season if it meant a more balanced, cohesive, resilient, adaptable, professional, and rested team.

the knicks should have swept an undermanned and exhausted celtic team. they should have made the pacers series far more competitive.

the pacers may indeed be a better team but they were also better coached.

Just wondering who you thought played too many minutes. No one other than JR played over 2600 minutes. Obviously Kidd broke down under the wear and tear of the minutes given but I don't think Woodson over or under used other guys. Novak was over 1600 minutes. Prigs was just under 1300. A lot of posters say that Tyson played too many minutes but he was at 32 a game. Duncan and Garnett were almost there and have quite a bit more mileage and age then flu. Woodson had to use every guy other then Camby on the roster for significant minutes for parts of the season. Hearing about Shump's issues in the summer makes you wonder if he should have just been rested for the entire season. Now we know Camby's plantar fascia was really bad and he is out indefinitely.

obviously kidd and tyson played too many minutes. tyson made the jump from high school and has a lot of mileage on him plus he is inferior physically to garnett, as most athletes are. meanwhile all-time great duncan lost 20 pounds and took up swimming.

in fact, in terms of minutes, i think perennial knick fan favorite anthony played too many as well... in addition to not being in supreme shape.

bottom line woodson needed to play more people more consistent minutes. when i researched this last i noticed that minutes could vary widely from game to game for several players such as novak, prigioni, copeland. i think that's wrong and i think it was proven to be the wrong approach come the playoffs. because you don't build cohesion or confidence that way, and ironically you also wear people out.

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

misterearl wrote:Woody did some bad coaching.

As I remember it was 6 games and we won 2. JR played his worse ball. An underweight Chandler was dominated by Roy Hibbert. Lance Stephenson thought he was Michael Jordan. Ray Felton was not feeling it.

(Woody did some bad coaching?) WTF is bad coaching?

Indy was the better team.

bad regular season coaching gets revealed in the playoffs, just like fool's gold and jayvee players get exposed in the real season.

woodson's playoff record is embarrassing because his flaws as a coach are hidden in the regular season.

bad coaching is when you coddle and enable certain players and play favorites instead of molding an identity at the expense of a few regular-season wins.

i would have preferred a 5th or 6th seed last season if it meant a more balanced, cohesive, resilient, adaptable, professional, and rested team.

the knicks should have swept an undermanned and exhausted celtic team. they should have made the pacers series far more competitive.

the pacers may indeed be a better team but they were also better coached.

Just wondering who you thought played too many minutes. No one other than JR played over 2600 minutes. Obviously Kidd broke down under the wear and tear of the minutes given but I don't think Woodson over or under used other guys. Novak was over 1600 minutes. Prigs was just under 1300. A lot of posters say that Tyson played too many minutes but he was at 32 a game. Duncan and Garnett were almost there and have quite a bit more mileage and age then flu. Woodson had to use every guy other then Camby on the roster for significant minutes for parts of the season. Hearing about Shump's issues in the summer makes you wonder if he should have just been rested for the entire season. Now we know Camby's plantar fascia was really bad and he is out indefinitely.

obviously kidd and tyson played too many minutes. tyson made the jump from high school and has a lot of mileage on him plus he is inferior physically to garnett, as most athletes are. meanwhile all-time great duncan lost 20 pounds and took up swimming.

in fact, in terms of minutes, i think perennial knick fan favorite anthony played too many as well... in addition to not being in supreme shape.

bottom line woodson needed to play more people more consistent minutes. when i researched this last i noticed that minutes could vary widely from game to game for several players such as novak, prigioni, copeland. i think that's wrong and i think it was proven to be the wrong approach come the playoffs. because you don't build cohesion or confidence that way, and ironically you also wear people out.

Bro u keep saying Melo isn't in supreme shape and it's utter nonsense...U can't win player of the month for two consecutive years in April and not be in supreme shape...It is impossible...

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

misterearl wrote:Woody did some bad coaching.

As I remember it was 6 games and we won 2. JR played his worse ball. An underweight Chandler was dominated by Roy Hibbert. Lance Stephenson thought he was Michael Jordan. Ray Felton was not feeling it.

(Woody did some bad coaching?) WTF is bad coaching?

Indy was the better team.

bad regular season coaching gets revealed in the playoffs, just like fool's gold and jayvee players get exposed in the real season.

woodson's playoff record is embarrassing because his flaws as a coach are hidden in the regular season.

bad coaching is when you coddle and enable certain players and play favorites instead of molding an identity at the expense of a few regular-season wins.

i would have preferred a 5th or 6th seed last season if it meant a more balanced, cohesive, resilient, adaptable, professional, and rested team.

the knicks should have swept an undermanned and exhausted celtic team. they should have made the pacers series far more competitive.

the pacers may indeed be a better team but they were also better coached.

Just wondering who you thought played too many minutes. No one other than JR played over 2600 minutes. Obviously Kidd broke down under the wear and tear of the minutes given but I don't think Woodson over or under used other guys. Novak was over 1600 minutes. Prigs was just under 1300. A lot of posters say that Tyson played too many minutes but he was at 32 a game. Duncan and Garnett were almost there and have quite a bit more mileage and age then flu. Woodson had to use every guy other then Camby on the roster for significant minutes for parts of the season. Hearing about Shump's issues in the summer makes you wonder if he should have just been rested for the entire season. Now we know Camby's plantar fascia was really bad and he is out indefinitely.

obviously kidd and tyson played too many minutes. tyson made the jump from high school and has a lot of mileage on him plus he is inferior physically to garnett, as most athletes are. meanwhile all-time great duncan lost 20 pounds and took up swimming.

in fact, in terms of minutes, i think perennial knick fan favorite anthony played too many as well... in addition to not being in supreme shape.

bottom line woodson needed to play more people more consistent minutes. when i researched this last i noticed that minutes could vary widely from game to game for several players such as novak, prigioni, copeland. i think that's wrong and i think it was proven to be the wrong approach come the playoffs. because you don't build cohesion or confidence that way, and ironically you also wear people out.

Well Anthony was in great shape last year after being on the Olympic team and I thought you admitted that it might have been his body armour that made him look big after seeing pictures of him. Anthony's issue was D12 trying to end his career in December. Garnett came out of high school and is 9 years older then Tyson. Expecting a 29 year old to play 32 minutes isn't unrealistic. I think if a player that makes 14 mil, is 29 and can't do that it is more on the player then the coach.
I think most coaches favor and overplay a guy like Kidd. Kidd played just under 2700 minutes in 2011.

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

misterearl wrote:Woody did some bad coaching.

As I remember it was 6 games and we won 2. JR played his worse ball. An underweight Chandler was dominated by Roy Hibbert. Lance Stephenson thought he was Michael Jordan. Ray Felton was not feeling it.

(Woody did some bad coaching?) WTF is bad coaching?

Indy was the better team.

bad regular season coaching gets revealed in the playoffs, just like fool's gold and jayvee players get exposed in the real season.

woodson's playoff record is embarrassing because his flaws as a coach are hidden in the regular season.

bad coaching is when you coddle and enable certain players and play favorites instead of molding an identity at the expense of a few regular-season wins.

i would have preferred a 5th or 6th seed last season if it meant a more balanced, cohesive, resilient, adaptable, professional, and rested team.

the knicks should have swept an undermanned and exhausted celtic team. they should have made the pacers series far more competitive.

the pacers may indeed be a better team but they were also better coached.

