# Time to evaluate Thomas' job performance



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

Time to cut the crap about this team and tell it like it really is so we can move on. IT's centerpiece trades:
Marbury= total loser and a terminal cancer
Curry= soft scorer...period
Zach= non-passing, non-defending, humongous black hole
JC= the invisible man
NOT A WINNER IN THE BUNCH

Biggest game of the year on national TV and this is what NY fans get? What we deserve? I've been watching since 1968 and I can NEVER remember such a soft team so willing to meekly surrender. Give me Ray Williams and Kenny Bannister any day. If Dolan doesn't fire IT tomorrow, this season is toast. Wouldn't be surprised if Stern starts pressuring Dolan to sell.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Good thread Dog, rumor has it Stern already asked Dolan's dad to do something about it, and he said he has better things to do. Right now Dolan isn't going anywhere, he will go down as one of the worst sports owners in history. As for IT, don't hold your breath I don't think he is getting fired after tonight. Dolan is thinking about 2 things: He owes him 20 million dollars, and that sexual harrassment suit is pending an appeal. As for your list of players, out of the 5 I still think Zach is pretty damn good, but his overall weakness is his defense and lack of hustle.


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

Very easy to grade his performance. F overall, F in every sub-category. Did I miss anything?


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Krstic All Star said:


> Very easy to grade his performance. F overall, F in every sub-category. Did I miss anything?


:lol:


----------



## Krstic All-Star (Mar 9, 2005)

^ Didn't think so.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

Zach? Please, Kitty. Skilled scorer one on one. Killer of ball movement which causes players to lose interest and stand around. Good rebounder. Better off the bench. Definitely NOT a centerpiece.


----------



## Dynasty Raider (Nov 15, 2002)

alphaorange said:


> Time to cut the crap about this team and tell it like it really is so we can move on. IT's centerpiece trades:
> Marbury= total loser and a terminal cancer
> Curry= soft scorer...period
> Zach= non-passing, non-defending, humongous black hole
> ...


you know ... I really don't think the players are that bad. They need a new coach; new atmosphere; new motivation. They are not inspired and have no respect for leadership. People will say, with all of the money they're making they don't need motvation, the money is enough. This, to me, is being unrealistic --- no matter how much money they make they are still human beings with human feelings.

Bring in a new coach (which you can't do), and those same players would be completely different. I'm just sayimg ...


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Wrong again....I still like the deal for Zach, and I think he is probably one of the few bright spots out of that horrid *starting* lineup. Not everyone will be Kareem, or Wilt everyone has some aspects of their game that make you want to scream, but I still like what he brings regardless of his sorry performance on the other side of the ball.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*And you're wrong...*

Winners are born, not made. None of these guys have ever been winners....ever. Your view is wishful thinking. These players are also NOT good PLAYERS. They are good at doing CERTAIN things well. Compare:

Garnett to Curry/zach
Pierce to Qrich
JC to Allen
Marbury to Rondo

Each of these guys do MORE things well than their Knick counterpart.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

damn, yall turned on Randolph already??


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

*Horse*****



alphaorange said:


> Winners are born, not made. None of these guys have ever been winners....ever. Your view is wishful thinking. These players are also NOT good PLAYERS. They are good at doing CERTAIN things well. Compare:
> 
> Garnett to Curry/zach
> Pierce to Qrich
> ...


Winners aren't born, they're made. Ain't no baby ever held a championship trophy. All those guys, how many rings? The 'winners' and 'losers' is a load of bull. Teams win, not individuals. I'll take a 'loser' team of Nash, T-Mac, Lebron, Garnett, and Howard any day.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

alphaorange said:


> Zach? Please, Kitty. Skilled scorer one on one. Killer of ball movement which causes players to lose interest and stand around. Good rebounder. Better off the bench. Definitely NOT a centerpiece.



i dont know alpha. The perfect player that your always looking for doesn't exist. and if he does how many championships has he won and how many teams have him.


i have a feeling that if kobe were a knick for all these years instead of a laker you'd be saying the same about him


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

wrong topic my bad....delete


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

alphaorange said:


> Zach? Please, Kitty. Skilled scorer one on one. Killer of ball movement which causes players to lose interest and stand around. Good rebounder. Better off the bench. Definitely NOT a centerpiece.


Bingo. IMHO the absolute only way Zach Randolph can be effective is as a bench player, but I'd certainly rather not have him on my team. If I had to play with that guy I'd shoot myself.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

ChosenFEW said:


> i dont know alpha. The perfect player that your always looking for doesn't exist. and if he does how many championships has he won and how many teams have him.
> 
> 
> i have a feeling that if kobe were a knick for all these years instead of a laker you'd be saying the same about him


Pretty much.....if Kobe was on this team you would have the same negative posts regardless if we were winning or not, spouting out of people's keyboards.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

GrandKenyon6 said:


> If I had to play with that guy I'd shoot myself.


That's unfortunate that he isn't on your team.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

IMO if the team rebuilt around Randolph and Curry and somehow cleaned out the garbage (Marbury, JC, Q, JJ, etc.) and somehow replaced them with playmakers, defenders, and a couple of shooters not named Q-Rich or Jamal Crawford (and of course fired IT) I think the team would be OK. But that's just me.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

Nope. All of alpha's posts in this thread are correct. How anyone can think Zach Randolph is a good player is beyond me. He is one of the biggest black holes in the history of the game, an atrocious defender, and a cancerous malcontent whose play leads to no ball movement and stand around offense just like alpha said. He can be decent as the primary scorer on a 2nd unit though.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

what happened to all those people that got on me last year when i said marbury was a total loser? where i said everywhere he goes, the team goes straight downhill, any team he leaves, instantly gets better..........man i forget who kept trying to tell me he never had shooters around him, he used to be immature etc......

Isiah needed to go last year.........and i saw a stat in SI the other day.....out of all the ballers, the person with the worst win-loss record is.............Jamal Crawford. This team is horrendous, i dont wanna hear all this "no time to rebuild cuz we're ny" because at this point fans will understand rebuilding rather than sink in mediocrity for a decade...........even if we rebuild, can it get any worse?? So fire Thomas, wait for marbury's 21 to get off the cap......use your lotto pick well and we'll see where we are.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Well...*

I agreed with all of what you wrote. My lone reservation was that Marbury actually played well most of last year. I wondered if he had finally got it. Nope. I never believed in IT as a Coach or a GM. I'm on record many times as admiring his ability to draft. I still agree with you.

In response to those that said the perfect players don't exist: True, but there are tons of players with more complete games that anyone on our starting roster. What is KG's weakness? LJ's? Kobes? Nash's? Duncans? There are tons more that are not superstars. So, Kitty, I absolutely disagree with you. If Kobe was on this team, it would not be this bad. He simply would not allow it. He would have called people out a long time ago. I guess the question is this. Can you exploit a particular player's weakness easily? If so, he must go as a mainstay. Perhaps they would be better suited as a particular specialist off the bench. Our team is constructed of specialists and losers. 

