Knicks · Knicks Head Coach Updates (page 4)

newyorker4ever @ 5/16/2016 4:37 PM
crzymdups wrote:
crzymdups wrote:Knicks interviewed Hornacek, too.

Interesting addendum - Howard Beck posted this back in February

Nice find.

crzymdups @ 5/16/2016 4:40 PM
newyorker4ever wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
crzymdups wrote:Knicks interviewed Hornacek, too.

Interesting addendum - Howard Beck posted this back in February

Nice find.

He bumped it himself. can't take credit

crzymdups @ 5/16/2016 4:42 PM
martin @ 5/16/2016 4:46 PM
crzymdups wrote:

Phil is lying to us again. I thought he was on vaca doing nothing? What's this Vogel and Hornacek interviewing stuff?!?!? It's so frustrating

crzymdups @ 5/16/2016 4:49 PM
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:

Phil is lying to us again. I thought he was on vaca doing nothing? What's this Vogel and Hornacek interviewing stuff?!?!? It's so frustrating


Vmart @ 5/16/2016 4:56 PM
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:

Phil is lying to us again. I thought he was on vaca doing nothing? What's this Vogel and Hornacek interviewing stuff?!?!? It's so frustrating

How dare Phil misdirect the media like this.

nixluva @ 5/16/2016 5:28 PM
Vmart wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:

Phil is lying to us again. I thought he was on vaca doing nothing? What's this Vogel and Hornacek interviewing stuff?!?!? It's so frustrating

How dare Phil misdirect the media like this.


Apparently Phil is horrible at being lazy and unproductive. He was supposed to be sitting in a rocking chair smoking weed. How is it he's doing all these interviews? He's ruining his rep as a money grabbing, lazy, stubborn and senile old man.
crzymdups @ 5/16/2016 5:36 PM
So the guys who were doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire are now breathing a sigh of relief, huh? That'd be a tough one to have to defend, am I right?
martin @ 5/16/2016 5:40 PM
crzymdups wrote:So the guys who were doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire are now breathing a sigh of relief, huh? That'd be a tough one to have to defend, am I right?

Seriously, who was doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire?

I'd be OK with the hire cause I think continuity would be OK but I'd also be OK and think it would be a better idea to hire Blatt.

Who are the doggedly defending Rambis people?

reub @ 5/16/2016 5:42 PM
Phil has 13 rings (not 11). I trust in him. Don't let the negativity get to you. We're going to be good. And soon.
crzymdups @ 5/16/2016 5:47 PM
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:So the guys who were doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire are now breathing a sigh of relief, huh? That'd be a tough one to have to defend, am I right?

Seriously, who was doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire?

I'd be OK with the hire cause I think continuity would be OK but I'd also be OK and think it would be a better idea to hire Blatt.

Who are the doggedly defending Rambis people?

There were plenty of people who said it wasn't fair to judge him by his record in NY or Minnesota, or by the team's performance in the second half of the season, or by the fact that none of his players have ever said anything nice about him as a coach.

I can try to find the threads - but actually, I'm pretty sure you were one of them and then nixluva, and one of the newyorkforever or newyorkernewyorky guys. If you really want me to find those threads, I can... but really the important point is that hopefully Phil has moved on. I suppose he could always double back and hire Rambis. We'll see.

martin @ 5/16/2016 6:07 PM
crzymdups wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:So the guys who were doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire are now breathing a sigh of relief, huh? That'd be a tough one to have to defend, am I right?

Seriously, who was doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire?

I'd be OK with the hire cause I think continuity would be OK but I'd also be OK and think it would be a better idea to hire Blatt.

Who are the doggedly defending Rambis people?

There were plenty of people who said it wasn't fair to judge him by his record in NY or Minnesota, or by the team's performance in the second half of the season, or by the fact that none of his players have ever said anything nice about him as a coach.