Just wondering who you thought played too many minutes. No one other than JR played over 2600 minutes. Obviously Kidd broke down under the wear and tear of the minutes given but I don't think Woodson over or under used other guys. Novak was over 1600 minutes. Prigs was just under 1300. A lot of posters say that Tyson played too many minutes but he was at 32 a game. Duncan and Garnett were almost there and have quite a bit more mileage and age then flu. Woodson had to use every guy other then Camby on the roster for significant minutes for parts of the season. Hearing about Shump's issues in the summer makes you wonder if he should have just been rested for the entire season. Now we know Camby's plantar fascia was really bad and he is out indefinitely.

obviously kidd and tyson played too many minutes. tyson made the jump from high school and has a lot of mileage on him plus he is inferior physically to garnett, as most athletes are. meanwhile all-time great duncan lost 20 pounds and took up swimming.

in fact, in terms of minutes, i think perennial knick fan favorite anthony played too many as well... in addition to not being in supreme shape.

bottom line woodson needed to play more people more consistent minutes. when i researched this last i noticed that minutes could vary widely from game to game for several players such as novak, prigioni, copeland. i think that's wrong and i think it was proven to be the wrong approach come the playoffs. because you don't build cohesion or confidence that way, and ironically you also wear people out.

Well Anthony was in great shape last year after being on the Olympic team and I thought you admitted that it might have been his body armour that made him look big after seeing pictures of him. Anthony's issue was D12 trying to end his career in December. Garnett came out of high school and is 9 years older then Tyson. Expecting a 29 year old to play 32 minutes isn't unrealistic. I think if a player that makes 14 mil, is 29 and can't do that it is more on the player then the coach.
I think most coaches favor and overplay a guy like Kidd. Kidd played just under 2700 minutes in 2011.

chandler was on a minute restriction in dallas-- under 28 minutes a game. the staff obviously knew of his limitations physically and behaved responsibly. you are not physically mature at 19 and some of the younger guys can take a beating early on that ages them down the road. chandler is one of those guys.

the roster last year was brittle and if you want to defend woodson, fine. but you can't blame tyson wearing down on tyson. he was forced to play more minutes than he should have, just as grunwald was forced to acquire old brittle players that disintegrated as soon as they put on knick uniforms. then you have to ask why grunwald was forced to sign brittle players.

do you know why he was forced to sign old brittle players?

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Papabear wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:I just hope that those who can't find anything good to say about the Knicks will do so when they're playing well and give them the credit they deserve. If your pride prevents you from doing so, then at least don't try to consistently make those who are enjoying the season as miserable as you are. That should be a bannable offense.

You're posting to tell us about how you hope others will post in a hypothetical situation?
Regardless, maybe one person here never says anything positive about the team but that's all I can think of.

Absolutely Im hoping people won't piss on this team incessantly when they're playing well and its more than one person. You make it sound like the Knicks playing well is far fetched.

That depends on what playing well means.

What's your standard?

The team should be either competing for a championship or rebuilding (towards a team that can compete for a championship). I don't see us doing either. In fact, I haven't seen the team do either even once this century.

So say this team goes on a ten game win streak, the team as a whole is playing well, you cant find anything good to say because of the way the roster is constructed?

I can say (and already have said) good things about individual players. It's gonna take more than an 10 game regular season winning streak to make me think the team is well constructed. Even Isiah's teams had some 6+ game winning streaks.

Papabear Says

Bonn Bonn Who really cares what you think.

Obviously Gustav cares immensely. Did you read his posts begging for positive comments from critics? I've seen you make similar posts too actually.

If I'm begging for anything its for you not to be an insufferable douche next season when the team is playing well. Whining about some arcane statistic after a win.

Maybe you'll feel better if you become more tolerant of diverse views, or perhaps if you can't do that, you can put me on ignore. I've been here almost 10 years. I'm not gonna change my posting just to make some relative newbie happy.

There is very little if any diversity in your views towards this squad. Its pretty much always negative. And as far as putting anyone on ignore, you're the one who keeps either replying to my posts or bringing up my name. If you don't like what I have to say then follow your own advice.

I'm not Mitt Romney - I don't "diversify" my views on a daily basis. Diversity doesn't occur within the individual but rather across individuals. Why would I put you on ignore? I haven't been disturbed by your posts and begging you to change.

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

misterearl wrote:Woody did some bad coaching.

As I remember it was 6 games and we won 2. JR played his worse ball. An underweight Chandler was dominated by Roy Hibbert. Lance Stephenson thought he was Michael Jordan. Ray Felton was not feeling it.

(Woody did some bad coaching?) WTF is bad coaching?

Indy was the better team.

bad regular season coaching gets revealed in the playoffs, just like fool's gold and jayvee players get exposed in the real season.

woodson's playoff record is embarrassing because his flaws as a coach are hidden in the regular season.

bad coaching is when you coddle and enable certain players and play favorites instead of molding an identity at the expense of a few regular-season wins.

i would have preferred a 5th or 6th seed last season if it meant a more balanced, cohesive, resilient, adaptable, professional, and rested team.

the knicks should have swept an undermanned and exhausted celtic team. they should have made the pacers series far more competitive.

the pacers may indeed be a better team but they were also better coached.

Just wondering who you thought played too many minutes. No one other than JR played over 2600 minutes. Obviously Kidd broke down under the wear and tear of the minutes given but I don't think Woodson over or under used other guys. Novak was over 1600 minutes. Prigs was just under 1300. A lot of posters say that Tyson played too many minutes but he was at 32 a game. Duncan and Garnett were almost there and have quite a bit more mileage and age then flu. Woodson had to use every guy other then Camby on the roster for significant minutes for parts of the season. Hearing about Shump's issues in the summer makes you wonder if he should have just been rested for the entire season. Now we know Camby's plantar fascia was really bad and he is out indefinitely.

obviously kidd and tyson played too many minutes. tyson made the jump from high school and has a lot of mileage on him plus he is inferior physically to garnett, as most athletes are. meanwhile all-time great duncan lost 20 pounds and took up swimming.

in fact, in terms of minutes, i think perennial knick fan favorite anthony played too many as well... in addition to not being in supreme shape.

bottom line woodson needed to play more people more consistent minutes. when i researched this last i noticed that minutes could vary widely from game to game for several players such as novak, prigioni, copeland. i think that's wrong and i think it was proven to be the wrong approach come the playoffs. because you don't build cohesion or confidence that way, and ironically you also wear people out.

Well Anthony was in great shape last year after being on the Olympic team and I thought you admitted that it might have been his body armour that made him look big after seeing pictures of him. Anthony's issue was D12 trying to end his career in December. Garnett came out of high school and is 9 years older then Tyson. Expecting a 29 year old to play 32 minutes isn't unrealistic. I think if a player that makes 14 mil, is 29 and can't do that it is more on the player then the coach.
I think most coaches favor and overplay a guy like Kidd. Kidd played just under 2700 minutes in 2011.

chandler was on a minute restriction in dallas-- under 28 minutes a game. the staff obviously knew of his limitations physically and behaved responsibly. you are not physically mature at 19 and some of the younger guys can take a beating early on that ages them down the road. chandler is one of those guys.

the roster last year was brittle and if you want to defend woodson, fine. but you can't blame tyson wearing down on tyson. he was forced to play more minutes than he should have, just as grunwald was forced to acquire old brittle players that disintegrated as soon as they put on knick uniforms. then you have to ask why grunwald was forced to sign brittle players.

do you know why he was forced to sign old brittle players?

Tyson wasn't on a minutes restriction in Dallas. He may have averaged 28 minutes a night but he played well over 28 minutes a night in many games that year. If your point is that Camby couldn't fill the role that Haywood did in Dallas, then I agree to some extent. But Tyson's minutes were not capped.

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

misterearl wrote:Woody did some bad coaching.

As I remember it was 6 games and we won 2. JR played his worse ball. An underweight Chandler was dominated by Roy Hibbert. Lance Stephenson thought he was Michael Jordan. Ray Felton was not feeling it.