And Chan....winners are born. They are born with the inherit "stuff" inside that allows them to develop the skills they need to succeed. It has been well established that people are a combination of "nature and nurture". What makes Nash LJ Duncan KG winners is as much as whats inside as outside. THAT they are born with.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

1st of all the whole idea that winners are "born" not made is crazy.

winning is about talent , desire, sacrifice and attitude and 3 out of those 4 things are learned in its entirety , and the 4th (talent) needs t0 be honed with hard work as well.

its basically like stating that you can tell who is a "winner " while playing dodgeball in kindergaten , and whomever you decide isn't one the book is witten on them throughout their lives.

if it were really the case the winners would have high school titles...then get ncaa titles and internationally and finally start winning in the nba.

alpha you mentioned Nash as a winner , but to my knowledge he has never won anything at any level(college, pro, internationally, high school,) 

and the team he last left became a bonafide title contender after he left them for nothing 

also for some reason i think this thread would have turned out far different if it was started 2 days earlier.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Ignorant post*

Nash is not a winner because he doesn't have a ring? About as ignorant a statement as can be made. No one EVER said that the only winners wear rings. Anyone that watched Nash last year in the playoffs and still says he is not a winner is a *******. Also if you think that characteristics that lend themselves to leadership and performance are entirely learned, you need to go back to school. I can't tell you how many families have kids raised exactly the same way, with the same values, turn out entirely different. Peyton vs. Eli? It isn't just the way they drop back and throw. They lead differently as well. Those qualities you mention are NOT entirely learned. You think MJs father TAUGHT him to have that killer instinct? Please...inborn. The content of that last post is complete, inaccurate trash. If successful leaders could be "made", there wouldn't be such a shortage. West Point and Annapolis strive to turn all their young men into leaders. Best training in the world working with the best talent available. Does the majority go on to be leaders in their given professions? 

BTW, Dallas became a "bona fide" contender when they got AJ as coach. Two days ago the thread would have been the same from my point of view. People are so desperate for a winner in NY they want to believe anything positive is a sign of great things on the horizon. This team is not even close to having what it takes mentally and from a discipline POV.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

I've never heard of a winner that didn't win anything.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Really dumb statement*

He's won plenty, including am MVP award. Twice. If you are trying to say that only players on title teams are winners, thats beyond ignorant. Leaves a whole lotta players out, doesn't it? Ewing, Oakley, Reggie, Malone, Stockton, and the list goes on and on. Conversely, you must be saying that if you're on a championship team, you're a winner. Right? I guess that list would include a bunch of crappy players that rode on the tails of MJ, Hakeem, Magic, Bird, and others. It takes more than being a winner to win the ultimate prize. It takes everything coming together...a little luck....a lot of talent..and the stars in alignment.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

*Whiff*



alphaorange said:


> He's won plenty, including am MVP award. Twice. If you are trying to say that only players on title teams are winners, thats beyond ignorant. Leaves a whole lotta players out, doesn't it? Ewing, Oakley, Reggie, Malone, Stockton, and the list goes on and on. Conversely, you must be saying that if you're on a championship team, you're a winner. Right? I guess that list would include a bunch of crappy players that rode on the tails of MJ, Hakeem, Magic, Bird, and others. It takes more than being a winner to win the ultimate prize. It takes everything coming together...a little luck....a lot of talent..and the stars in alignment.


You missed the entire point. I'm saying there's no such thing as anyone being labeled a winner or a loser. Teams win, and teams lose. Individuals don't win or lose.


----------



## Kiyaman (Aug 14, 2006)

*Re: Whiff*



Chan said:


> You missed the entire point. I'm saying there's no such thing as anyone being labeled a winner or a loser. Teams win, and teams lose. Individuals don't win or lose.



*Teams WIN Ball Games!
not individual selfish talent inwhich we have in the Knicks Starting-5 lineup.* 

The Knicks have a Starting-5 lineup inwhich each player has never made their teammates talent better in their career in the NBA. Yet some Fool G.M. gave them a Big Money contract for never playing DEFENSE. 

*When Isiah threw everyone out of Practice, he should have FINED each one of the Players and his BUM coaching staff. 
The Starting 5-Players Fine should've been 10 times the amount of everyone else.* 
I too would rather see the Knicks young lineup 1979-80 season Ray Williams, Sugar Ray Richardson, Kenny Bannister, Toby Knight, and Rookie Bill Cartwright 49 WIN Season, rather than any of Isiah Thomas BUM lineups over the last 4 seasons. 

I see more team play out of my 10 year old Grandson Basketball team then I do from the Knicks "One on One" individual play on offense and defense. Any Team that goes into a 2-3 Zone have the chance to go on a 10-0 run on Curry, Zach, Q.Rich, Craw, and Marbury. 
I'm still waiting for the SHOOTER in Q.Richardson to arrive in New York, this is his 3rd season and all he has done was leave his oponent open to run in the paint to steal a defensive-rebound from the Knicks PF, and Fans wonder why the Peremeter is always wide open for shooters. 
Q.Rich & Crawford is scared to drive or slash to the basket for a layup or dunk. What good are they when their oponent is doing this to them. 

You know this Knick Team is desperate and Horrible when they have to depend on an inconsistent Jamal Crawford to score for a WIN in crunchtime. 
I watch how many games poor shooting Jason Kidd has WON with taking the last shot in just a half a season, and he totals more WINS in a half a season with his poor shooting than Jamal Crawford did in his career in the NBA...


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

Guys this isn't the 70's Knicks anymore, let it go....unless you want to pop in a hardwood classic dvd and relive the pass. There are great players out there who are team players and are winners, but the majority of them don't play on the Knicks. Until we get a GM who knows what to look for in terms of being a team player and a winner....we are going to be screwed for a while.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: Whiff*

Chan you're naive. I simply can't fathom why this concept is beyond you. Certain people have what it takes to push, pull, or drag their team to a higher level. It doesn't always culminate in a title. They are dedicated to their profession in all ways and people gravitate to them, They are winners and they are born with the POTENTIAL to be so. Its the same in every field and life endeavor. You have all met then before and you know who they are.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

Vast majority, Kitty? None of them are on the Knicks. I think we all understand these ain't the Clyde Knicks. There is still no reason, however, to put up with the crap that is being served to us. Got to find a way to hit Dolan in the pocketbook.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

players who win or come from a culture of winning make winning teams........like frank isola says, if Eddy Curry was 6'2'' he'd be content sitting in his basement all day playing video games, he doesnt have the passion for the game of basketball to be all he can be...........i've said it so many time, marbury's a losing player.......and jsut for orange, if we had nichols over fred jones, we do not win yesterday's game......should've gone to europe, now he's just rotting on a bench


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

alphaorange said:


> Vast majority, Kitty? None of them are on the Knicks. I think we all understand these ain't the Clyde Knicks. There is still no reason, however, to put up with the crap that is being served to us. Got to find a way to hit Dolan in the pocketbook.


Did you read the post correctly? So you trying to say there aren't any team players and winners on the Knicks? For example: David Lee, he is one of the few team players on this team and understand about winning coming from a great program in Florida. Balkman is another winner, how was his NIT performance?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

*Re: Whiff*



alphaorange said:


> Chan you're naive. I simply can't fathom why this concept is beyond you. Certain people have what it takes to push, pull, or drag their team to a higher level. It doesn't always culminate in a title. They are dedicated to their profession in all ways and people gravitate to them, They are winners and they are born with the POTENTIAL to be so. Its the same in every field and life endeavor. You have all met then before and you know who they are.