I can try to find the threads - but actually, I'm pretty sure you were one of them and then nixluva, and one of the newyorkforever or newyorkernewyorky guys. If you really want me to find those threads, I can... but really the important point is that hopefully Phil has moved on. I suppose he could always double back and hire Rambis. We'll see.

There is one thing to defend an argument that involves Rambis but what you are suggesting is that there are tons of people who WANT and WOULD ADVOCATE for Rambis. I think you'll find crickets on that.

nyk4ever @ 5/16/2016 6:16 PM
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:So the guys who were doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire are now breathing a sigh of relief, huh? That'd be a tough one to have to defend, am I right?

Seriously, who was doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire?

I'd be OK with the hire cause I think continuity would be OK but I'd also be OK and think it would be a better idea to hire Blatt.

Who are the doggedly defending Rambis people?

There were plenty of people who said it wasn't fair to judge him by his record in NY or Minnesota, or by the team's performance in the second half of the season, or by the fact that none of his players have ever said anything nice about him as a coach.

I can try to find the threads - but actually, I'm pretty sure you were one of them and then nixluva, and one of the newyorkforever or newyorkernewyorky guys. If you really want me to find those threads, I can... but really the important point is that hopefully Phil has moved on. I suppose he could always double back and hire Rambis. We'll see.

There is one thing to defend an argument that involves Rambis but what you are suggesting is that there are tons of people who WANT and WOULD ADVOCATE for Rambis. I think you'll find crickets on that.

yeah, i agree with this. i think most people would just accept that IF rambis were to be hired, that they are ok with it because they trust what phil is doing. i don't think anyone is on this board outwardly advocating for phil to hire rambis though. i haven't seen that one.

newyorknewyork @ 5/16/2016 6:32 PM
crzymdups wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:So the guys who were doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire are now breathing a sigh of relief, huh? That'd be a tough one to have to defend, am I right?

Seriously, who was doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire?

I'd be OK with the hire cause I think continuity would be OK but I'd also be OK and think it would be a better idea to hire Blatt.

Who are the doggedly defending Rambis people?

There were plenty of people who said it wasn't fair to judge him by his record in NY or Minnesota, or by the team's performance in the second half of the season, or by the fact that none of his players have ever said anything nice about him as a coach.

I can try to find the threads - but actually, I'm pretty sure you were one of them and then nixluva, and one of the newyorkforever or newyorkernewyorky guys. If you really want me to find those threads, I can... but really the important point is that hopefully Phil has moved on. I suppose he could always double back and hire Rambis. We'll see.

My preference would be Vogal.

Whoever Phil hires as coach there will be specific reasoning behind it. If he hires a big name coach who agreed to run the triangle and everyone was on the same page that's cool. If he hired a big name coach and decided that he would let the coach run what ever he wanted and he would step back. That would be cool. If he can't find a big name coach that's willing to run triangle and he is determined to run it then giving Rambis another season is cool. What's not cool would be hiring a big name coach and then butting heads with him about how the team is being run months later.

As long as we are under the stipulations of Phil wanting to run triangle and wanting to be hands on. Then hiring a big name coach doesn't really matter as much other then have g a big name for the sake of it. How successful was Wilkens, Brown, D'Antoni here as coaches? Y didn't they have more success?

knicks1248 @ 5/16/2016 6:54 PM
nyk4ever wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:So the guys who were doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire are now breathing a sigh of relief, huh? That'd be a tough one to have to defend, am I right?

Seriously, who was doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire?

I'd be OK with the hire cause I think continuity would be OK but I'd also be OK and think it would be a better idea to hire Blatt.

Who are the doggedly defending Rambis people?

There were plenty of people who said it wasn't fair to judge him by his record in NY or Minnesota, or by the team's performance in the second half of the season, or by the fact that none of his players have ever said anything nice about him as a coach.