(Woody did some bad coaching?) WTF is bad coaching?

Indy was the better team.

bad regular season coaching gets revealed in the playoffs, just like fool's gold and jayvee players get exposed in the real season.

woodson's playoff record is embarrassing because his flaws as a coach are hidden in the regular season.

bad coaching is when you coddle and enable certain players and play favorites instead of molding an identity at the expense of a few regular-season wins.

i would have preferred a 5th or 6th seed last season if it meant a more balanced, cohesive, resilient, adaptable, professional, and rested team.

the knicks should have swept an undermanned and exhausted celtic team. they should have made the pacers series far more competitive.

the pacers may indeed be a better team but they were also better coached.

Just wondering who you thought played too many minutes. No one other than JR played over 2600 minutes. Obviously Kidd broke down under the wear and tear of the minutes given but I don't think Woodson over or under used other guys. Novak was over 1600 minutes. Prigs was just under 1300. A lot of posters say that Tyson played too many minutes but he was at 32 a game. Duncan and Garnett were almost there and have quite a bit more mileage and age then flu. Woodson had to use every guy other then Camby on the roster for significant minutes for parts of the season. Hearing about Shump's issues in the summer makes you wonder if he should have just been rested for the entire season. Now we know Camby's plantar fascia was really bad and he is out indefinitely.

obviously kidd and tyson played too many minutes. tyson made the jump from high school and has a lot of mileage on him plus he is inferior physically to garnett, as most athletes are. meanwhile all-time great duncan lost 20 pounds and took up swimming.

in fact, in terms of minutes, i think perennial knick fan favorite anthony played too many as well... in addition to not being in supreme shape.

bottom line woodson needed to play more people more consistent minutes. when i researched this last i noticed that minutes could vary widely from game to game for several players such as novak, prigioni, copeland. i think that's wrong and i think it was proven to be the wrong approach come the playoffs. because you don't build cohesion or confidence that way, and ironically you also wear people out.

Well Anthony was in great shape last year after being on the Olympic team and I thought you admitted that it might have been his body armour that made him look big after seeing pictures of him. Anthony's issue was D12 trying to end his career in December. Garnett came out of high school and is 9 years older then Tyson. Expecting a 29 year old to play 32 minutes isn't unrealistic. I think if a player that makes 14 mil, is 29 and can't do that it is more on the player then the coach.
I think most coaches favor and overplay a guy like Kidd. Kidd played just under 2700 minutes in 2011.

chandler was on a minute restriction in dallas-- under 28 minutes a game. the staff obviously knew of his limitations physically and behaved responsibly. you are not physically mature at 19 and some of the younger guys can take a beating early on that ages them down the road. chandler is one of those guys.

the roster last year was brittle and if you want to defend woodson, fine. but you can't blame tyson wearing down on tyson. he was forced to play more minutes than he should have, just as grunwald was forced to acquire old brittle players that disintegrated as soon as they put on knick uniforms. then you have to ask why grunwald was forced to sign brittle players.

do you know why he was forced to sign old brittle players?

Tyson wasn't on a minutes restriction in Dallas. He may have averaged 28 minutes a night but he played well over 28 minutes a night in many games that year. If your point is that Camby couldn't fill the role that Haywood did in Dallas, then I agree to some extent. But Tyson's minutes were not capped.

okay you don't have to say the minutes were capped or not-- the fact that a then 28 year old player was playing "only" 28 minutes basically makes the case all by itself.

haywood was only 31 that season. camby and sheed needed radio carbon dating.

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

misterearl wrote:Woody did some bad coaching.

As I remember it was 6 games and we won 2. JR played his worse ball. An underweight Chandler was dominated by Roy Hibbert. Lance Stephenson thought he was Michael Jordan. Ray Felton was not feeling it.

(Woody did some bad coaching?) WTF is bad coaching?

Indy was the better team.

bad regular season coaching gets revealed in the playoffs, just like fool's gold and jayvee players get exposed in the real season.

woodson's playoff record is embarrassing because his flaws as a coach are hidden in the regular season.

bad coaching is when you coddle and enable certain players and play favorites instead of molding an identity at the expense of a few regular-season wins.

i would have preferred a 5th or 6th seed last season if it meant a more balanced, cohesive, resilient, adaptable, professional, and rested team.

the knicks should have swept an undermanned and exhausted celtic team. they should have made the pacers series far more competitive.

the pacers may indeed be a better team but they were also better coached.

Just wondering who you thought played too many minutes. No one other than JR played over 2600 minutes. Obviously Kidd broke down under the wear and tear of the minutes given but I don't think Woodson over or under used other guys. Novak was over 1600 minutes. Prigs was just under 1300. A lot of posters say that Tyson played too many minutes but he was at 32 a game. Duncan and Garnett were almost there and have quite a bit more mileage and age then flu. Woodson had to use every guy other then Camby on the roster for significant minutes for parts of the season. Hearing about Shump's issues in the summer makes you wonder if he should have just been rested for the entire season. Now we know Camby's plantar fascia was really bad and he is out indefinitely.

obviously kidd and tyson played too many minutes. tyson made the jump from high school and has a lot of mileage on him plus he is inferior physically to garnett, as most athletes are. meanwhile all-time great duncan lost 20 pounds and took up swimming.

in fact, in terms of minutes, i think perennial knick fan favorite anthony played too many as well... in addition to not being in supreme shape.

bottom line woodson needed to play more people more consistent minutes. when i researched this last i noticed that minutes could vary widely from game to game for several players such as novak, prigioni, copeland. i think that's wrong and i think it was proven to be the wrong approach come the playoffs. because you don't build cohesion or confidence that way, and ironically you also wear people out.

Well Anthony was in great shape last year after being on the Olympic team and I thought you admitted that it might have been his body armour that made him look big after seeing pictures of him. Anthony's issue was D12 trying to end his career in December. Garnett came out of high school and is 9 years older then Tyson. Expecting a 29 year old to play 32 minutes isn't unrealistic. I think if a player that makes 14 mil, is 29 and can't do that it is more on the player then the coach.
I think most coaches favor and overplay a guy like Kidd. Kidd played just under 2700 minutes in 2011.

chandler was on a minute restriction in dallas-- under 28 minutes a game. the staff obviously knew of his limitations physically and behaved responsibly. you are not physically mature at 19 and some of the younger guys can take a beating early on that ages them down the road. chandler is one of those guys.

the roster last year was brittle and if you want to defend woodson, fine. but you can't blame tyson wearing down on tyson. he was forced to play more minutes than he should have, just as grunwald was forced to acquire old brittle players that disintegrated as soon as they put on knick uniforms. then you have to ask why grunwald was forced to sign brittle players.

do you know why he was forced to sign old brittle players?

Tyson wasn't on a minutes restriction in Dallas. He may have averaged 28 minutes a night but he played well over 28 minutes a night in many games that year. If your point is that Camby couldn't fill the role that Haywood did in Dallas, then I agree to some extent. But Tyson's minutes were not capped.

okay you don't have to say the minutes were capped or not-- the fact that a then 28 year old player was playing "only" 28 minutes basically makes the case all by itself.

haywood was only 31 that season. camby and sheed needed radio carbon dating.

Well saying a guy had his minutes capped because the other coaching staff 'obviously knew what it was doing' is different then saying he had one of the best back up centers in the league playing behind him. Tyson also collected more personal fouls that year then any other in his career. Could that have impacted his minutes and his style of play?

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Papabear wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:I just hope that those who can't find anything good to say about the Knicks will do so when they're playing well and give them the credit they deserve. If your pride prevents you from doing so, then at least don't try to consistently make those who are enjoying the season as miserable as you are. That should be a bannable offense.