You mean the killer instinct?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Ignorant post*



alphaorange said:


> Nash is not a winner because he doesn't have a ring? About as ignorant a statement as can be made. No one EVER said that the only winners wear rings. Anyone that watched Nash last year in the playoffs and still says he is not a winner is a *******. Also if you think that characteristics that lend themselves to leadership and performance are entirely learned, you need to go back to school. I can't tell you how many families have kids raised exactly the same way, with the same values, turn out entirely different. Peyton vs. Eli? It isn't just the way they drop back and throw. They lead differently as well. Those qualities you mention are NOT entirely learned. You think MJs father TAUGHT him to have that killer instinct? Please...inborn. The content of that last post is complete, inaccurate trash. If successful leaders could be "made", there wouldn't be such a shortage. West Point and Annapolis strive to turn all their young men into leaders. Best training in the world working with the best talent available. Does the majority go on to be leaders in their given professions?
> 
> BTW, Dallas became a "bona fide" contender when they got AJ as coach. Two days ago the thread would have been the same from my point of view. People are so desperate for a winner in NY they want to believe anything positive is a sign of great things on the horizon. This team is not even close to having what it takes mentally and from a discipline POV.


whats ignorant is declaring some1 a winner based off of a bias award win .

is bob macadoo a winner ?

he has also won 2 MVP's and unlike nash he actually has a title under his list of accomplishments ...history has a funny way of depicting him a selfish scorer yet according to what makes nash a winner he has to be considered a great winner.

winners win , nash has never won anything that has mattered as a team player at any level....you wanna declare nash a winner because he lost valiantly against the spurs ?

are you serious , heck marbury has done that and even as a sun .

you are grasping at straws , because you know in your heart its really simple , you are what you constantly do (thats not me thats Socrates)

Nash is no great winner proven by the fact the Mavs lost him for nothing and got better , if was so great and so important that couldn't have happened.

what winner in history of the NBA could claim that .

could the spurs lose duncan, the bulls lose MJ or any team really what team can lose a great player for nothing and replace him with a significantly lower caliber level of player and get better ...if nash were some great winner who made every1 better around him it would seem to be an impossible thing to have happen.

and who cares about payton and eli the decisions that make you a better player are personal and every1 decides on their own(provided you have enough talent for it to matter) what their mentality is and their priorities are as a player, archie manning cant make that decision for his kids, no one can but the person themselves.

MJ's killer instinct wasn't enough for him to make his high school team at 1st , he had to make the personal choices after that point that made him the player he is , the simple truth is he didn't win many basketball games at that stage in his life , in fact he himself credits his older brother Larry for honing his killer instict by virtue of the daily buttkickings he got in their backyard b-ball court until after his growth spurt allowed him something like a an 8 inch heigh advantage in MJ's jr.& sr. years in HS and he could finally beat him.

If jordan himself doesn't consider his "killer instinct" inborn how do you think you sound being so insistent that it was?


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Won't get into with this you*

Your crap is just not worth responding to in any meaningful way. You're either too dumb or too stubborn to get it. Nash won a biased award? Chris Paul didn't seem to think so. Jesus, man...j e r k


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Won't get into with this you*



alphaorange said:


> Your crap is just not worth responding to in any meaningful way. You're either too dumb or too stubborn to get it. Nash won a biased award? Chris Paul didn't seem to think so. Jesus, man...j e r k


the 1st year he won it should have gone to shaq...since the team he left went into the lottery and the team he went to became a title contender...while the team nash went to became very good but was never a team that really had a chance to win a title

the 2nd year dirk, since his team made that jump to viable title contender .

how 'bout that MJ , his killer intinct still "inborn"?

so sad...no one agrees with you because you are as wrong as can be.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Ha. Da Grinch wins.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

i guess alpha and grinch wont be sending each other christmas cards this year


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*What's sad is that you are so feeble minded*

Either you are not smart enough to follow logic, or you are just too damn argumentative to ever agree. What other changes were made as far as Dallas becoming a contender? This would include player acquisitions, players developing and maturing, coaching changes, etc. They're all relevant. As far as who should have gotten the MVP, well, thats your opinion, and others as well. The fact is, more people thought Nash should have gotten it or he would not have. Even as a runner up, it still supports my argument. Second in the league is still top tier. What is your asinine comment about MJ? You have some insight? Spill it. You have not discredited in any way what I posted. Let me clear about whether or not I care about people disagreeing with me. I don't. In order for me to consider that someone else has a valid point, I'd have to be convinced they have a logic to their thoughts that transcend race, style, and favoritism. Few have shown that here...certainly not you. Certainly not Chan. Kitty, we're talking aboout the make-up of the starters on the Knicks. Its clear from an earlier post on this site that i like Lee and Balkman. Both are guys to keep...provides they have the right guys with complimentary styles around them. 
From earlier posts:

"Actually, Lee is a decent scorer down low. No Curry, but he does OK as a complimentary guy. His weakness is his jumper. If he had a good one, he'd be one of the best."

"Lee? Starter with the right guys around him. 12-14/10-12 board guy. Balkman? Depends on the team around him. We don't need journeymen. We need a stud."

Happy Kitty?

Damn right McAdoo was a winner. I had the pleasure of watching the Braves with he and Ernie D give a lot of team all they could handle. You better check his rebounds and blocks, too, bonehead. Injuries killed his career but he was the last to average 30/15. As usual you know NOTHING about what you post. He also averaged 2-3 assists (great for a guy with out the ball in his hands all the time), and 1.5 blocks, and a steal. They didn't go down until he started getting hurt. Next time pick a subject you actually know something about....if there is one. Chan, you shouldn't try to piggy back on someone else's argument. Come up with your own ideas or facts and go at it. BTW, Grinch...Mac won ONE MVP, not two. Can't you get anything right? Marbury..valiantly lost? The line of people willing to say that is short...like your bus. The basis of my comments are based on research, unlike yours which are simply your own feelings. You're not nearly so smart as you would like to have everyone believe. You DO write well, its your content thats essentially worthless.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

I didn't mention the word "starters", I said the vast majority of the guys on this "team" aren't team players. Read the "original" post again and don't assume. Happy now?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

this is cute but ok i'll play along.

my comments about MJ are "assinine"

ok I am a bonehead and apparently took the short bus because i dont know what I'm talkiing about .

this is what i wrote:



> MJ's killer instinct wasn't enough for him to make his high school team at 1st , he had to make the personal choices after that point that made him the player he is , the simple truth is he didn't win many basketball games at that stage in his life , in fact he himself credits his older brother Larry for honing his killer instict by virtue of the daily buttkickings he got in their backyard b-ball court until after his growth spurt allowed him something like a an 8 inch heigh advantage in MJ's jr.& sr. years in HS and he could finally beat him.
> 
> If jordan himself doesn't consider his "killer instinct" inborn how do you think you sound being so insistent that it was?


http://www.fazeteen.com/articles/jordan.htm



> Michael's relationship with his older brother, Larry Jordan, was a key force in his early years. Larry was also a great athlete. He had the same strength, athletic ability and ambition as Michael, but Larry didn't have the build to excel in sports. Michael competed ferociously to win against his older brother when the two of them played against each other. Every day, the Jordan backyard saw some form of athletic combat between the two brothers. *Larry's domination over his younger brother pushed Michael's determination to catch-up and win - and finally, one day he did.* David Hart, a North Carolina team manager said, "Michael really loved Larry and talked about him all the time-he really revered him. But if Michael had gone far beyond Larry as an athlete, he never let it affect his feelings for his brother-his emotional connection and his respect for his brother were very strong. When his brother was around, he dropped all his mounting fame and his accomplishments and became nothing more than a loving, adoring younger brother."


i know , i know who is Fazeteen.com , so here is one from Time.com.





