"Son, you got to shoot. It's like you're out there passing the ball acting like you're scared to shoot."

Posted by Knight:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/sports/basketball/04knicks.html?

Excerpt:

It is no secret that Marbury likes to shoot. When he was asked yesterday about the intriguing possibility of moving from point guard to shooting guard, his eyes lit up. He even said that Brown once told him that if he coached him, he would play him at shooting guard.

"It's going to be kind of scary because now I can shoot whenever I want to shoot," Marbury said of the potential shift.

Marbury recalled a game during the Olympics when Brown approached him before tip-off and said: "Son, you got to shoot. It's like you're out there passing the ball acting like you're scared to shoot."

--Interesting, also from this article it sounds like Stephon is not going anywhere as long as Isiah is on board.

that can't be, marbury's selfish remember. they must have missquoted larry brown or something.

we'll see what happens w/LB's system. it made billups look like a decent defender.

Posted by TMS:

moving Steph to SG would be a terrible move...he's the best ball distributor on this team...it makes sense to trade either him or Crawford & play Q at the 2...having a 6'0" SG NOT named Iverson is an exercise in foolishness.

Marbury's 6'2" and stronger than most SGs. I think it's worth trying him at SG.

Posted by TMS:

moving Steph to SG would be a terrible move...he's the best ball distributor on this team...it makes sense to trade either him or Crawford & play Q at the 2...having a 6'0" SG NOT named Iverson is an exercise in foolishness.

I agree with most of your post - and I think moving Marbury is a mistake. Although his career has been self serving to this point and he needs to learn how to make people around him better (granted he was surrounded mostly by bums in NY). However, I have to say I think Marbury could be as effective as Marbury at the 2 if he applies himself.

Moving Marbury to the 2-guard would be a disaster in more ways than one. Both positions 1 and 2 become post-up liabilities. Marbury will get burned consistently on the perimeter. Even when he's playing hard he won't be able to contest shots working against a 5 inch height differential. Again, if your raising the stakes on his defense, your likely to lose that gamble.

And if LB thing he's unleashing an offensive weapon by moving Stephon to the 2, I'm not so sure. Our offensive strategy with him at PG already involves about 15 Marbury isolation plays per game. Now, we just waste shot clock trying to deliver the ball to him. And, players have been effective denying him the ball.

Not to mention, Marbury is by no means a perfect offensive player. He cant catch and shoot. He cant post up. And, as a shooting guard, he is likely to receive the ball on the side of the court much more frequently, notably where he is much less effective. Marbury requires space at the top of the key to operate.

Again, his expertise is driving the ball and, as TMS pointed out, distributing the ball. I think you detract from his skills by moving him to shooting guard. We have enough offensive talent on the roster and we don't need Marbury to shoulder the burden Iverson style.

I'm sure the move isnt exlusive. The point is we have a lot of fire pwower in the backcourt and playing Marbury at some 2 is a way to maximize that. Crawford had some great games distributing the ball last year, no reason not to see more of that. Also playing a small backcourt of Nate and Marbury or Crawford and Marbury causes a lot of matchup problem for other teams. The proof is in the stats.

Our biggest problem was the lack of size up front. Thats less of a problem this year. We now have some bigger bodies to throw around up front. Big guards are going to post whoever they play. The NBA is different now. Its more effective to have speed guys on the perimeter than bigger physical guys. Its a result of the rules change. "Combo guards" are the new way to go.. having a backcourt of two guys that can move and handle the ball.

Hughes/Arenas, Duhon/Hinrich, Nelson/Francis, Parker/Ginobili.. I think this is the thinking here. I dont think anyone is thinking about playing Marbury exlusively at PG. Its more about freeing him up some more to score and putting more pressure on the defense.

I think we are making too much of the matchups and focusing less on the effect it has on the flow. We have the same backcourt as last year, with marbs and craw...i think on defense marbury will guard the point and crawford will guard the 2, since it matches up more evenly. it isnt like we are starting nate and marbury, or marbury and a 6'0 point guard. the move is more so crawford brings the ball up the court and marbury can become more of a scorer, since it seems that LB thinks hes more of a scorer than a distributor.

EDIT: also, it means crawford is passing more than shooting, which is always a good thing.

[Edited by - nyballer on 08/04/2005 10:02:20]

Posted by fishmike:

I'm sure the move isnt exlusive. The point is we have a lot of fire pwower in the backcourt and playing Marbury at some 2 is a way to maximize that. Crawford had some great games distributing the ball last year, no reason not to see more of that. Also playing a small backcourt of Nate and Marbury or Crawford and Marbury causes a lot of matchup problem for other teams. The proof is in the stats.

Our biggest problem was the lack of size up front. Thats less of a problem this year. We now have some bigger bodies to throw around up front. Big guards are going to post whoever they play. The NBA is different now. Its more effective to have speed guys on the perimeter than bigger physical guys. Its a result of the rules change. "Combo guards" are the new way to go.. having a backcourt of two guys that can move and handle the ball.

Hughes/Arenas, Duhon/Hinrich, Nelson/Francis, Parker/Ginobili.. I think this is the thinking here. I dont think anyone is thinking about playing Marbury exlusively at PG. Its more about freeing him up some more to score and putting more pressure on the defense.

I disagree with a lot written here. I think when we talk about "freeing up Marbury" by moving him to the 2, we need to be very specific.

If the idea is to exploit our backcourt firepower, run more plays for Marbury at the point. Moving Stephon to the 2 adds an unnecessary step to the offensive set - and burns significant shot clock every possession. Thats adds up to 5-10 rushed shots per game.

With regard to Crawford's PG skills, I agree that there is potential there. Marbury is simply better at it and, if the idea is to optimize offensive decision making, we stick with Stephon. If the idea is to develop Crawford, you go the ther way.

You're right that Marbury won't be the exclusive 2-guard - but I think that there may be no need for that at all. Crawford and Marbury together are, so far, not great at complementing each other. They've been able to relieve pressure in the backcourt but thats basic stuff. Crawford's game needs a lot of refinement and, I think, would benefit by being the recipient of more motion plays, with Marbury calling the shots.

About the bigger guards posting up in the NBA and the advantage of combo-guards, its really anyone's guess. I'm a believer in player's having roles. And I think its a liability to play Steph at the 2.

In response to Knight's comment that Marbury would be more effective against slower 2-guards, I would heavily bet against that prediction. 2 guards will play him Marbury a driver and certainly have more length to give more ground.

Again, I take issue with the fact that the 2 guard position frees him up. Marbury niche in the offense is at the top of the key - he happens to be exactly there when he runs the point.

Posted by OasisBU:

Posted by TMS:

moving Steph to SG would be a terrible move...he's the best ball distributor on this team...it makes sense to trade either him or Crawford & play Q at the 2...having a 6'0" SG NOT named Iverson is an exercise in foolishness.

I agree with most of your post - and I think moving Marbury is a mistake. Although his career has been self serving to this point and he needs to learn how to make people around him better (granted he was surrounded mostly by bums in NY). However, I have to say I think Marbury could be as effective as Marbury at the 2 if he applies himself.

I also think Marbury could be as effective as Marbury!