You're posting to tell us about how you hope others will post in a hypothetical situation?
Regardless, maybe one person here never says anything positive about the team but that's all I can think of.

Absolutely Im hoping people won't piss on this team incessantly when they're playing well and its more than one person. You make it sound like the Knicks playing well is far fetched.

That depends on what playing well means.

What's your standard?

The team should be either competing for a championship or rebuilding (towards a team that can compete for a championship). I don't see us doing either. In fact, I haven't seen the team do either even once this century.

So say this team goes on a ten game win streak, the team as a whole is playing well, you cant find anything good to say because of the way the roster is constructed?

I can say (and already have said) good things about individual players. It's gonna take more than an 10 game regular season winning streak to make me think the team is well constructed. Even Isiah's teams had some 6+ game winning streaks.

Papabear Says

Bonn Bonn Who really cares what you think.

Obviously Gustav cares immensely. Did you read his posts begging for positive comments from critics? I've seen you make similar posts too actually.

If I'm begging for anything its for you not to be an insufferable douche next season when the team is playing well. Whining about some arcane statistic after a win.

Maybe you'll feel better if you become more tolerant of diverse views, or perhaps if you can't do that, you can put me on ignore. I've been here almost 10 years. I'm not gonna change my posting just to make some relative newbie happy.

There is very little if any diversity in your views towards this squad. Its pretty much always negative. And as far as putting anyone on ignore, you're the one who keeps either replying to my posts or bringing up my name. If you don't like what I have to say then follow your own advice.

I'm not Mitt Romney - I don't "diversify" my views on a daily basis. Diversity doesn't occur within the individual but rather across individuals. Why would I put you on ignore? I haven't been disturbed by your posts and begging you to change.

You're only capable of whining incessantly about the team, because anything else would be too much for you to handle, is that it? My views on the state of this team are diverse. I see a franchise with strengths and weaknesses, on every level. From Dolan right down to the 12th man on the bench I am able to point out what I believe this team, is doing right, and what I believe they're doing wrong. Almost every poster here has that ability.

When they don't, its sifting through page after page of why the Knicks winning a game by 25pts is meaningless because of some BS statistic buried in the fine print. Doesn't matter if it has nothing to do with the topic at hand because you've been posting here for ten years and that's more important than anything else. Thanks Mitt.

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

misterearl wrote:Woody did some bad coaching.

As I remember it was 6 games and we won 2. JR played his worse ball. An underweight Chandler was dominated by Roy Hibbert. Lance Stephenson thought he was Michael Jordan. Ray Felton was not feeling it.

(Woody did some bad coaching?) WTF is bad coaching?

Indy was the better team.

bad regular season coaching gets revealed in the playoffs, just like fool's gold and jayvee players get exposed in the real season.

woodson's playoff record is embarrassing because his flaws as a coach are hidden in the regular season.

bad coaching is when you coddle and enable certain players and play favorites instead of molding an identity at the expense of a few regular-season wins.

i would have preferred a 5th or 6th seed last season if it meant a more balanced, cohesive, resilient, adaptable, professional, and rested team.

the knicks should have swept an undermanned and exhausted celtic team. they should have made the pacers series far more competitive.

the pacers may indeed be a better team but they were also better coached.

Just wondering who you thought played too many minutes. No one other than JR played over 2600 minutes. Obviously Kidd broke down under the wear and tear of the minutes given but I don't think Woodson over or under used other guys. Novak was over 1600 minutes. Prigs was just under 1300. A lot of posters say that Tyson played too many minutes but he was at 32 a game. Duncan and Garnett were almost there and have quite a bit more mileage and age then flu. Woodson had to use every guy other then Camby on the roster for significant minutes for parts of the season. Hearing about Shump's issues in the summer makes you wonder if he should have just been rested for the entire season. Now we know Camby's plantar fascia was really bad and he is out indefinitely.

obviously kidd and tyson played too many minutes. tyson made the jump from high school and has a lot of mileage on him plus he is inferior physically to garnett, as most athletes are. meanwhile all-time great duncan lost 20 pounds and took up swimming.

in fact, in terms of minutes, i think perennial knick fan favorite anthony played too many as well... in addition to not being in supreme shape.

bottom line woodson needed to play more people more consistent minutes. when i researched this last i noticed that minutes could vary widely from game to game for several players such as novak, prigioni, copeland. i think that's wrong and i think it was proven to be the wrong approach come the playoffs. because you don't build cohesion or confidence that way, and ironically you also wear people out.

Well Anthony was in great shape last year after being on the Olympic team and I thought you admitted that it might have been his body armour that made him look big after seeing pictures of him. Anthony's issue was D12 trying to end his career in December. Garnett came out of high school and is 9 years older then Tyson. Expecting a 29 year old to play 32 minutes isn't unrealistic. I think if a player that makes 14 mil, is 29 and can't do that it is more on the player then the coach.
I think most coaches favor and overplay a guy like Kidd. Kidd played just under 2700 minutes in 2011.

chandler was on a minute restriction in dallas-- under 28 minutes a game. the staff obviously knew of his limitations physically and behaved responsibly. you are not physically mature at 19 and some of the younger guys can take a beating early on that ages them down the road. chandler is one of those guys.

the roster last year was brittle and if you want to defend woodson, fine. but you can't blame tyson wearing down on tyson. he was forced to play more minutes than he should have, just as grunwald was forced to acquire old brittle players that disintegrated as soon as they put on knick uniforms. then you have to ask why grunwald was forced to sign brittle players.

do you know why he was forced to sign old brittle players?

Tyson wasn't on a minutes restriction in Dallas. He may have averaged 28 minutes a night but he played well over 28 minutes a night in many games that year. If your point is that Camby couldn't fill the role that Haywood did in Dallas, then I agree to some extent. But Tyson's minutes were not capped.

okay you don't have to say the minutes were capped or not-- the fact that a then 28 year old player was playing "only" 28 minutes basically makes the case all by itself.

haywood was only 31 that season. camby and sheed needed radio carbon dating.

Well saying a guy had his minutes capped because the other coaching staff 'obviously knew what it was doing' is different then saying he had one of the best back up centers in the league playing behind him. Tyson also collected more personal fouls that year then any other in his career. Could that have impacted his minutes and his style of play?

i have not done the research on who preceded whom so for now it's a chicken egg thing. in other words if they signed chandler first (which is likelier than the other way around), knowing of his limitations, and then signed haywood, then that shows a front office and a coaching staff that are on the same page.

do you get the impression that the knicks front office and coaching staff are on the same page?

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

misterearl wrote:Woody did some bad coaching.

As I remember it was 6 games and we won 2. JR played his worse ball. An underweight Chandler was dominated by Roy Hibbert. Lance Stephenson thought he was Michael Jordan. Ray Felton was not feeling it.

(Woody did some bad coaching?) WTF is bad coaching?

Indy was the better team.

bad regular season coaching gets revealed in the playoffs, just like fool's gold and jayvee players get exposed in the real season.

woodson's playoff record is embarrassing because his flaws as a coach are hidden in the regular season.

bad coaching is when you coddle and enable certain players and play favorites instead of molding an identity at the expense of a few regular-season wins.

i would have preferred a 5th or 6th seed last season if it meant a more balanced, cohesive, resilient, adaptable, professional, and rested team.

the knicks should have swept an undermanned and exhausted celtic team. they should have made the pacers series far more competitive.

the pacers may indeed be a better team but they were also better coached.