http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,956692-3,00.html



> That ferocious competitive drive has propelled Jordan since his boyhood in Wilmington, N.C., where he grew up the fourth of five children in a close-knit middle-class family. Although his parents James and Deloris pushed education, not sports, Michael developed into an athlete for all seasons, successfully competing in baseball, football and basketball. Larry Jordan, one year his elder, would prove a motivating force. Though Michael eventually outpaced and outgrew Larry, who still plays semipro basketball, *he credits his elder brother for his aggressive style of play. "When you see me play," he says, "you see Larry play."*


if you need more on this subject i suggest you go read "The Jordan Rules" by Sam Smith , its a good book.

that MJ got his drive from b-ball battles with his brother is such common knowledge you really should be ashamed of yourself...that time.com article is 19 years old, the fact that you want to resort to namecalling over it is something that is so hilarious I honestly cant even get mad , i have to admit I laughed quite a bit .

perhaps you can look up interviews with his parents who i have also speak on the same subject , but i dont have any off hand links to that for you...or rent some of MJ's dvd's last i checked i think Come fly with me had an interview in which he spoke of his getting cut from HS and compteting with his brother in the backyard to gain that "inborn" edge you seem so sure happened at birth.

now I can readily admit I misspoke about Bob macadoo , you are right he only won 1 MVP , but his perception as a selfish loser i wasn't wrong about it didn't change until he was a laker ...



> But then help arrived in two very unexpected forms. First came the acquisition of 30-year-old free agent Bob McAdoo, *the same McAdoo who was disdained in Boston and considered a selfish problem in Detroit despite having a league MVP award and three scoring titles under his belt.* Few people figured he would fit in with the Lakers, but he showed a remarkable willingness to play off the bench. Even better, he was good at it, giving the team just the scoring punch it needed at key times.


i know its only nba.com but for now it will have to do.

http://aol.nba.com/history/finals/19811982.html


as for nash if you look at the nba predictions headed into that season , no one expected the mavs to move up as a team with their offseason moves , but without nash they became a more viable nba title contender,

but analysts actually had them going in the other direction 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/basketball/nba/11/02/preseason.picks/index.html

http://aol.nba.com/preview2004/west_forecast.html

no one had them winning anything unlike the previous year

the simple fact of the matter was that most people thought nash and the decline of finley , plus they traded away jamison and walker would have a negative effect on the team espite whatever improvements came from other players.

in fact it showed the perception was wrong Dirk and many others thought to need nash not only didn't regress they got better Dirk in particular really impressed, he(nash) wasn't the ultimate facilitator and apparently they were better off with a pg that didn't need the ball so much and defended better and allowed Nowitzki to show he was a top player in the game and should be in the running for the top player in the game

they went from 52 to 58 wins and got a round deeper in the playoffs

find me a team that loses an MVP winner that season and gets better and i'll concede your point, in fact i'll concede them all even the ones i've already proven silly in this very post. , but its never happened ...why because if you are the most valuable player in the league , your team wouldn't get better without you ....you are the top guy..its really in the wording (most valuable) ..its pointless to belabor that point any further, either you get it or you dont...so i'll let it go and wish you well.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*See just what you want to...*

Agressive play doesn't mean Killer instinct. It means agressive play. Geez, are you think. Page me back when you find where it says his heart and desire come form something other than inside and, btw, it also doesn't mean that someone (anyone) else would have succeeded where he did. What about brother Larry? He apparently had the "agressive" play. MJ was special in and out. Is that so hard for you to admit? Where does he say it wasn't inborn? It says his brother helped him HONE it...meaning it was already there Can you do the reading comp. thing? Key phrase "Michael's determination to catch-up and win". Duh. Do ever read whole articles or just what suits your argument?

"The following season McAdoo was in the final year of his contract. Snyder, unwilling to meet McAdoo's money demands or lose him to free agency after the season, traded him at midyear to the New York Knicks. The Braves, who also threw in Tom McMillen, received John Gianelli and cash in return.

Although McAdoo still finished the 1976-77 season ranked fifth in the league in scoring (25.8 ppg), the move to New York was not a happy one. The Knicks were fraught with internal clashes during McAdoo's tenure. The rivalry between McAdoo and superstar teammate Spencer Haywood was particularly intense. Although McAdoo finished third in the league in scoring in 1977-78 (26.5 ppg), the Knicks traded him midway through the following season to Boston for Tom Barker and three first-round draft picks.

McAdoo learned of the trade by reading a newspaper. So did Boston General Manager Red Auerbach and player-coach Dave Cowens, who had not been consulted by Celtics owner John Brown and resented it. McAdoo felt unwelcome and found himself sitting while Cowens played center. He finished the 1978-79 campaign averaging 24.8 ppg in 60 games. The Celtics then dispatched McAdoo to the Detroit Pistons as compensation for Boston's free-agent signing of M. L. Carr.

McAdoo's two years in Detroit proved to be no happier. The Pistons were in turmoil, and McAdoo suffered a string of injuries. In 1980-81, he played in only six games for the Pistons and finally waived him after he filed a grievance with the players' association. "

Reread it and find the word "selfish". I see a bunch of bad situations...a star with a big ego...and still big production. Maybe you should check those rosters and see who's on them and why there might have been problems. There were never problems with him until he clashed with other egos. Lots of players have had that happen, but thats a whole another discussion, but I'm sure you'd agree that's true.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: See just what you want to...*



alphaorange said:


> Agressive play doesn't mean Killer instinct. It means agressive play. Geez, are you think. Page me back when you find where it says his heart and desire come form something other than inside and, btw, it also doesn't mean that someone (anyone) else would have succeeded where he did. What about brother Larry? He apparently had the "agressive" play. MJ was special in and out. Is that so hard for you to admit? Where does he say it wasn't inborn? It says his brother helped him HONE it...meaning it was already there Can you do the reading comp. thing? Key phrase "Michael's determination to catch-up and win". Duh. Do ever read whole articles or just what suits your argument?
> 
> "The following season McAdoo was in the final year of his contract. Snyder, unwilling to meet McAdoo's money demands or lose him to free agency after the season, traded him at midyear to the New York Knicks. The Braves, who also threw in Tom McMillen, received John Gianelli and cash in return.
> 
> ...


i put up a couple of articlesand i see it hasn't helped you , so i'll give a little bit more help .

on macadoo i bolded part of it , the 12th bolded word used the word us english people know as selfish , i thought bolding that section would help you find it but i guess not ...i guess counting is fundamental too.

i dont need to read the rest of the article it said he was percieved *selfish* just like i said if you need more than that i'm sorry it will just have to do.

also on MJ just because unlike on macadoo it didn't use the exact word you wanted to see doesn't mean its not so (you have already proven even if the word is there you may not see it), i dont have the Jordan rules with me so i cant point out the exact page but the links are good enough at this point you are just playing dumb( i hope you are playing)

game over.


----------



## knickstorm (Jun 22, 2003)

MJ? Macadoo? Nash?? Bird??? see every knick thread somehow always ends up in debates about non knick players.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Hey Kitty...*

YOU'RE the one that jumped on my post. YOU'RE the one that ASSUMED I was talking about every Knick on the roster. I just clarified it for you. Happy?