I can try to find the threads - but actually, I'm pretty sure you were one of them and then nixluva, and one of the newyorkforever or newyorkernewyorky guys. If you really want me to find those threads, I can... but really the important point is that hopefully Phil has moved on. I suppose he could always double back and hire Rambis. We'll see.

There is one thing to defend an argument that involves Rambis but what you are suggesting is that there are tons of people who WANT and WOULD ADVOCATE for Rambis. I think you'll find crickets on that.

yeah, i agree with this. i think most people would just accept that IF rambis were to be hired, that they are ok with it because they trust what phil is doing. i don't think anyone is on this board outwardly advocating for phil to hire rambis though. i haven't seen that one.

He already screwed up on the first coach he hired, so it's not like I can have full trust in him, all I can do is pray he doesn't make the same mistake twice, and hiring rambis after fisher, is nothing to write home about.

CrushAlot @ 5/16/2016 7:01 PM
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:So the guys who were doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire are now breathing a sigh of relief, huh? That'd be a tough one to have to defend, am I right?

Seriously, who was doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire?

I'd be OK with the hire cause I think continuity would be OK but I'd also be OK and think it would be a better idea to hire Blatt.

Who are the doggedly defending Rambis people?

There were plenty of people who said it wasn't fair to judge him by his record in NY or Minnesota, or by the team's performance in the second half of the season, or by the fact that none of his players have ever said anything nice about him as a coach.

I can try to find the threads - but actually, I'm pretty sure you were one of them and then nixluva, and one of the newyorkforever or newyorkernewyorky guys. If you really want me to find those threads, I can... but really the important point is that hopefully Phil has moved on. I suppose he could always double back and hire Rambis. We'll see.

There is one thing to defend an argument that involves Rambis but what you are suggesting is that there are tons of people who WANT and WOULD ADVOCATE for Rambis. I think you'll find crickets on that.

I agree. I can't think of a single poster doggedly defending a potential Rambis hire. However, if there is a thread with someone that was I would love a link.
Malcolm @ 5/16/2016 7:04 PM
knicks1248 wrote:He already screwed up on the first coach he hired, so it's not like I can have full trust
in him, all I can do is pray he doesn't make the same mistake twice, and hiring rambis
after fisher, is nothing to write home about.
Well, the question is . . . what does "same mistake" mean (?)

Hiring Fisher was a mistake.

If he really wanted to hire Rambis in year one instead, then making the "same mistake"
would be to NOT hire Rambis now.

crzymdups @ 5/16/2016 7:06 PM
CrushAlot wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:So the guys who were doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire are now breathing a sigh of relief, huh? That'd be a tough one to have to defend, am I right?

Seriously, who was doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire?

I'd be OK with the hire cause I think continuity would be OK but I'd also be OK and think it would be a better idea to hire Blatt.

Who are the doggedly defending Rambis people?

There were plenty of people who said it wasn't fair to judge him by his record in NY or Minnesota, or by the team's performance in the second half of the season, or by the fact that none of his players have ever said anything nice about him as a coach.

I can try to find the threads - but actually, I'm pretty sure you were one of them and then nixluva, and one of the newyorkforever or newyorkernewyorky guys. If you really want me to find those threads, I can... but really the important point is that hopefully Phil has moved on. I suppose he could always double back and hire Rambis. We'll see.

There is one thing to defend an argument that involves Rambis but what you are suggesting is that there are tons of people who WANT and WOULD ADVOCATE for Rambis. I think you'll find crickets on that.

I agree. I can't think of a single poster doggedly defending a potential Rambis hire. However, if there is a thread with someone that was I would love a link.

I'm sorry, y'all being ridiculous. Any time I mentioned Rambis would be a bad hire multiple people, predominantly martin and nix, jumped to Phil and Rambis's defense. I'm not going to waste my time arguing it here or looking up threads to remind you of what you said. If you agree Rambis would be a bad hire, why did you jump down my throat whenever I said as much?