Just wondering who you thought played too many minutes. No one other than JR played over 2600 minutes. Obviously Kidd broke down under the wear and tear of the minutes given but I don't think Woodson over or under used other guys. Novak was over 1600 minutes. Prigs was just under 1300. A lot of posters say that Tyson played too many minutes but he was at 32 a game. Duncan and Garnett were almost there and have quite a bit more mileage and age then flu. Woodson had to use every guy other then Camby on the roster for significant minutes for parts of the season. Hearing about Shump's issues in the summer makes you wonder if he should have just been rested for the entire season. Now we know Camby's plantar fascia was really bad and he is out indefinitely.

obviously kidd and tyson played too many minutes. tyson made the jump from high school and has a lot of mileage on him plus he is inferior physically to garnett, as most athletes are. meanwhile all-time great duncan lost 20 pounds and took up swimming.

in fact, in terms of minutes, i think perennial knick fan favorite anthony played too many as well... in addition to not being in supreme shape.

bottom line woodson needed to play more people more consistent minutes. when i researched this last i noticed that minutes could vary widely from game to game for several players such as novak, prigioni, copeland. i think that's wrong and i think it was proven to be the wrong approach come the playoffs. because you don't build cohesion or confidence that way, and ironically you also wear people out.

Well Anthony was in great shape last year after being on the Olympic team and I thought you admitted that it might have been his body armour that made him look big after seeing pictures of him. Anthony's issue was D12 trying to end his career in December. Garnett came out of high school and is 9 years older then Tyson. Expecting a 29 year old to play 32 minutes isn't unrealistic. I think if a player that makes 14 mil, is 29 and can't do that it is more on the player then the coach.
I think most coaches favor and overplay a guy like Kidd. Kidd played just under 2700 minutes in 2011.

chandler was on a minute restriction in dallas-- under 28 minutes a game. the staff obviously knew of his limitations physically and behaved responsibly. you are not physically mature at 19 and some of the younger guys can take a beating early on that ages them down the road. chandler is one of those guys.

the roster last year was brittle and if you want to defend woodson, fine. but you can't blame tyson wearing down on tyson. he was forced to play more minutes than he should have, just as grunwald was forced to acquire old brittle players that disintegrated as soon as they put on knick uniforms. then you have to ask why grunwald was forced to sign brittle players.

do you know why he was forced to sign old brittle players?

Tyson wasn't on a minutes restriction in Dallas. He may have averaged 28 minutes a night but he played well over 28 minutes a night in many games that year. If your point is that Camby couldn't fill the role that Haywood did in Dallas, then I agree to some extent. But Tyson's minutes were not capped.

okay you don't have to say the minutes were capped or not-- the fact that a then 28 year old player was playing "only" 28 minutes basically makes the case all by itself.

haywood was only 31 that season. camby and sheed needed radio carbon dating.

Well saying a guy had his minutes capped because the other coaching staff 'obviously knew what it was doing' is different then saying he had one of the best back up centers in the league playing behind him. Tyson also collected more personal fouls that year then any other in his career. Could that have impacted his minutes and his style of play?

i have not done the research on who preceded whom so for now it's a chicken egg thing. in other words if they signed chandler first (which is likelier than the other way around), knowing of his limitations, and then signed haywood, then that shows a front office and a coaching staff that are on the same page.

do you get the impression that the knicks front office and coaching staff are on the same page?

I believe Haywood was expected to be their starter that year and then they got Tyson.

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

misterearl wrote:Woody did some bad coaching.

As I remember it was 6 games and we won 2. JR played his worse ball. An underweight Chandler was dominated by Roy Hibbert. Lance Stephenson thought he was Michael Jordan. Ray Felton was not feeling it.

(Woody did some bad coaching?) WTF is bad coaching?

Indy was the better team.

bad regular season coaching gets revealed in the playoffs, just like fool's gold and jayvee players get exposed in the real season.

woodson's playoff record is embarrassing because his flaws as a coach are hidden in the regular season.

bad coaching is when you coddle and enable certain players and play favorites instead of molding an identity at the expense of a few regular-season wins.

i would have preferred a 5th or 6th seed last season if it meant a more balanced, cohesive, resilient, adaptable, professional, and rested team.

the knicks should have swept an undermanned and exhausted celtic team. they should have made the pacers series far more competitive.

the pacers may indeed be a better team but they were also better coached.

Just wondering who you thought played too many minutes. No one other than JR played over 2600 minutes. Obviously Kidd broke down under the wear and tear of the minutes given but I don't think Woodson over or under used other guys. Novak was over 1600 minutes. Prigs was just under 1300. A lot of posters say that Tyson played too many minutes but he was at 32 a game. Duncan and Garnett were almost there and have quite a bit more mileage and age then flu. Woodson had to use every guy other then Camby on the roster for significant minutes for parts of the season. Hearing about Shump's issues in the summer makes you wonder if he should have just been rested for the entire season. Now we know Camby's plantar fascia was really bad and he is out indefinitely.

obviously kidd and tyson played too many minutes. tyson made the jump from high school and has a lot of mileage on him plus he is inferior physically to garnett, as most athletes are. meanwhile all-time great duncan lost 20 pounds and took up swimming.

in fact, in terms of minutes, i think perennial knick fan favorite anthony played too many as well... in addition to not being in supreme shape.

bottom line woodson needed to play more people more consistent minutes. when i researched this last i noticed that minutes could vary widely from game to game for several players such as novak, prigioni, copeland. i think that's wrong and i think it was proven to be the wrong approach come the playoffs. because you don't build cohesion or confidence that way, and ironically you also wear people out.

Well Anthony was in great shape last year after being on the Olympic team and I thought you admitted that it might have been his body armour that made him look big after seeing pictures of him. Anthony's issue was D12 trying to end his career in December. Garnett came out of high school and is 9 years older then Tyson. Expecting a 29 year old to play 32 minutes isn't unrealistic. I think if a player that makes 14 mil, is 29 and can't do that it is more on the player then the coach.
I think most coaches favor and overplay a guy like Kidd. Kidd played just under 2700 minutes in 2011.

chandler was on a minute restriction in dallas-- under 28 minutes a game. the staff obviously knew of his limitations physically and behaved responsibly. you are not physically mature at 19 and some of the younger guys can take a beating early on that ages them down the road. chandler is one of those guys.

the roster last year was brittle and if you want to defend woodson, fine. but you can't blame tyson wearing down on tyson. he was forced to play more minutes than he should have, just as grunwald was forced to acquire old brittle players that disintegrated as soon as they put on knick uniforms. then you have to ask why grunwald was forced to sign brittle players.

do you know why he was forced to sign old brittle players?

Tyson wasn't on a minutes restriction in Dallas. He may have averaged 28 minutes a night but he played well over 28 minutes a night in many games that year. If your point is that Camby couldn't fill the role that Haywood did in Dallas, then I agree to some extent. But Tyson's minutes were not capped.

okay you don't have to say the minutes were capped or not-- the fact that a then 28 year old player was playing "only" 28 minutes basically makes the case all by itself.

haywood was only 31 that season. camby and sheed needed radio carbon dating.

Well saying a guy had his minutes capped because the other coaching staff 'obviously knew what it was doing' is different then saying he had one of the best back up centers in the league playing behind him. Tyson also collected more personal fouls that year then any other in his career. Could that have impacted his minutes and his style of play?

i have not done the research on who preceded whom so for now it's a chicken egg thing. in other words if they signed chandler first (which is likelier than the other way around), knowing of his limitations, and then signed haywood, then that shows a front office and a coaching staff that are on the same page.

do you get the impression that the knicks front office and coaching staff are on the same page?

I believe Haywood was expected to be their starter that year and then they got Tyson.

why? because they had an open competition for a starting center? fancy that. haywood was already 31 that season, around the same age as tyson is-- but haywood was a 4-year player so he had less wear and tear.

that said, the mavs still wanted to restrict his minutes, right? just like the knicks should have been doing with chandler, r-right?

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

misterearl wrote:Woody did some bad coaching.