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

*Quit your *****ing*



alphaorange said:


> Either you are not smart enough to follow logic, or you are just too damn argumentative to ever agree. What other changes were made as far as Dallas becoming a contender? This would include player acquisitions, players developing and maturing, coaching changes, etc. They're all relevant. As far as who should have gotten the MVP, well, thats your opinion, and others as well. The fact is, more people thought Nash should have gotten it or he would not have. Even as a runner up, it still supports my argument. Second in the league is still top tier. What is your asinine comment about MJ? You have some insight? Spill it. You have not discredited in any way what I posted. Let me clear about whether or not I care about people disagreeing with me. I don't. In order for me to consider that someone else has a valid point, I'd have to be convinced they have a logic to their thoughts that transcend race, style, and favoritism. Few have shown that here...certainly not you. Certainly not Chan. Kitty, we're talking aboout the make-up of the starters on the Knicks. Its clear from an earlier post on this site that i like Lee and Balkman. Both are guys to keep...provides they have the right guys with complimentary styles around them.
> From earlier posts:
> 
> "Actually, Lee is a decent scorer down low. No Curry, but he does OK as a complimentary guy. His weakness is his jumper. If he had a good one, he'd be one of the best."
> ...


Don't start talking about feeble-mindedness when you do not seem to have the ability to comprehend simple words even my three year old baby cousin can understand. I've repeated this multiple times so your *edit* can keep up, but apparently that won't be happening anytime in the near future.

Individuals do not win championships. Breathe it in. Bathe in it. Keep reading if you're still concious. Your entire concept of winners and losers is a load of horse doo doo, and you have absolutely nothing to back it up. Like I said before, (why am I repeating myself?) ain't no baby ever held a championship. There is no such thing as a winner that hasn't won anything. That's like an All-Star that hasn't played in an All-Star game. No such thing.

People are not inherently born with greatness. Greatness is developed through their experiences. The Greatest once said he's failed many, many times, but he never let that put him down. He learned from his failures (READ: experiences) and that is what made him so great. He did not win anything until he learned from those experiences.

This is what I have to discredit you. What do you have to credit yourself?


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

*Re: Hey Kitty...*



alphaorange said:


> YOU'RE the one that jumped on my post. YOU'RE the one that ASSUMED I was talking about every Knick on the roster. I just clarified it for you. Happy?


_Let's go back to the script...sha'll we:_ 
*My 1st post:*



USSKittyHawk said:


> Guys this isn't the 70's Knicks anymore, let it go....unless you want to pop in a hardwood classic dvd and relive the pass. *There are great players out there who are team players and are winners, but the majority of them don't play on the Knicks. *Until we get a GM who knows what to look for in terms of being a team player and a winner....we are going to be screwed for a while.


*Dog's rebuttal:*


alphaorange said:


> *Vast majority, Kitty?* *None of them* *are on the Knicks.*


*Kitty's 2nd response:*


USSKittyHawk said:


> *Did you read the post correctly? So you trying to say there aren't any team players and winners on the Knicks?* For example: David Lee, he is one of the few team players on this team and understand about winning coming from a great program in Florida. Balkman is another winner, how was his NIT performance?


*Dog's 2nd rebuttal:*


alphaorange said:


> *Kitty, we're talking aboout the make-up of the starters on the Knicks.* Happy Kitty?


*Kitty's 3rd response*


USSKittyHawk said:


> I didn't mention the word "starters", I said the vast majority of the guys on this "team" aren't team players. Read the "original" post again and don't assume. Happy now?


Now who jumped on who's post again? Just for reference, I was talking to Kiyaman in my 1st post, not you..about reliving the past so again stop assuming. Thanks for coming out....God Bless and goodnight.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*This is ridiculous...*

Everybody KNOWS who we are both talking about and its the same people.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

First of all, I am a Bulls fan which is 4 and 10 as of now. As for this topic, my 2 cents is this.

Even though we are 4-10, I don't want any of Knicks on my team. Ever. Maybe, just maybe Lee. But nothing more. To outsider, this debate about Knicks player is a joke. No other team want guys on your roster. Your roster is basically all the player that other team didn't want any more. (With slight exception in case of Curry. But even this case gave me some doubt about how much Paxon really, really wanted to keep Eddy a Bull.)

Sure winner can be nurtured and made. BUT, BUT that seed for the nurturing has to be there beforehand. THAT seed is born. Never made. None of your roster had them. Period. And you have IT to blame. Your joke-around-NBA-and-the world GM.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

^ Tell us something we don't know...


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

ChosenFEW said:


> i guess alpha and grinch wont be sending each other christmas cards this year


Given his messageboard demeanor I'm guessing that AO isn't a happy guy.



alphaorange said:


> The Celtics then dispatched McAdoo to the Detroit Pistons as compensation for Boston's free-agent signing of M. L. Carr.


Wrong, as usual, but thanks for playing.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Actually, you're wrong, dipstick*

I am a very happy guy. I don't tolerate ignorance well, hence my friction with you. You're also wrong on that quote. It wasn't my quote. It was Grinch's reference from NBA.com in its entirety. If you have a problem with it, perhaps you should contact them. Those little funny marks mean someone else said or wrote it, and that is exactly what they said/wrote. Oh well, take shots when you can get them.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Chan....*

Where did I ever say individuals win championships? The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. Lots of noise...no substance. It sounds like the kind of post a 17 YO would make. Maybe younger. While you're espousing your OPINIONS on life, greatness, and how you should be credited for backing up your point, I'm LMAO at you. Totally insignificant to me. If you wish to prove something, then PROVE it. Use facts, quotes from legitimate sources, statistics, whatever you can find. Your (and mine) opinion count little as far as proof. Yours even less based on your limited life experiences.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

*Re: Chan....*



alphaorange said:


> Where did I ever say individuals win championships? The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. Lots of noise...no substance. It sounds like the kind of post a 17 YO would make. Maybe younger. While you're espousing your OPINIONS on life, greatness, and how you should be credited for backing up your point, I'm LMAO at you. Totally insignificant to me. If you wish to prove something, then PROVE it. Use facts, quotes from legitimate sources, statistics, whatever you can find. Your (and mine) opinion count little as far as proof. Yours even less based on your limited life experiences.


I just quoted Michael Jordan. That is what I have to credit what I say. What do you want? Stats? Stats that show how the percentage of people that are 'born winners'?

Goosfraba, AO. You just mad cuz I'm stylin on you.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Given his messageboard demeanor I'm guessing that AO isn't a happy guy.


Dog is a happy guy, he just a little grumpy sometimes. Busting his chops is a good way of enhancing discussion. :biggrin:


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: Actually, you're wrong, dipstick*



alphaorange said:


> I am a very happy guy. I don't tolerate ignorance well, hence my friction with you.


Is it tough living life in the knowledge that your sister is also your aunt and cousin?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

USSKittyHawk said:


> Dog is a happy guy, he just a little grumpy sometimes. Busting his chops is a good way of enhancing discussion. :biggrin:


Please, I've met Nazi war criminals doing time in Israel happier than AO. :yay:


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: Chan....*



alphaorange said:


> Where did I ever say individuals win championships? The rest of your post isn't worth responding to. Lots of noise...no substance. It sounds like the kind of post a 17 YO would make. Maybe younger. While you're espousing your OPINIONS on life, greatness, and how you should be credited for backing up your point, I'm LMAO at you. Totally insignificant to me. If you wish to prove something, then PROVE it. Use facts, quotes from legitimate sources, statistics, whatever you can find. Your (and mine) opinion count little as far as proof. Yours even less based on your limited life experiences.


He did. If you'd read anything you might have noticed it. That whole winners are born nonsense, and your insane viciousness in defending it has nearly convinced me that your account is really a gag account. Come clean, you're really MemphisX having fun at our expense, right?