And if the idea that Rambis is the first choice is made up by "Phil haters" why has every single NBA writer from Ken Berger to Ramona Shelburne REPORTED IN PUBLISHED REPORTS WHERE THEIR REPUTATION IS AT STAKE said that Rambis is his first preference? Do you think they're making this up? Are they the real Phil haters? This is ridiculous.

CrushAlot @ 5/16/2016 7:13 PM
crzymdups wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:So the guys who were doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire are now breathing a sigh of relief, huh? That'd be a tough one to have to defend, am I right?

Seriously, who was doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire?

I'd be OK with the hire cause I think continuity would be OK but I'd also be OK and think it would be a better idea to hire Blatt.

Who are the doggedly defending Rambis people?

There were plenty of people who said it wasn't fair to judge him by his record in NY or Minnesota, or by the team's performance in the second half of the season, or by the fact that none of his players have ever said anything nice about him as a coach.

I can try to find the threads - but actually, I'm pretty sure you were one of them and then nixluva, and one of the newyorkforever or newyorkernewyorky guys. If you really want me to find those threads, I can... but really the important point is that hopefully Phil has moved on. I suppose he could always double back and hire Rambis. We'll see.

There is one thing to defend an argument that involves Rambis but what you are suggesting is that there are tons of people who WANT and WOULD ADVOCATE for Rambis. I think you'll find crickets on that.

I agree. I can't think of a single poster doggedly defending a potential Rambis hire. However, if there is a thread with someone that was I would love a link.

I'm sorry, y'all being ridiculous. Any time I mentioned Rambis would be a bad hire multiple people, predominantly martin and nix, jumped to Phil and Rambis's defense. I'm not going to waste my time arguing it here or looking up threads to remind you of what you said. If you agree Rambis would be a bad hire, why did you jump down my throat whenever I said as much?

And if the idea that Rambis is the first choice is made up by "Phil haters" why has every single NBA writer from Ken Berger to Ramona Shelburne REPORTED IN PUBLISHED REPORTS WHERE THEIR REPUTATION IS AT STAKE said that Rambis is his first preference? Do you think they're making this up? Are they the real Phil haters? This is ridiculous.

Has anyone questioned that Phil would like Rambis in the job? I think Rambis's performance put him in jeopardy of not being hired. I think that was why he wasn't at the exit meetings. I think Phil and Mills wanted players to talk candidly about Rambis. Also, accepting that Rambis might be the guy because he is who Phil wants and he is the guy that allows Phil a coaching voice is very different from endorsing and defending Rambis. The only endorsement I can think of is from guys saying to save the free agent money and tank again with Rambis. And I don't think many posters have been saying that.
martin @ 5/16/2016 7:18 PM
crzymdups wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:So the guys who were doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire are now breathing a sigh of relief, huh? That'd be a tough one to have to defend, am I right?

Seriously, who was doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire?

I'd be OK with the hire cause I think continuity would be OK but I'd also be OK and think it would be a better idea to hire Blatt.

Who are the doggedly defending Rambis people?

There were plenty of people who said it wasn't fair to judge him by his record in NY or Minnesota, or by the team's performance in the second half of the season, or by the fact that none of his players have ever said anything nice about him as a coach.

I can try to find the threads - but actually, I'm pretty sure you were one of them and then nixluva, and one of the newyorkforever or newyorkernewyorky guys. If you really want me to find those threads, I can... but really the important point is that hopefully Phil has moved on. I suppose he could always double back and hire Rambis. We'll see.

There is one thing to defend an argument that involves Rambis but what you are suggesting is that there are tons of people who WANT and WOULD ADVOCATE for Rambis. I think you'll find crickets on that.

I agree. I can't think of a single poster doggedly defending a potential Rambis hire. However, if there is a thread with someone that was I would love a link.