As I remember it was 6 games and we won 2. JR played his worse ball. An underweight Chandler was dominated by Roy Hibbert. Lance Stephenson thought he was Michael Jordan. Ray Felton was not feeling it.

(Woody did some bad coaching?) WTF is bad coaching?

Indy was the better team.

bad regular season coaching gets revealed in the playoffs, just like fool's gold and jayvee players get exposed in the real season.

woodson's playoff record is embarrassing because his flaws as a coach are hidden in the regular season.

bad coaching is when you coddle and enable certain players and play favorites instead of molding an identity at the expense of a few regular-season wins.

i would have preferred a 5th or 6th seed last season if it meant a more balanced, cohesive, resilient, adaptable, professional, and rested team.

the knicks should have swept an undermanned and exhausted celtic team. they should have made the pacers series far more competitive.

the pacers may indeed be a better team but they were also better coached.

Just wondering who you thought played too many minutes. No one other than JR played over 2600 minutes. Obviously Kidd broke down under the wear and tear of the minutes given but I don't think Woodson over or under used other guys. Novak was over 1600 minutes. Prigs was just under 1300. A lot of posters say that Tyson played too many minutes but he was at 32 a game. Duncan and Garnett were almost there and have quite a bit more mileage and age then flu. Woodson had to use every guy other then Camby on the roster for significant minutes for parts of the season. Hearing about Shump's issues in the summer makes you wonder if he should have just been rested for the entire season. Now we know Camby's plantar fascia was really bad and he is out indefinitely.

obviously kidd and tyson played too many minutes. tyson made the jump from high school and has a lot of mileage on him plus he is inferior physically to garnett, as most athletes are. meanwhile all-time great duncan lost 20 pounds and took up swimming.

in fact, in terms of minutes, i think perennial knick fan favorite anthony played too many as well... in addition to not being in supreme shape.

bottom line woodson needed to play more people more consistent minutes. when i researched this last i noticed that minutes could vary widely from game to game for several players such as novak, prigioni, copeland. i think that's wrong and i think it was proven to be the wrong approach come the playoffs. because you don't build cohesion or confidence that way, and ironically you also wear people out.

Well Anthony was in great shape last year after being on the Olympic team and I thought you admitted that it might have been his body armour that made him look big after seeing pictures of him. Anthony's issue was D12 trying to end his career in December. Garnett came out of high school and is 9 years older then Tyson. Expecting a 29 year old to play 32 minutes isn't unrealistic. I think if a player that makes 14 mil, is 29 and can't do that it is more on the player then the coach.
I think most coaches favor and overplay a guy like Kidd. Kidd played just under 2700 minutes in 2011.

chandler was on a minute restriction in dallas-- under 28 minutes a game. the staff obviously knew of his limitations physically and behaved responsibly. you are not physically mature at 19 and some of the younger guys can take a beating early on that ages them down the road. chandler is one of those guys.

the roster last year was brittle and if you want to defend woodson, fine. but you can't blame tyson wearing down on tyson. he was forced to play more minutes than he should have, just as grunwald was forced to acquire old brittle players that disintegrated as soon as they put on knick uniforms. then you have to ask why grunwald was forced to sign brittle players.

do you know why he was forced to sign old brittle players?

Tyson wasn't on a minutes restriction in Dallas. He may have averaged 28 minutes a night but he played well over 28 minutes a night in many games that year. If your point is that Camby couldn't fill the role that Haywood did in Dallas, then I agree to some extent. But Tyson's minutes were not capped.

okay you don't have to say the minutes were capped or not-- the fact that a then 28 year old player was playing "only" 28 minutes basically makes the case all by itself.

haywood was only 31 that season. camby and sheed needed radio carbon dating.

Well saying a guy had his minutes capped because the other coaching staff 'obviously knew what it was doing' is different then saying he had one of the best back up centers in the league playing behind him. Tyson also collected more personal fouls that year then any other in his career. Could that have impacted his minutes and his style of play?

i have not done the research on who preceded whom so for now it's a chicken egg thing. in other words if they signed chandler first (which is likelier than the other way around), knowing of his limitations, and then signed haywood, then that shows a front office and a coaching staff that are on the same page.

do you get the impression that the knicks front office and coaching staff are on the same page?

I believe Haywood was expected to be their starter that year and then they got Tyson.

why? because they had an open competition for a starting center? fancy that. haywood was already 31 that season, around the same age as tyson is-- but haywood was a 4-year player so he had less wear and tear.

that said, the mavs still wanted to restrict his minutes, right? just like the knicks should have been doing with chandler, r-right?

Both guys were top 10 centers at that time. Tyson was a salary dump so Dallas did not expect to get him after they signed Haywood to a big deal. Not sure where the restricting minutes thing is coming from. First you said his minutes were capped. No you are saying they were restricted. Maybe it was because he had a top 10 guy behind him and he was more aggressive on defense and got into foul trouble. If there is an article saying they capped his minutes at 28 or that they were restricting his minutes please link to it.

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Papabear wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:I just hope that those who can't find anything good to say about the Knicks will do so when they're playing well and give them the credit they deserve. If your pride prevents you from doing so, then at least don't try to consistently make those who are enjoying the season as miserable as you are. That should be a bannable offense.

You're posting to tell us about how you hope others will post in a hypothetical situation?
Regardless, maybe one person here never says anything positive about the team but that's all I can think of.

Absolutely Im hoping people won't piss on this team incessantly when they're playing well and its more than one person. You make it sound like the Knicks playing well is far fetched.

That depends on what playing well means.

What's your standard?

The team should be either competing for a championship or rebuilding (towards a team that can compete for a championship). I don't see us doing either. In fact, I haven't seen the team do either even once this century.

So say this team goes on a ten game win streak, the team as a whole is playing well, you cant find anything good to say because of the way the roster is constructed?

I can say (and already have said) good things about individual players. It's gonna take more than an 10 game regular season winning streak to make me think the team is well constructed. Even Isiah's teams had some 6+ game winning streaks.

Papabear Says

Bonn Bonn Who really cares what you think.

Obviously Gustav cares immensely. Did you read his posts begging for positive comments from critics? I've seen you make similar posts too actually.

If I'm begging for anything its for you not to be an insufferable douche next season when the team is playing well. Whining about some arcane statistic after a win.

Maybe you'll feel better if you become more tolerant of diverse views, or perhaps if you can't do that, you can put me on ignore. I've been here almost 10 years. I'm not gonna change my posting just to make some relative newbie happy.

There is very little if any diversity in your views towards this squad. Its pretty much always negative. And as far as putting anyone on ignore, you're the one who keeps either replying to my posts or bringing up my name. If you don't like what I have to say then follow your own advice.

I'm not Mitt Romney - I don't "diversify" my views on a daily basis. Diversity doesn't occur within the individual but rather across individuals. Why would I put you on ignore? I haven't been disturbed by your posts and begging you to change.

You're only capable of whining incessantly about the team, because anything else would be too much for you to handle, is that it? My views on the state of this team are diverse. I see a franchise with strengths and weaknesses, on every level. From Dolan right down to the 12th man on the bench I am able to point out what I believe this team, is doing right, and what I believe they're doing wrong. Almost every poster here has that ability.

When they don't, its sifting through page after page of why the Knicks winning a game by 25pts is meaningless because of some BS statistic buried in the fine print. Doesn't matter if it has nothing to do with the topic at hand because you've been posting here for ten years and that's more important than anything else. Thanks Mitt.

Yet you don't want to put me on ignore. I guess you like torturing yourself.

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

misterearl wrote:Woody did some bad coaching.

As I remember it was 6 games and we won 2. JR played his worse ball. An underweight Chandler was dominated by Roy Hibbert. Lance Stephenson thought he was Michael Jordan. Ray Felton was not feeling it.

