Marc Berman: Fatter, or Stupider?

This is a tough call. I’ll let you help me answer the question in the title. But first consider this, written by Berman in his blog this weekend:

When D’Antoni took this job, he promised he would adjust to the cast. Let’s see him do that the next three weeks instead of throwing Curry out there to look bad and to fail.

Maybe Mike can even call Isiah Thomas and ask him about the systems he ran for Eddy during his near All-Star campaign two seasons ago when he got double and triple-teamed. Mike said he would use Isiah as a resource and I’d bet they haven’t talked once this season.

Curry is still talking about how much he cares, how much he wants to help, how much he wants to play. He’s a sensitive sort and needs the head coach to embrace him, not make wise cracks that he didn’t play him in the second half because “I didn’t want him to foul out.”

Were those “systems” Isiah set up for Curry so great? The Knicks won 33 games that year, and they didn’t have their lottery pick. Chicago had it. They got it from Isiah. For Curry. Mike D’Antoni’s Suns won 61 games that year. No team Isiah has been involved with as an executive or coach has ever broken 48 wins.

So I don’t think Mike D’Antoni should be asking Isiah Thomas about anything having to do with basketball.

As for Curry being a “sensitive sort”, maybe it’s an unwritten code that unashamed, unapologetic slobs stand up for one another. So Berman, you played your part. But it’s not D’Antoni’s job to coddle Curry. At least not when Curry can’t get in the requisite shape to play more than 2-3 minutes a game, or damage his knees beneath the aggregated lard of so many Big Macs. When Curry shows some respect for his job, his teammates, his team, and the fans, then maybe D’Antoni should cut him some slack. Then again, if that happens, Curry won’t be a fat slob, so D’Antoni won’t have to. Besides, what D’Antoni said was a joke. Much like Berman’s tenure with the Post since about 2004.

UPDATE: Writing about Chris Duhon’s take on the frequent roster turnover on the team this season, Berman stated:

When Duhon chose the Knicks over Orlando last July, he didn’t realize the team was more concerned about 2010.

Really? Then why did he sign a 2 year deal? That’s not typical in the NBA. What did Duhon think that was all about? Berman offers no quote from Duhon or further explanation.

That said…

[poll id=”12″]

13 comments

  1. Jon

    This is such a non-issue to me. In large part because the Garden leadership (namely Donnie Walsh) has already taken responsibility for the Knicks missing the playoffs. In Isola’s column that I posted up on the blog yesterday, he said that the trades he made caused the Knicks to miss to the dance, but that the Knicks have BIGGER PLANS than getting swept out of the playoffs in 4 games. Oh well.

  2. Heri

    Now that the Knicks rolled over, you change your mind again? You were pretty happy and looking forward to a little playoff development for this team when they were crawling towards the playoffs.

    It’s fine for Walsh to take credit for the trades and missing the playoffs, but the trades weren’t the only reason for missing the playoffs. Who takes credit for the rest?

    Who takes credit for the Marbury saga? Why wasn’t he traded instead of played in the pre season and ostracized after? This led to trades and a lack of communication in which D was stuck with a player he had ostracized, but needed due Walsh’s trades because it left D short handed.

    Should we blame this on Marbury, or do we blame it on the rain?

    Taking credit for the trades alone is covering the biggest reason for missing the playoffs and what will do damage the most. How about the draft pick with the uncertain future?

    Should we call it a B.U.S.T in his first season or is that being too rough and mean? He’s been called everything from a Bird to an uncertain future. His health is really the biggest reason for the Knicks latest failure, no matter what you call it.

  3. Dan L

    “Should we blame this on Marbury, or do we blame it on the rain?”

    Marbury. The rain didn’t play a role.

    “Should we call it a B.U.S.T in his first season or is that being too rough and mean? ”

    No. The Knicks played 500 ball when he played. That’s more than the Nets can say for Lopez or the Clippers can say for Gordon.

  4. Pingback: Berman Refocus…An Apology (Kinda) | The Knicks FanBlog
  5. Heri

    Wrong answer because the rain and Marbury are the same to the organization. Do you feel it’s cool to be ostracized, only to end up being needed by he who ostracized you?

