Does he have a good Nick-Name

[pumpfake]

can't beat kryptonate.

[LarBrd33]

just curious how many of u guys who scream about nate not being able to have ever watched him on a regular basis?? im not in love with the guy but to just blatantly right him off i think is a little ridiculous  

i wrote him off in college.  Guy's a bum.

[Redz]

just curious how many of u guys who scream about nate not being able to have ever watched him on a regular basis?? im not in love with the guy but to just blatantly right him off i think is a little ridiculous  

As both a longtime New York resident and League Pass customer, I have watched plenty.

Haven't written him off.  But it's no stretch to say he was horrific defensively as a Knick.

-sw

Has any Knick played great D in the last however many years?

[buellj814]

just curious how many of u guys who scream about nate not being able to have ever watched him on a regular basis?? im not in love with the guy but to just blatantly right him off i think is a little ridiculous  

As both a longtime New York resident and League Pass customer, I have watched plenty.

Haven't written him off.  But it's no stretch to say he was horrific defensively as a Knick.

-sw

Has any Knick played great D in the last however many years?

as a fellow new yorker, i agree steve he was absolutely   horrific on defense but im just saying hes replacing eddie who i don't think was much better on d, and nate is a better rebounder and offensive player, therefore doesn't this make us a better team??

I just think the whole ubntu thing left after kg's first knee injury and we just need an infusion

[Jon Niednagel]

Well, he kind of looks like "Fity-cent," so maybe we can call him "Nickel" or "Five-cent."

[Jon]

He's already got "Krypto-Nate" and (as nicknamed by Jackie Taylor during All-Star Weekend in Dallas) Nater Tot, which is kind of growing on me.

I think we're all set here.

-sw

I do like Nater Tot. 

[Redz]

He's already got "Krypto-Nate" and (as nicknamed by Jackie Taylor during All-Star Weekend in Dallas) Nater Tot, which is kind of growing on me.

I think we're all set here.

-sw

I do like Nater Tot. 

That's 2 legit lol's.

 

[celts34pats55]

Don't some call him Nasty Nate, after the character from the movie Half Baked, ironic of course since the guy in the movie was massive

[crownsy]

Overrated.

Most are evaluating him as better than eddie house. He is. That's not overrating him.

Overrating him would be saying he's starting material, or some such junk.

Anyway, i vote kyrptonate, can't get much better.

[Tai]

just curious how many of u guys who scream about nate not being able to have ever watched him on a regular basis?? im not in love with the guy but to just blatantly right him off i think is a little ridiculous  

As both a longtime New York resident and League Pass customer, I have watched plenty.

Haven't written him off.  But it's no stretch to say he was horrific defensively as a Knick.

-sw

Who on the Knicks can defend? They give up 104.1 PPG!

[Steve Weinman]

Overrated.

Anyway, i vote kyrptonate, can't get much better.

Especially since he'll be wearing green full-time now.

-sw

[Fafnir]

Overrated.

Anyway, i vote kyrptonate, can't get much better.

Especially since he'll be wearing green full-time now.

-sw

If he dunks on Howard in a playoff game that'd be an instant best selling poster.

[Steve Weinman]

just curious how many of u guys who scream about nate not being able to have ever watched him on a regular basis?? im not in love with the guy but to just blatantly right him off i think is a little ridiculous  

As both a longtime New York resident and League Pass customer, I have watched plenty.

Haven't written him off.  But it's no stretch to say he was horrific defensively as a Knick.

-sw

Who on the Knicks can defend? They give up 104.1 PPG!

Sure, the Knicks have been a horrific defensive team for most of Nate's tenure (although, please, I beg of you, please use efficiency figures rather than PPG as they tell a more accurate story - and in this case still get your point across) - but a big part of that has been having a set of bad defensive players.

I don't buy that as an excuse for Nate.

-sw

[Fafnir]

just curious how many of u guys who scream about nate not being able to have ever watched him on a regular basis?? im not in love with the guy but to just blatantly right him off i think is a little ridiculous  

As both a longtime New York resident and League Pass customer, I have watched plenty.

Haven't written him off.  But it's no stretch to say he was horrific defensively as a Knick.

-sw

Who on the Knicks can defend? They give up 104.1 PPG!

Sure, the Knicks have been a horrific defensive team for most of Nate's tenure (although, please, I beg of you, please use efficiency figures rather than PPG as they tell a more accurate story - and in this case still get your point across) - but a big part of that has been having a set of bad defensive players.

I don't buy that as an excuse for Nate.

-sw

As bad as Nate is defensively, I don't think he'll hurt us any worse than Eddie. Just differently, he'll gamble like Rondo often does more than anything.

Eddie over helps and lacks the physical ability to keep up with opponents. Nate has the quickness to do it, but no the discipline or height.

[Steve Weinman]

just curious how many of u guys who scream about nate not being able to have ever watched him on a regular basis?? im not in love with the guy but to just blatantly right him off i think is a little ridiculous  

As both a longtime New York resident and League Pass customer, I have watched plenty.

Haven't written him off.  But it's no stretch to say he was horrific defensively as a Knick.

-sw

Who on the Knicks can defend? They give up 104.1 PPG!

Sure, the Knicks have been a horrific defensive team for most of Nate's tenure (although, please, I beg of you, please use efficiency figures rather than PPG as they tell a more accurate story - and in this case still get your point across) - but a big part of that has been having a set of bad defensive players.

I don't buy that as an excuse for Nate.

-sw

As bad as Nate is defensively, I don't think he'll hurt us any worse than Eddie. Just differently, he'll gamble like Rondo often does more than anything.

Eddie over helps and lacks the physical ability to keep up with opponents. Nate has the quickness to do it, but no the discipline or height.

I agree with all this to a tee, Faf - and while I'm a huge Eddie fan and have some frustration about seeing him go sentimentally, I'm not sure I'm a critic of this trade from a basketball standpoint: Nate's shooting figures have been at or better than Eddie's levels this year, and he can handle the ball and create his own shot as well. 

Further, as you note, I don't think we'll see much defensive depreciation considering what was given up.

The only reason I brought up his defense at all was because of an earlier post in the thread about why there was so much negativity about Nate's game on the board.

-sw