(Woody did some bad coaching?) WTF is bad coaching?

Indy was the better team.

bad regular season coaching gets revealed in the playoffs, just like fool's gold and jayvee players get exposed in the real season.

woodson's playoff record is embarrassing because his flaws as a coach are hidden in the regular season.

bad coaching is when you coddle and enable certain players and play favorites instead of molding an identity at the expense of a few regular-season wins.

i would have preferred a 5th or 6th seed last season if it meant a more balanced, cohesive, resilient, adaptable, professional, and rested team.

the knicks should have swept an undermanned and exhausted celtic team. they should have made the pacers series far more competitive.

the pacers may indeed be a better team but they were also better coached.

Just wondering who you thought played too many minutes. No one other than JR played over 2600 minutes. Obviously Kidd broke down under the wear and tear of the minutes given but I don't think Woodson over or under used other guys. Novak was over 1600 minutes. Prigs was just under 1300. A lot of posters say that Tyson played too many minutes but he was at 32 a game. Duncan and Garnett were almost there and have quite a bit more mileage and age then flu. Woodson had to use every guy other then Camby on the roster for significant minutes for parts of the season. Hearing about Shump's issues in the summer makes you wonder if he should have just been rested for the entire season. Now we know Camby's plantar fascia was really bad and he is out indefinitely.

obviously kidd and tyson played too many minutes. tyson made the jump from high school and has a lot of mileage on him plus he is inferior physically to garnett, as most athletes are. meanwhile all-time great duncan lost 20 pounds and took up swimming.

in fact, in terms of minutes, i think perennial knick fan favorite anthony played too many as well... in addition to not being in supreme shape.

bottom line woodson needed to play more people more consistent minutes. when i researched this last i noticed that minutes could vary widely from game to game for several players such as novak, prigioni, copeland. i think that's wrong and i think it was proven to be the wrong approach come the playoffs. because you don't build cohesion or confidence that way, and ironically you also wear people out.

Well Anthony was in great shape last year after being on the Olympic team and I thought you admitted that it might have been his body armour that made him look big after seeing pictures of him. Anthony's issue was D12 trying to end his career in December. Garnett came out of high school and is 9 years older then Tyson. Expecting a 29 year old to play 32 minutes isn't unrealistic. I think if a player that makes 14 mil, is 29 and can't do that it is more on the player then the coach.
I think most coaches favor and overplay a guy like Kidd. Kidd played just under 2700 minutes in 2011.

chandler was on a minute restriction in dallas-- under 28 minutes a game. the staff obviously knew of his limitations physically and behaved responsibly. you are not physically mature at 19 and some of the younger guys can take a beating early on that ages them down the road. chandler is one of those guys.

the roster last year was brittle and if you want to defend woodson, fine. but you can't blame tyson wearing down on tyson. he was forced to play more minutes than he should have, just as grunwald was forced to acquire old brittle players that disintegrated as soon as they put on knick uniforms. then you have to ask why grunwald was forced to sign brittle players.

do you know why he was forced to sign old brittle players?

Tyson wasn't on a minutes restriction in Dallas. He may have averaged 28 minutes a night but he played well over 28 minutes a night in many games that year. If your point is that Camby couldn't fill the role that Haywood did in Dallas, then I agree to some extent. But Tyson's minutes were not capped.

okay you don't have to say the minutes were capped or not-- the fact that a then 28 year old player was playing "only" 28 minutes basically makes the case all by itself.

haywood was only 31 that season. camby and sheed needed radio carbon dating.

Well saying a guy had his minutes capped because the other coaching staff 'obviously knew what it was doing' is different then saying he had one of the best back up centers in the league playing behind him. Tyson also collected more personal fouls that year then any other in his career. Could that have impacted his minutes and his style of play?

Papabear Says

Nice call Crush!! You caught some one actually lying not telling the truth and then they brush it off like it's no big deal. Yes it is a big deal when they keep throwing out stats and half thruths. You caught him and called him out good job. His credibility is already in the tank.

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Papabear wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:I just hope that those who can't find anything good to say about the Knicks will do so when they're playing well and give them the credit they deserve. If your pride prevents you from doing so, then at least don't try to consistently make those who are enjoying the season as miserable as you are. That should be a bannable offense.

You're posting to tell us about how you hope others will post in a hypothetical situation?
Regardless, maybe one person here never says anything positive about the team but that's all I can think of.

Absolutely Im hoping people won't piss on this team incessantly when they're playing well and its more than one person. You make it sound like the Knicks playing well is far fetched.

That depends on what playing well means.

What's your standard?

The team should be either competing for a championship or rebuilding (towards a team that can compete for a championship). I don't see us doing either. In fact, I haven't seen the team do either even once this century.

So say this team goes on a ten game win streak, the team as a whole is playing well, you cant find anything good to say because of the way the roster is constructed?

I can say (and already have said) good things about individual players. It's gonna take more than an 10 game regular season winning streak to make me think the team is well constructed. Even Isiah's teams had some 6+ game winning streaks.

Papabear Says

Bonn Bonn Who really cares what you think.

Obviously Gustav cares immensely. Did you read his posts begging for positive comments from critics? I've seen you make similar posts too actually.

If I'm begging for anything its for you not to be an insufferable douche next season when the team is playing well. Whining about some arcane statistic after a win.

Maybe you'll feel better if you become more tolerant of diverse views, or perhaps if you can't do that, you can put me on ignore. I've been here almost 10 years. I'm not gonna change my posting just to make some relative newbie happy.

There is very little if any diversity in your views towards this squad. Its pretty much always negative. And as far as putting anyone on ignore, you're the one who keeps either replying to my posts or bringing up my name. If you don't like what I have to say then follow your own advice.

I'm not Mitt Romney - I don't "diversify" my views on a daily basis. Diversity doesn't occur within the individual but rather across individuals. Why would I put you on ignore? I haven't been disturbed by your posts and begging you to change.

You're only capable of whining incessantly about the team, because anything else would be too much for you to handle, is that it? My views on the state of this team are diverse. I see a franchise with strengths and weaknesses, on every level. From Dolan right down to the 12th man on the bench I am able to point out what I believe this team, is doing right, and what I believe they're doing wrong. Almost every poster here has that ability.

When they don't, its sifting through page after page of why the Knicks winning a game by 25pts is meaningless because of some BS statistic buried in the fine print. Doesn't matter if it has nothing to do with the topic at hand because you've been posting here for ten years and that's more important than anything else. Thanks Mitt.

Yet you don't want to put me on ignore. I guess you like torturing yourself.

You're the one who seems obsessed with putting people on ignore. I usually stay out of these pie fights. Hard to ignore the same handful of posters derailing one thread after another during a season with unrelated issues, unrelenting negativity. If it was topical that wouldn't be a problem but too often is isn't.

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Papabear wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:I just hope that those who can't find anything good to say about the Knicks will do so when they're playing well and give them the credit they deserve. If your pride prevents you from doing so, then at least don't try to consistently make those who are enjoying the season as miserable as you are. That should be a bannable offense.

You're posting to tell us about how you hope others will post in a hypothetical situation?
Regardless, maybe one person here never says anything positive about the team but that's all I can think of.

Absolutely Im hoping people won't piss on this team incessantly when they're playing well and its more than one person. You make it sound like the Knicks playing well is far fetched.

That depends on what playing well means.

What's your standard?

The team should be either competing for a championship or rebuilding (towards a team that can compete for a championship). I don't see us doing either. In fact, I haven't seen the team do either even once this century.

So say this team goes on a ten game win streak, the team as a whole is playing well, you cant find anything good to say because of the way the roster is constructed?

