Nate Robinson

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karllost. Show Karllost's posts

    Nate Robinson

    Not too much talk about losing Nate.. most of it centered around Perk.

    I was a big fan of getting Nate from the beginning and he showed some signs of being what I had hoped for in the playoffs.

    This season hes been a big disappointment. Hes had to try and play PG and for the most part, its been a failure. Worse yet, hes missed so many open shots which killed his value to us, it should have been his strong point..

    He looked great running with DW preseason... too bad they couldnt hook up during the reg season.. maybe Nate would still be here.

    Even with his playing out of the system occassionally ....the one thing we couldnt have was Nate missing too many open shots or taking too many ill advised ones.

    Evaluating his time here, its clear it didnt work out as planned. I thought it would but I was wrong.... he just could never get it going consistently or have his game mature enough to stay here.

    Everytime he stepped on the court I was hopefull he would have one of those games... like he did with the Knicks.  We saw little glimpses of it, but never the full monty.

    Even odder, as a 2x NBA dunk champ, I cant recall Nate ever jamming one for the Celtics during a game.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    Watching Aaron Brooks last night I saw what Nate could have been.  The only thing is Brooks is and Nate is no longer. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from JamezHill24. Show JamezHill24's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    i think he lost wat made him good, which was his edge. he was turned into a traditional pg, and i think that hurt him bc it took away his spark.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from cole-ely. Show cole-ely's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    Nate was a much better fit with last year's second unit, and team in general.  They needed offense from somewhere and were willing to take it one on one.  That's not celtic basketball though, and I was surprised they even signed him this year.  I doubt he'll get much run in OKC, stuck behind maynor in the 2nd unit.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from charliedarling. Show charliedarling's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    nate did not have a good season for the celtics and i am sure that he wanted to do better than he did.

    but, he always played hard and seemed to be a great teammate, so i wish him well and hope that he finds a place where he can play and contribute to his team.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Celtsfan4life. Show Celtsfan4life's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    The "Nate Experiment" failed because Nate's offense fell apart.  His shot was erratic and that's what he offered. He was supposed to be Eddie House with more versatility.  Well, he couldn't defend (too small), couldn't be a good point guard, took ill-advised shots, and his shots weren't falling.   I bet Danny could live with all of those problems IF he shot was falling.  But, that was the straw that broke the camel's back.  

    I loved his energy and enthusiasm.  He was a good teammate (you never saw him complaining about minutes or other things).  I'll miss that and hope he does well at OKC.

    But, I won't miss his ill-advised shots and his erratic shooting.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    Good luck to Nate.  
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from celticjay. Show celticjay's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    Don't miss Nate in the least.  Looks like a fun guy to hang out with but that's about it..  Certainly don't miss his showboating bird move when he hit a bucket..  
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karllost. Show Karllost's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    Hard to understand why his shot disappeared. I think he'd still be here if it didnt.

    He had himself plenty of good, open looks but just couldnt bury them.

    I think the Celts thought Nate turned the corner last season after he was benched...didnt whine and kept his head in the game.  When he finally got a chance again, he delivered and was a big part of winning a couple playoff games.

    Off that momentum, I was glad we resigned Nate.

    He & DW formed what looked to be a great 2nd unit backcourt ni preseason. Too bad they never really got a chance to use it during the regular season.

    Instead, Nate tried to learn PG for the team and it just wasnt to be. Prob wrecked the rest of his game too..

    I hope Nate does great in OKC, we may see him again in the finals
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from COMMUNIST-CONTRARIAN. Show COMMUNIST-CONTRARIAN's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    In Response to Re: Nate Robinson:
    [QUOTE]i think he lost wat made him good, which was his edge. he was turned into a traditional pg, and i think that hurt him bc it took away his spark.
    Posted by JamezHill24[/QUOTE] brooks has made the transition from street ball to being a pro.. he can go both ways but most of the time he operates as a traditional pg! nate was playing good defense most of the time unless there was a postup or an actual jump shot! nate was a high volume, inefficient scorer.. doesnt shoot high or consistent enough for a winning team to justify him being out there... nate will play another 3 years at the most and will end up with cleveland or the clippers... before going to europe or china..
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from jrleftfoot. Show jrleftfoot's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    Certain posters insisted he was better than rondo. Guys with ud in their names. Maybe they`ll switch their allegiance to OKC. One can only hope.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karllost. Show Karllost's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    In Response to Re: Nate Robinson:
    [QUOTE]Certain posters insisted he was better than rondo. Guys with ud in their names. Maybe they`ll switch their allegiance to OKC. One can only hope.
    Posted by jrleftfoot[/QUOTE]

    LMAO!!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheDUDDER. Show TheDUDDER's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    In Response to Re: Nate Robinson:
    [QUOTE]Watching Aaron Brooks last night I saw what Nate could have been.  The only thing is Brooks is and Nate is no longer. 
    Posted by concord27[/QUOTE]

    Brooks is much quicker, has a much better handle, and is a pure shooter.  Nate is a streak / emotional shooter and nowhere near the player that Brooks is.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    Dudder,
    If you read the two lines I wrote I was saying the same thing.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheDUDDER. Show TheDUDDER's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    In Response to Re: Nate Robinson:
    [QUOTE]Dudder, If you read the two lines I wrote I was saying the same thing.
    Posted by concord27[/QUOTE]

    If you say "Nate is no longer" in my tiny little mind it implies that at some point he was.  He never was, so I wrote what I wrote. 