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*You 've met Nazis?*

Wow....you're well traveled. And the born winner thing has really been embellished by you folks trying to make your point. I think what I said is clear. There are qualities that winners and leaders have that are inherently part of their make up. To deny that is just incredibly ignorant. Its the same as saying that everyone is born with the same intelligence potential or logic potential. Reading this board is clear evidence that is completely wrong. Tell me what you disagree with and how you intend to prove your point. Here are comments that you may feast on, providing you can understand them....

============================
LEADERS ARE BORN, NOT MADE
============================

"We might not like it, but leaders are born and not made. To lead, you
need the following traits:

* a spirit of adventure - the urge to explore, break new ground,
challenge the status quo, stand up for what you believe, risk
rejection, rebel against authority, innovate.

* an ability to influence - by example, logical argument, enthusiasm,
persistence or painting a visionary picture.

* an appropriate level of intelligence. 

* You can modify your style of influencing a bit, but not totally. A
quietly persuasive leader will have difficulty ever being charismatic
- some in-born traits here.

* But it's hard to shift your spirit of adventure very much if you are
strongly cautious, conservative or motivated to be accepted by others
rather than risk rejection.

* We are either born with a strong rebellious streak or acquire it early in life. 

* The same is true of intelligence. 

*Earlier theories of leadership rejected the idea that leaders are
born because they identified leadership with ability to influence,
noting rightly that there are widely differing styles of influence and
that people can improve their influencing skills. But the critical
leadership trait is the spirit of adventure - a bit like creativity,
you might have it in small, rather than large, doses, but you either
have it or you don't."

LeadersDirect
http://www.leadersdirect.com/bornlead.html

"Leaders are born, not made. You either have it or you don't. The
leadership gene should be mapped somewhere in the genome so we can
develop a simple blood test early on and save tons of money and tons
of anguish on those that try to lead, but fail miserably at it...

Critical pieces of leadership are really core parts of your
personality. You either have charisma or you don't. You were born with
a love for hard work or you are lazy. You have self-confidence oozing
from your pores or you have self-loathing. You can take intense
scrutiny, divorcing attacks and criticism of your work from personal
attacks, or you are defensive and easily upset. You are intuitive,
with tons of common sense, or you are impatient and impulsive. And
most importantly, you are honest with yourself and can see where your
faults lie."

BC Technology
http://www.bctechnology.com/statics/bh-may2104.html

"The assumption is often made that those who lead, do so naturally out
of an inborn set of attributes which hardly leave a choice. Leaders
are 'born,' not 'made.' A parallel with the musical talent is often
drawn - some people very early are known to be able to sing a tune,
learn to play an instrument, or even compose original music with
apparently very little effort. That leadership is a gift, like music,
may be obvious, but perhaps the analogy should be pressed a little
further. When it is acknowledged that a young person is gifted with
musical talent, they are encouraged, sometimes even forced to submit
to training so that the gift may be developed for the benefit of all
who will listen. At first, only parents and grand-parents delight to
hear the fumbling, discordant attempts of the child to play the
instrument. However, as skill develops, the audience broadens.

Much the same should be applied to the development of leadership. The
inborn talent is there, but effectiveness in leading waits for the
development of needed skill... 'Born to Lead' is a correct assessment,
let's just make sure the new-born are well nourished."

Webedelic
http://www.webedelic.com/church/bornlead.htm

"One of the first ways of conceiving of leadership was the idea that
it was an inborn ability-- and all you had to do was to look at Royal
families and other forms of authority lineage in various societies and
see how authority was passed down. Supporting these assertions at the
time were the beliefs that many leaders, especially monarchs, were
deified (god-like). Even Aristotle suggested that 'some men are born
to lead, and others to be led.' European monarchies passed on their
authority and leadership by this means, often involving intermarriage
among an elite ruling class...

There were even some early scientific efforts at exploring whether the
great person was justified. Galton's 1869 study of heritary
backgrounds of great men showed mixed results. Wood's 1913 study of
leaders in 14 nations over 5-10 centuries found that the quality of
the reign was related to the monarch's abilities. With growing
interest in Darwinian theory, Wiggam (1936) proposed the 'survival of
the fittest' and intermarriage of 'brighter' (educated) people among
the upper classes produced better leaders.

The problem with the great person approach was that not all inherited
leaders were capable. In other cases, their leadership was due to
charisma or halo effect, not real skill. But while such people held
those positions of authority, were they really 'good' or effective
leaders? Perhaps it wasn't just being born into such a position, but
it was the traits one possessed. Thus, the Great Person theory was
modified into the Trait theory of leadership-- traits being certain
inborn characteristics that ensured leader potential."

College of St. Scholastica
http://www.css.edu/users/dswenson/web/LEAD/GreatTrait.html

"In 1910 the first research on leadership was conducted which gave
rise to the notion that certain individuals have been born with traits
to make them leaders, natural born leaders, and others were not born
with those traits. Much research was conducted after 1910 to determine
the validity of this idea. Currently, Max Weber has identified
Charismatic Leadership as a new and emerging theory. Charisma is
defined by Websters Dictionary as someone that has 'personal magnetism
or charge.' Weber essentially stated that those individuals with charm
and that are able to attract others to them are leaders. Former
President Bill Clinton was a spokesperson for the Charismatic
Leadership theory, people would be drawn to his voice and actions at
all time and he used his charm to attract supporters."

Norris University Center / Northwestern University
http://www.norris.northwestern.edu/csi_wildcat.php


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: You 've met Nazis?*



alphaorange said:


> ============================
> LEADERS ARE BORN, NOT MADE
> ============================
> 
> ...



you actually just quoted a bunch of theories. there is definitely no concrete evidence to prove your point. It could either be completely wrong or it could be right.

I guess you just have to believe what you want.


P.S and no I didnt read all of that word for word. I didnt have to.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Another idiot heard from?*

Its easy to pick out a word or two...maybe even a phrase to try to make your point. Let me assure you that studies taken by legitimate sources (including universities) are one helluva lot more reliable than you opinion. If you want to make a point, I'd tell you the same as I tell Chan: Find a legitimate FACTUAL source that supports it. You have the right to believe what you want. If you wish to ignore the work that researchers have done for you, that is your right, too. You risk wallowing in ignorance, and thats not a good place to be, is it? As soon as you come up with some supporting research that comes from someplace other than some institute that promises to develop you or your employees into "leaders and winners", I'll start reconsidering my stance. What I find interesting is that the stuff you highlighted completely agrees with what I have said...100%. You, of course, don't know that because you admittedly didn't read it all. You will have to become less lazy if you want to develop you natural abilities to the fullest, Chosen. You have time.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

I dunno man. Jordan's been there done that. Your sources just been there, researched that.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*it takes an idiot to know one*



> Let me assure you that studies taken by legitimate sources (including universities) are one helluva lot more reliable than you opinion


lol what was my opinion?

once again there is NO! 'factual' evidence. you cant go up and say 'look those nucleotides in that order create the leadership gene'. no, there is no concrete evidence as i mentioned before

sometimes you have to take research with a grain of salt man. The factual books are constantly being rewritten and new studies are always debunking past ones.

but of course your never wrong and you seem to be the only one here who uses logic and sense. :worthy:


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*So young.....so foolish...*

College, my boys....college. Logic and Philosophy would do wonders for you guys. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, guess what? Its a duck.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Or a cormorant.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*nice one liner...*

but they don't quack. Neither do they walk like a duck..funny just the same.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: You 've met Nazis?*



alphaorange said:


> Wow....you're well traveled. And the born winner thing has really been embellished by you folks trying to make your point. I think what I said is clear. There are qualities that winners and leaders have that are inherently part of their make up. To deny that is just incredibly ignorant. Its the same as saying that everyone is born with the same intelligence potential or logic potential. Reading this board is clear evidence that is completely wrong.