I can say (and already have said) good things about individual players. It's gonna take more than an 10 game regular season winning streak to make me think the team is well constructed. Even Isiah's teams had some 6+ game winning streaks.

Papabear Says

Bonn Bonn Who really cares what you think.

Obviously Gustav cares immensely. Did you read his posts begging for positive comments from critics? I've seen you make similar posts too actually.

If I'm begging for anything its for you not to be an insufferable douche next season when the team is playing well. Whining about some arcane statistic after a win.

Maybe you'll feel better if you become more tolerant of diverse views, or perhaps if you can't do that, you can put me on ignore. I've been here almost 10 years. I'm not gonna change my posting just to make some relative newbie happy.

There is very little if any diversity in your views towards this squad. Its pretty much always negative. And as far as putting anyone on ignore, you're the one who keeps either replying to my posts or bringing up my name. If you don't like what I have to say then follow your own advice.

I'm not Mitt Romney - I don't "diversify" my views on a daily basis. Diversity doesn't occur within the individual but rather across individuals. Why would I put you on ignore? I haven't been disturbed by your posts and begging you to change.

You're only capable of whining incessantly about the team, because anything else would be too much for you to handle, is that it? My views on the state of this team are diverse. I see a franchise with strengths and weaknesses, on every level. From Dolan right down to the 12th man on the bench I am able to point out what I believe this team, is doing right, and what I believe they're doing wrong. Almost every poster here has that ability.

When they don't, its sifting through page after page of why the Knicks winning a game by 25pts is meaningless because of some BS statistic buried in the fine print. Doesn't matter if it has nothing to do with the topic at hand because you've been posting here for ten years and that's more important than anything else. Thanks Mitt.

Yet you don't want to put me on ignore. I guess you like torturing yourself.

You're the one who seems obsessed with putting people on ignore. I usually stay out of these pie fights. Hard to ignore the same handful of posters derailing one thread after another during a season with unrelated issues, unrelenting negativity. If it was topical that wouldn't be a problem but too often is isn't.

I've been here 10 years. I don't put people on ignore. I was trying to spare the board from your endless complaining. I figured if you don't see my posts, you won't whine about them.

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Papabear wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:I just hope that those who can't find anything good to say about the Knicks will do so when they're playing well and give them the credit they deserve. If your pride prevents you from doing so, then at least don't try to consistently make those who are enjoying the season as miserable as you are. That should be a bannable offense.

You're posting to tell us about how you hope others will post in a hypothetical situation?
Regardless, maybe one person here never says anything positive about the team but that's all I can think of.

Absolutely Im hoping people won't piss on this team incessantly when they're playing well and its more than one person. You make it sound like the Knicks playing well is far fetched.

That depends on what playing well means.

What's your standard?

The team should be either competing for a championship or rebuilding (towards a team that can compete for a championship). I don't see us doing either. In fact, I haven't seen the team do either even once this century.

So say this team goes on a ten game win streak, the team as a whole is playing well, you cant find anything good to say because of the way the roster is constructed?

I can say (and already have said) good things about individual players. It's gonna take more than an 10 game regular season winning streak to make me think the team is well constructed. Even Isiah's teams had some 6+ game winning streaks.

Papabear Says

Bonn Bonn Who really cares what you think.

Obviously Gustav cares immensely. Did you read his posts begging for positive comments from critics? I've seen you make similar posts too actually.

If I'm begging for anything its for you not to be an insufferable douche next season when the team is playing well. Whining about some arcane statistic after a win.

Maybe you'll feel better if you become more tolerant of diverse views, or perhaps if you can't do that, you can put me on ignore. I've been here almost 10 years. I'm not gonna change my posting just to make some relative newbie happy.

There is very little if any diversity in your views towards this squad. Its pretty much always negative. And as far as putting anyone on ignore, you're the one who keeps either replying to my posts or bringing up my name. If you don't like what I have to say then follow your own advice.

I'm not Mitt Romney - I don't "diversify" my views on a daily basis. Diversity doesn't occur within the individual but rather across individuals. Why would I put you on ignore? I haven't been disturbed by your posts and begging you to change.

You're only capable of whining incessantly about the team, because anything else would be too much for you to handle, is that it? My views on the state of this team are diverse. I see a franchise with strengths and weaknesses, on every level. From Dolan right down to the 12th man on the bench I am able to point out what I believe this team, is doing right, and what I believe they're doing wrong. Almost every poster here has that ability.

When they don't, its sifting through page after page of why the Knicks winning a game by 25pts is meaningless because of some BS statistic buried in the fine print. Doesn't matter if it has nothing to do with the topic at hand because you've been posting here for ten years and that's more important than anything else. Thanks Mitt.

Yet you don't want to put me on ignore. I guess you like torturing yourself.

You're the one who seems obsessed with putting people on ignore. I usually stay out of these pie fights. Hard to ignore the same handful of posters derailing one thread after another during a season with unrelated issues, unrelenting negativity. If it was topical that wouldn't be a problem but too often is isn't.

I've been here 10 years. I don't put people on ignore. I was trying to spare the board from your endless complaining. I figured if you don't see my posts, you won't whine about them.

You wrote the book on complaining Bonn, pretty much all you do is complain on this board, you and some other posters, which is a big part of what this thread is about now isn't it? I'm on topic. I rarely complain about anything here or anyone.

This was one rare comment on topic, out of the hundreds, if not thousands of pages here. Including your whining and whining about this team. If it was just about you this wouldn't be an issue as much as you are still trying to make it about you.

I probably would be more interested in all those numbers you regurgitate if they weren't used almost exclusively to show where this team or a player has regressed in some fashion, or is lacking. Which brings us right back where we started, hoping that next season every thread regardless of the subject doesn't devolve into a referendum on Melo and our allegedly doomed season. I will leave it at that.

You seem to have a bizarre distorted view of my comments anyway. I've praised most the players. The only ones I find frustrating and am more critical of are Melo, Bargnani, and JR because they could be much more efficient offensively than they are. I'm fairly positive towards about 2/3 of the players - they achieve about what I expect them to. (That doesn't mean I think the team is well-composed though.)

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on what transpired last season. I believe most of us want to talk about a variety of issues that affect the Knicks and that's hard to do when its all Melo all the time in one thread after another. Its one reason why posters such as myself are asking that we don't go through that again this season. Its no fun.

Bargs, has played all of two preseason games. As for JR, I have the same concerns but if he can put last season behind him with his play, the past won't matter. Its a new season, a fresh start. Go Knicks.

misterearl wrote:“Ain’t no pressure on him,” Anthony said with a smile. “You come here and do what you do — play ball. All the pressure’s on me. It should be easy for him. It should be an easy transition and adjustment for him. He can just come here, play basketball, do what he’s got to do and do it the right way. It should be easy for him."

As it should be easer for Knicks supporters to let go of the past and look forward to a new season. Reading the absolute negativism of crybabies like Mitch Lawrence who swears the Knicks will lose is the height of journalism fakery.

No way does woody improve, last playoffs proved he is same coach as in Atlanta- Ironwilgiroud

Really?

The Knicks have no leaders, compelling players, followable basketball story lines or likeable dudes. Forget Beno Uhrih, Isaiah Thomas is lurking behind every corner. It is all too much.

Foosballknick is correct. "All of the threads all summer long have finally worn me down and convinced me to contact the league office and petition that the Knicks not be allowed to even play this year out of pure ineptitude and evil that the Knicks emanate which will only cause the Knick fan base to eventually internally combust and will also only serve to rub off negatively on other teams."

Sheesh

I wonder if this thread will turn out better than "Everyone knows the Knicks are making the playoffs...so what's the problem" in which we went on to win 23 games. At which point you disappeared for 95% of the season and never owned up to your attacks of other forum members who simply didn't think the roster was that good.