I'm sorry, y'all being ridiculous. Any time I mentioned Rambis would be a bad hire multiple people, predominantly martin and nix, jumped to Phil and Rambis's defense. I'm not going to waste my time arguing it here or looking up threads to remind you of what you said. If you agree Rambis would be a bad hire, why did you jump down my throat whenever I said as much?

And if the idea that Rambis is the first choice is made up by "Phil haters" why has every single NBA writer from Ken Berger to Ramona Shelburne REPORTED IN PUBLISHED REPORTS WHERE THEIR REPUTATION IS AT STAKE said that Rambis is his first preference? Do you think they're making this up? Are they the real Phil haters? This is ridiculous.

you are definitely wasting your time and ours. Even nix has said over and over and over again that his preference is not Rambis.

You want to make an argument, you can make it for yourself but no need to put words or arguments into mine. No thanks. Google is your friend, you want to find where others have posted something you need to reference or argue against, please have at it.

crzymdups @ 5/16/2016 7:21 PM
CrushAlot wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
CrushAlot wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:So the guys who were doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire are now breathing a sigh of relief, huh? That'd be a tough one to have to defend, am I right?

Seriously, who was doggedly defending the potential Rambis hire?

I'd be OK with the hire cause I think continuity would be OK but I'd also be OK and think it would be a better idea to hire Blatt.

Who are the doggedly defending Rambis people?

There were plenty of people who said it wasn't fair to judge him by his record in NY or Minnesota, or by the team's performance in the second half of the season, or by the fact that none of his players have ever said anything nice about him as a coach.

I can try to find the threads - but actually, I'm pretty sure you were one of them and then nixluva, and one of the newyorkforever or newyorkernewyorky guys. If you really want me to find those threads, I can... but really the important point is that hopefully Phil has moved on. I suppose he could always double back and hire Rambis. We'll see.

There is one thing to defend an argument that involves Rambis but what you are suggesting is that there are tons of people who WANT and WOULD ADVOCATE for Rambis. I think you'll find crickets on that.

I agree. I can't think of a single poster doggedly defending a potential Rambis hire. However, if there is a thread with someone that was I would love a link.

I'm sorry, y'all being ridiculous. Any time I mentioned Rambis would be a bad hire multiple people, predominantly martin and nix, jumped to Phil and Rambis's defense. I'm not going to waste my time arguing it here or looking up threads to remind you of what you said. If you agree Rambis would be a bad hire, why did you jump down my throat whenever I said as much?

And if the idea that Rambis is the first choice is made up by "Phil haters" why has every single NBA writer from Ken Berger to Ramona Shelburne REPORTED IN PUBLISHED REPORTS WHERE THEIR REPUTATION IS AT STAKE said that Rambis is his first preference? Do you think they're making this up? Are they the real Phil haters? This is ridiculous.

Has anyone questioned that Phil would like Rambis in the job? I think Rambis's performance put him in jeopardy of not being hired. I think that was why he wasn't at the exit meetings. I think Phil and Mills wanted players to talk candidly about Rambis. Also, accepting that Rambis might be the guy because he is who Phil wants and he is the guy that allows Phil a coaching voice is very different from endorsing and defending Rambis. The only endorsement I can think of is from guys saying to save the free agent money and tank again with Rambis. And I don't think many posters have been saying that.

If Phil's secret plan is to maximize the value of the 2017 pick and also force Melo to accept a trade for young players and picks... then Rambis would make sense. But even then I wouldn't want him for a long-term coach and I worry about the detriment he'd have on KP's game, which severely backslid under Rambis. But if Phil is all in for a full rebuild, Rambis makes some sense... but just so we're clear the sense hiring Rambis would make is that it'd be tanking. It'd be tanking hard core.

I happen to think Phil might've wanted Rambis but that Mills, Melo, Dolan are not on board with that plan. I mean, maybe tanking for 16-17 is the right move. I don't even know anymore. I guess I don't enjoy Phil's mind games.

Page 4 of 6
Back to Knicks Forum
2026 © UltimateKnicks.com