Well, reading your posts is enough to convince us of that.



alphaorange said:


> Tell me what you disagree with and how you intend to prove your point. Here are comments that you may feast on, providing you can understand them.


What you've provided us with are a sampling of theories about an ill-defined concept, _leadership_, being inborn and not developed. For this to be an actual scientific theory, and not pop-science lit, you would need an actual working scientific definition and then a concrete genetic link to prove that something was "inborn". 

Now, let's examine your links. The first citation you used theorizes that its ill-defined term (_leadership_) is entirely dependent on an even more ill-defined term (_the spirit of adventure_) and doesn't even attempt to establish a genetic basis for "the spirit of adventure" that makes good "leaders". I can't really comment extensively on the last two citations you used as you didn't provide us with links to the full articles, I will point out that St. Scholastica citation appears to base its assertions on 19th century and early 20th century _psychological_ studies which are going to have no genetic evidence at all. Dr. Chadwick's homily to leadership presents no scientific evidence at all to support his assertions, while Brent Holliday's paean contains his own backhanded admission that there's no existing genetic basis for his claims about "leadership". So, what do I have? A whole lot of nothing in scientific terms.

Now, what does _any_ of this have to do with your claim that an even fuzzier term, _winner_, is inborn and not developed? Again, here's the challenge for you non-academic sorts. You have to bring us a scientific definition of _winner_ and _loser_ and then establish for us the concrete genetic link. And, when I say concrete, I don't mean in the intellectually dishonest Daniel Dennett fashion. _Tendencies_ aren't good enough, if there's a genetic "winner" marker, and everyone that has it isn't a "winner" then being a "winner" is at least partially learned behaviour (I am referring to his "religious gene" claims). However, as I have yet to see any scientific definition even of "leadership", I'm not going to hold my breath.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*How can you write so much and say so little?*

First off, if you knew anything about genetics you would know its nearly impossible for man to EVER completely map genes. The numbers are far too overwhelming. The fact that we have isolated a few genes relative to the total is amazing. So don't look for it to be discovered and mapped anytime soon. It has been strongly suggested that the abilities necessary to become a successful leader are, indeed, connected to a specific gene or genes. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your mind around? So many mental and emotional traits are already found to be genetically linked. Secondly, the fact is many scientific theories are regarded as fact based on nothing more than overwhelming evidence to SUGGEST that they are true. The early works are quoted to reveal that this was considered true for centuries. There is no legitimate body of work to suggest otherwise. The first"link" you refer to is just a quote from a person like you or me suggesting their view. Below it are the real meat and potatoes. You keep going back to the term winner and loser, which are indeed nebulous terms. What we are really talking about is the capacity to become a winner based on traits that one is born with. All men are not created equal. Sorry. And BTW, schooled at SU. 13 years with the Physics, Bio-Physics, Chemistry, and Engineering Dept. until I created my own business. Published in regards to ultra low temperature research in the field of low temperature physics, 1996. I've been involved to various degrees in research in multiple fields including psychology and genetics. I am not a professor, just a curious guy with a knack or two.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: How can you write so much and say so little?*



alphaorange said:


> First off, if you knew anything about genetics you would know its nearly impossible for man to EVER completely map genes. The numbers are far too overwhelming. The fact that we have isolated a few genes relative to the total is amazing. So don't look for it to be discovered and mapped anytime soon.


Then absent genetic proof what are we left with? If there are no known genetic links what we have are _theories_, not facts. So stop calling people ignorant for not buying into pop science theory.



alphaorange said:


> It has been strongly suggested that the abilities necessary to become a successful leader are, indeed, connected to a specific gene or genes. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your mind around?


Why didn't you provide us with anything to back that up? None of the sources you cited were even capable of providing a working scientific definition of leadership, _even the ones that mentioned genes admitted that there was no known marker_. In fact, you've zero proof of this assertion. You haven't even provided us with a genetic study of leadership.



alphaorange said:


> So many mental and emotional traits are already found to be genetically linked. Secondly, the fact is many scientific theories are regarded as fact based on nothing more than overwhelming evidence to SUGGEST that they are true.


Except that in this case there is no "overwhelming evidence to SUGGEST that they are true". Even your citations do nothing more than present pop-psychology as scientific fact. The one serious science citation appears to be years and years out of date.



alphaorange said:


> What we are really talking about is the capacity to become a winner based on traits that one is born with. All men are not created equal.


I'm sorry, how did you make the leap from human behaviour being a mix of nature and nurture to Jeffersonian egalitarianism? I'm really not certain why it even has a place in the discussion. Looks are genetic (but even that is more reliant on cultural dynamics than you understand), athleticism is genetic. Winning and losing (in the organised athletics sense) are not.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

*Re: So young.....so foolish...*



alphaorange said:


> College, my boys....college. Logic and Philosophy would do wonders for you guys. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, guess what? Its a duck.


Or a robot that is modeled after a duck.

With this analogy, Jordan _is_ a duck.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*whatever*

you're a real genius. Pleasure being taught by you.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

*Re: whatever*



alphaorange said:


> you're a real genius. Pleasure being taught by you.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Wasn't talking about you, Chan...*

Your remedial **** doesn't even make sense. No logic, no depth...nothing of substance. The fact you don't know shows a lack of intellectual potential. Besides...it was a facetious post. Anyone with a brain knows that. Again, just more proof of your shortfalls. *edit*


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

:laugh: Don't tell me I'm embaressing college boy over here. You type big paragraphs and I can refute that with a few words. Still, you haven't proven your point by using theories from researchers, and I'm using Jordan to back me up. MJ been there, done that. I take his word for it.

Ali!


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Well.....*

I'm smart enough to spell embarrass. Or at least use spell-check.

"Don't tell me I'm embaressing college boy over here."


Time to lock 'er up, Kitty


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

Ali?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Alpha , 

for the most part your posts on this thread have been ridiculous.

on one hand you want to lay insult on people for differing with your opinions and demand substantial proof for the nerve others have to actually have an opinion different than your own.

but when the tables are turned you provide the same snide attitude but no proof of any kind.

where is the proof that winners are born?

where is the proof that killer instinct comes at birth ?

all you did was provide some quotes on the *theory * of leadership qualities.

there are plenty of leaders in the nba that cant beat you because they dont have a killer instict and have won nothing ...so your post on it actually makes you look more foolish 

so basically to have so much gall to put down people time and time again when all you have actually provided is foolishness makes you look stupid , ill mannered and to have no real knowledge of reading comprehension , basketball or pyschology(sports pscyhology specifically) and its a rare triple feat so i guess if you want to take a silver lining on this , there is that because its rare some1 can come on a thing as menial as a basketball thread and expose themselves so thoroughly.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Another idiot?*