    You wrote "Nate is no longer", I was simply trying to say that they basically should not even be mentioned in the same sentence and certainly should not be compared to each other currently or in the past.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from cole-ely. Show cole-ely's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    I'm not surprised nate's shot stopped falling...I'm surprised it ever did.  I thought his shotput form was terrible.  The reason guys like RA and House have been so consistent it because their form is solid.  Odd form = streaky shooting at best.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    Dudder,
    How many forty point games did Nate have as a Knick? Several. He even had fifty once. The guy was an offensive creator that could always get a good shot. The problem in Boston was he could get a shot but could not make it often enough. Brooks is a beautiful looking shooter but if you look at his shooting percentage it is in the low forties.  So it seems I or we always see him when he is hitting.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from TheDUDDER. Show TheDUDDER's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    In Response to Re: Nate Robinson:
    [QUOTE]Dudder, How many forty point games did Nate have as a Knick? Several. He even had fifty once. The guy was an offensive creator that could always get a good shot. The problem in Boston was he could get a shot but could not make it often enough. Brooks is a beautiful looking shooter but if you look at his shooting percentage it is in the low forties.  So it seems I or we always see him when he is hitting.
    Posted by concord27[/QUOTE]

    Nate would have an occasional big game here or there but the reason we know about it is because of his size, his dunk contest wins, etc.  He is hardly what I would call a great scorer, etc.  On his best day he could be periodically be the micro-wave but the reason we see Brooks score a lot when he plays agains the Green is because the guy guarding him is overrated.  Last time the Cs played Houston, I believe Brooks had 24 and 9 and Rondo was completely outplayed and the Cs lost.  Not much of a shock there to me at least.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from JayShizzle45. Show JayShizzle45's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    too bad about Nate, but I disagree about him playing the PG position. I thought he was starting to make strides as a playmaker and there were numerous games where he setup people with good passes and showed he could distribute, but the problem is he was more valuble to us as a scorer and without him scoring he is a liability cuz he gives up points on the other end,

    I commend him for trying and atleast upgrading his game forward by learning to play team ball.  The only thing that makes this easier is the fact we have D.West back and can score, pass and defend, but I liked Nate and what he brought when he was here.  I called him a gimmick player when he was signed and he proved me wrong, and actually like someone said, never even attempted a dunk.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Karllost. Show Karllost's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    Nate started out looking good at PG when Rondo first went down... but slowly began losing it.   I think hacing to play more under control & having the additional responsibility of being a PG was overload for him.

    Remember Doc telling Nate he has to demand the ball from PP and Nate wouldnt do it.... he deferred to PP... It was too much to handle for him, too much thinking, too much responsibility.. Nate just wants to get on the court and fly..

    All his years in the league and hes still a raw talent..

    Ive watched alot of Knick games when he was there and he could light it up like few others.  40- 50 points coming off the bench />???  Thats sick!!!

    Nate never got into his groove with Boston for more than 2-3 games in a row, if that. He also never got a chance to get back to playing alongside a PG like DW and try getting his game back...  maybe his shooting wouldnt have been so bad if they never switched him to PG but hey, we had no choice.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from KGLove. Show KGLove's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    Nate is the reason Perk is gone, no one would just take Nate (dont blame them)... (But let's not forget how much better he is than Rondo : / ) I was definitely happy about him coming in the trade for House, i still think that was a good trade he played well for us in the playoffs.  This year watching him dribble over half court and chuck up a quick 3 over and over again was so annoying to watch, so yea I'm glad he's gone but sad Perk had to go with him.  Wish them both a speedy recovery and best of luck, would love to see them help take out the Lakers.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    In Response to Re: Nate Robinson:
    [QUOTE]Nate is the reason Perk is gone, no one would just take Nate (dont blame them)... (But let's not forget how much better he is than Rondo : / ) I was definitely happy about him coming in the trade for House, i still think that was a good trade he played well for us in the playoffs.  This year watching him dribble over half court and chuck up a quick 3 over and over again was so annoying to watch, so yea I'm glad he's gone but sad Perk had to go with him.  Wish them both a speedy recovery and best of luck, would love to see them help take out the Lakers.
    Posted by KGLove[/QUOTE]

    No! No! NO! 

    Why let the Thunder take out the Lakers? 

    The Celts should be the one taking out the Lakers.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hetchinspete. Show Hetchinspete's posts

    Re: Nate Robinson

    In Response to Re: Nate Robinson:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Nate Robinson : Nate would have an occasional big game here or there but the reason we know about it is because of his size, his dunk contest wins, etc.  He is hardly what I would call a great scorer, etc.  On his best day he could be periodically be the micro-wave but the reason we see Brooks score a lot when he plays agains the Green is because the guy guarding him is overrated.  Last time the Cs played Houston, I believe Brooks had 24 and 9 and Rondo was completely outplayed and the Cs lost.  Not much of a shock there to me at least.
    Posted by TheDUDDER[/QUOTE]

    Dud,

    I useto enjoy reading your post ocassionally, but now I find you a tired bore. About the only thing you ever bring to this forum is you consistant whining about how bad Rondo is. If you haven't noticed by now you're in a small minority in this town with your mindless chatter about how bad Rondo is. Move to another town where they have a point guard you enjoy. I'm sure in time you'll findsomething to complain about there as well. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share