    Blaming it on Marbury or the rain gives away the Knicks power to avoid this type of bull and become a better and winning organization.

    The only way to become better is to take back the power by blaming the organization. This way the organization can change because the organization can never change Marbury or the rain.

    The organization must never have a player ostracized only to end up needing the ostracized player.
    It should be so obvious that it would lead to nothing really good.

    Winning took a back seat here to Marbury and the rain.

    • Dan L

      If you’re saying that the Knicks should have acquired a back-up point guard if they knew they weren’t going to play Marbury then I agree with you.

  6. Dan L

    “only to end up being needed by he who ostracized you?”

    Yea, that’s exactly what the Knicks have been missing all year. Marbury.

  7. Heri

    Not really Marbury, but a back up point guard that could had saved Duhon down the stretch. Duhon was ran into the ground due a lack of back up point guard. Not Marbury, but the position he plays.

  8. Heri

    I don’t care about Marbury, Knicks can’t control how he felt or what he did.
    Knicks can only control any situation with what they; themselves do. Ostracized players that are eventually needed or face the forfeit of a game if he doesn’t show is not a winning situation the Knicks should place themselves in again.

  9. Heri

    As for Gallo, Lopez and Gordon; you have to be kidding yourself if you feel an uncertain future is better than a bright future.

    An uncertain future with a present day certain spine damage takes a back seat to both Lopez and Gordon. I don’t care if the Knicks won every game he was able to play in, not that they were many.

    A spine surgery to a 19 year old injury prone, in the Italian league, who couldn’t play much in his rookie season is enough to knock Gallo out of the first round entirely if the draft was right now.

    I never heard of any player facing spine surgery being drafted in the first round. Maybe this is why we found out about it in the second game of the summer league and it never cured.

  10. Heri

    Well you either play Marbury or trade him for another back up point guard. Who takes the blame for this? Certainly not Marbury nor the rain. In the long run, Duhon and winning took the hit. Here I go again, I told you so; this was never about Marbury, it was about winning.

    Who takes the blame for the Marbury saga?

    Get it?

    Certainly not Marbury nor the rain.

    Cool hand Luke with his poker face fools all by taking the blame for the trades as the reason for the losing. Helloooooooooooooo. The trades have the good benefit of 2010 and cap space.

    And who takes the blame for the hidden damaged goods in our draft pick?

  11. Dan L

    Marbury takes the blame for the Marbury fiasco. That the Knicks could or should have acquired a backup point guard has nothing to do with Marbury. They could have acquired one and handled the Marbury situation identically.

    And nobody gets the blame for Gallo. Walsh gets credit for drafting him. He turns the team into an immediate playoff team. Lopez and Gordon don’t. He’ll be better next year after they shave down his bone.

    I’ll go with Chad Ford, David Stern, Frank Isola, Tommy Dee, and Jon in acknowledging the obvious: Mike D’Antoni and Donnie Walsh have the Knicks on the path to success.

  12. Heri

    Knicks should have acquired a back up point guard? They could have acquired one? Should had, could had, would had?

    Reality is this: the Knicks didn’t acquire a back up point guard and ostracized the one they had which led to a Duhon burn out and this didn’t help the Knicks win, if anything; it helped them to lose.

    How could this be Marbury’s fault? Was he responsible for player movement? Marbury ostracized Marbury? I don’t think so, this was failure at the management level, any way you slice it.

    Credit for drafting an uncertain future? Turns the Knicks into a payoff team, really? Gordon and Lopez are rookie of the year candidates and gallo back surgery candidate.

    After his first completed season and before his spine shaving, Gallo wouldn’t go in the first round if this was known. Gallo is a major disappointment, closer to a bust than he is a bird.

    Knicks are on a path allright, it’s been a path of misery and Walsh hasn’t really done much but draft a damaged goods, sign a free agent that was run into the ground in Duhon, rid the team of both leading scorers in the name of 2010 cap space and observe the rest of what Isiah left behind.

    The clock is ticking and Walsh has all the work ahead of him to place the Knicks in a solid direction.

Post a comment

You may use the following HTML:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>