I never said Killer instinct was inborn. I also made it clear, when those with differing opinions distorted what was posted, that the TRAITS that allow a person to become leaders, "winners", etc. are considered to be part of a persons genetic make up. I also cited studies that support this. Instead of jumping in with nothing, why don't you get off your lazy opinionated butt and find something that supports your position. Or maybe you can come up with a real pearl like "MJs been there and done that". What the hell does that even mean? If you dissenters wish to frame your POV as your opinion, fine. I can respect that. But don't jump in saying I'm wrong and you and the others are right if you have nothing to offer as support for your opinion. These are not theories, grinch. They were studies that concluded these qualities are inborn. I could find many others very easily. Again, show me something legitimate the is contrary. Or shut the hell up because I'm not interested in your OPINION regarding this.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Another idiot?*



alphaorange said:


> *I never said Killer instinct was inborn.* I also made it clear, when those with differing opinions distorted what was posted, that the TRAITS that allow a person to become leaders, "winners", etc. are considered to be part of a persons genetic make up. I also cited studies that support this. Instead of jumping in with nothing, why don't you get off your lazy opinionated butt and find something that supports your position. Or maybe you can come up with a real pearl like "MJs been there and done that". What the hell does that even mean? If you dissenters wish to frame your POV as your opinion, fine. I can respect that. But don't jump in saying I'm wrong and you and the others are right if you have nothing to offer as support for your opinion. These are not theories, grinch. They were studies that concluded these qualities are inborn. I could find many others very easily. Again, show me something legitimate the is contrary. Or shut the hell up because I'm not interested in your OPINION regarding this.


post 41 from this thread:



> Agressive play doesn't mean Killer instinct. It means agressive play. Geez, are you think. Page me back when you find where it says his heart and desire come form something other than inside and, btw, it also doesn't mean that someone (anyone) else would have succeeded where he did. What about brother Larry? He apparently had the "agressive" play. MJ was special in and out. Is that so hard for you to admit? *Where does he say it wasn't inborn?* It says his brother helped him HONE it...meaning it was already there Can you do the reading comp. thing? Key phrase "Michael's determination to catch-up and win". Duh. Do ever read whole articles or just what suits your argument?


what is the it that i underline and bolded , the only think you spoke that it could be is killer instinct.

so you never actually posted the words but its rather obvious thats what you were saying.


when you call people idiot its ironic ...you do know that dont you?

and in case you didn't know there is this thing called called sports psychology and a rather large portion of it is based around getting people to aquire these traits(killer instinct , drive, leadership) you say people can only be born with .

so why dont you look it up learn a little something ...and we'll move on.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*I'm done...*

It just gets old having to go back and explain every ****ing thing you post. I don't spend a whole lotta time writing these things. The whole gist is...and has been....are the traits that allow a person to be a winner or a leader a product of genetic make-up or "inborn"? To go back and try to make it into something other than that is not right. I've explained many times what this is about...including a post BEFORE you previously responded. I give you guys a lot of latitude in how you phrase things, choosing not to pick apart your phrases to distort the real meaning. If you wish to turn this into a forum of "contract language", count me out. 

Besides, I see nothing in my post to suggest that killer instinct (it) is not a product of genetic make-up and therefore, technically, is consistent with my stance. A blue ribbon for you for finding a word that makes my last statement incorrect. Also, MJs killer instinct has little to do with the general idea of the post. It is a but one part of his qualities (the killer instinct, which by the way, and which was HONED by his competitions with his bro). Whether I said it or not (and I did) is irrelevant. Let's just break this down into simple concepts that can be responded to in simple ways.

My stance is that the traits that allow a person to become a leader,or winner at high levels is governed by genetic make-up. I supported this by citing actual research. All opposed to this idea please do not post back on anything that is not supported by some legitimate source, unless you qualify by stating it as your opinion. Simple rules, right? See who can follow them.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: I'm done...*



alphaorange said:


> It just gets old having to go back and explain every ****ing thing you post. I don't spend a whole lotta time writing these things. The whole gist is...and has been....are the traits that allow a person to be a winner or a leader a product of genetic make-up or "inborn"? To go back and try to make it into something other than that is not right. I've explained many times what this is about...including a post BEFORE you previously responded. I give you guys a lot of latitude in how you phrase things, choosing not to pick apart your phrases to distort the real meaning. If you wish to turn this into a forum of "contract language", count me out.
> 
> Besides, I see nothing in my post to suggest that killer instinct (it) is not a product of genetic make-up and therefore, technically, is consistent with my stance. A blue ribbon for you for finding a word that makes my last statement incorrect. Also, MJs killer instinct has little to do with the general idea of the post. It is a but one part of his qualities (the killer instinct, which by the way, and which was HONED by his competitions with his bro). Whether I said it or not (and I did) is irrelevant. Let's just break this down into simple concepts that can be responded to in simple ways.
> 
> My stance is that the traits that allow a person to become a leader,or winner at high levels is governed by genetic make-up. I supported this by citing actual research. All opposed to this idea please do not post back on anything that is not supported by some legitimate source, unless you qualify by stating it as your opinion. Simple rules, right? See who can follow them.


its a shame you are delusional about your own behavior .

you claim not to want to pick apart posts based on what you termed "contract language" but that is what you attempted to do to me and others on this thread ...but when its thrown back at you ...

you suddenly dont want to play this game anymore .

you dish out stuff all the time as far as insults and little snide remarks putting people down but seem a little thin skinned when its thrown back at you and thats a sad indictment on you, it really is.

i have no problem letting things of that nature slide , there are people on this board who make those kind of mistakes all the time and i never call them on it and I dont plan to in the future I simply do my best to understand their point and converse with them on that level and the reason is simple I treat people the way they treat others as far as I can see.

If you were a poster who treated people with respect , from me you'd get it.

if you were the kind of poster who would let "contract language" as you term it slide , I would let your errors slide with no problem...i would never even mention them because i really dont need to I am perfectly capable of making my point without them.


this board is as leniant as any board on this site as far as the stuff said and the ideas expressed, this thread is supposedly about Thomas' job performance , the last time anyone even mentioned Thomas was like 5 pages back, if no one else cares , than neither do I.

You swear you've made your point over and over again , and if you really knew anything about the subject and I believe it was Chan who pointed it out to you but you failed to grasp it was this .

they are all theories ...none of it is factual and you cant really prove a theory , because if you could it wouldn't be a thoery , it would be a fact.

psychology = 1 big grouping of theories

and to be honest they change all the time, there are always new studies saying one thing and then there is a study that says the opposite that comes along later. 

also unless a study was done on that particular person we are posting about there is no way to decipher which way the win blows on that particular theory because there are no 100% cases in large numbers or generalizations , if there were , it would be a fact not a theory...they could easily be an exception

, most of this post has been brought by what Da Grinch learned himself the 1st day he took Psych 101 some years back...so take it easy on the college man he might know what he's talking about.

and once again when it comes to MJ he and his circle of people say it came from his setbacks namely getting cut from HS as a sophmore and competing with his brother in the backyard, no one has studied Jordan close up , he says it , his family has said it and his friends have said it in interviews , that you cling to theories even at this point when common sense says give it up long ago, well i'm at a loss for words on that , so i'll just end the post here.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Fine...*

"so take it easy on the college man he might know what he's talking about."
Simply put, you don't. Is evolution a fact? If so, why? If not, why not? 

Nothing you wrote disputing my point is factual in any way. I gave a simple request in my last post. You can't do it.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

*Re: I'm done...*



Da Grinch said:


> they are all theories ...none of it is factual and you cant really prove a theory , because if you could it wouldn't be a thoery , it would be a fact.


Honestly, with one exception, nothing he posted even rises to the level of a "theory" as almost all the posts lacked any scientific content at all. The only apparently scientific paper was hopelessly out of date. He's presenting pop bio-pyschology.


----------

