[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

What would your rotations look like if the Jefferies signing goes through?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 1 of 2  1  2 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
7/31/2006  12:11 PM
i like Jefferies versatility to play 3 positions, & would have him coming off the bench to start the season.

here's how my rotation would look like to start the season (will hopefully change by the Allstar break after unloading some contracts):

C - Curry
PF - Frye
SF - Lee (rebounding SF needed to make up for Curry)
SG - Francis (we need to get this guy's value back up so we can unload his contract)
PG - Marbury
6 - Crawford (starting SG once Francis is dealt)
7 - Jefferies (6th man once Francis is dealt)
8 - Q Rich
9 - Nate
10 - Balkman
11 - Malik
12 - Big Turd (package w/an expiring to get his useless butt off this team)
IR - Collins (will be getting minutes by the Allstar break hopefully if Francis can be dealt somehow)
IR - Mo T (traded by deadline)
IR - Jalen (traded by deadline)
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
AUTOADVERT
misterearl
Posts: 38786
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/16/2004
Member: #799
USA
7/31/2006  12:15 PM
Curry

Frye

Jeffries

Francis

Marbury

Lee as sixth man

In order of matching up with opponent

Crawford

Balkman

Nate

James

once a knick always a knick
misterearl
Posts: 38786
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/16/2004
Member: #799
USA
7/31/2006  12:17 PM
That's a ten man rotation of dudes who can expect minutes

Collins for garbage time, or in case of emergency, when the opposing two goes off

The rest can take a hike
once a knick always a knick
nyk4ever
Posts: 41010
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 1/12/2005
Member: #848
USA
7/31/2006  12:43 PM
C- Curry
PF- Frye
SF- Jeffries
SG- Francis
PG- Marbury

Bench: Crawford, Lee, Q, MoT, Nate

Those would be my 10. I love the Starting Lineup, Jeffries really balances it out
"OMG - did we just go on a two-trade-wining-streak?" -SupremeCommander
misterearl
Posts: 38786
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/16/2004
Member: #799
USA
7/31/2006  1:01 PM
nyk4ever - I'm witchoo.

a frontline of three, energetic, unselfish, individually unique, 6'11 players with complimentary skills is too tasty for words.

Add 6'6 Collins (substance) and 6'5 Crawford (style) in the backcourt and you have some appetizing size as well

That's my dream five in 07-08

David Lee as Billy Cunningham with plenty of PT

Paul Miller at backup center

Marbury and Francis can duke it out for the John Starks Memorial Chair.
once a knick always a knick
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
7/31/2006  1:12 PM
that lineup with Woods at SG would of been really sweet. tallest starting 5 ever lol
Panos
Posts: 30590
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
7/31/2006  3:28 PM
Posted by gunsnewing:

that lineup with Woods at SG would of been really sweet. tallest starting 5 ever lol

Woods at SG, and Jalen at PG.
Panos
Posts: 30590
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/6/2004
Member: #520
7/31/2006  3:32 PM
Posted by Panos:
Posted by gunsnewing:

that lineup with Woods at SG would of been really sweet. tallest starting 5 ever lol

Woods at SG, and Jalen at PG.

For that matter, if you want height, move JJ2 to SG, Jalen PG, and Lee at SF.
We're talking:

Jalen PG 6'8"
JJ2 SG 6'11"
Lee 6'9"
Frye 6'11"
Curry 6'11"

And if that's not tall enough, you can always bring JJ1 in to run the point
TMat614
Posts: 20037
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/6/2006
Member: #1148
USA
7/31/2006  3:36 PM
Starter:
C- Curry
PF- Frye
SF- Jeffries
SG- Francis
PG- Marbury

Bench:
Crawford
Lee
Nate
Balkman
James

extras:
Q
Collins

inactive:
Paul Miller
Udoka

trade or buyout Mo T, Malik and Jalen
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
7/31/2006  4:05 PM
Posted by Panos:
Posted by gunsnewing:

that lineup with Woods at SG would of been really sweet. tallest starting 5 ever lol

Woods at SG, and Jalen at PG.


jalen can't guard PGs. gotta be a little realistic with the lineup. Woods will have enough trouble keeping up with SGs as opposed to SFs but if H20 did it when he was healthy I don't see why Woods can't
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
7/31/2006  4:49 PM
If I could magically make guys disappear this would be my rotation/line ups for next year:
PG Marbury
SG Nate
SF Jeffries
PF Lee
C Curry
bench: Crawford, Frye, Balkman

the rest can float away like a fart in the wind
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/31/2006  5:06 PM
Posted by fishmike:

If I could magically make guys disappear this would be my rotation/line ups for next year:
PG Marbury
SG Nate
SF Jeffries
PF Lee
C Curry
bench: Crawford, Frye, Balkman

the rest can float away like a fart in the wind

I think that 8-man rotation would finish above .500. Hopefully Isiah won't worry about contracts but will worry about putting the players most likely to help the team win on the court.
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
7/31/2006  5:10 PM
he already said he's going with a 11man rotation so you can instantly pencil Francis, Q & Jerome and neither of those guys are moveable

[Edited by - gunsnewing on 07-31-2006 5:18 PM]
nyballer
Posts: 21019
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 9/4/2001
Member: #108
USA
7/31/2006  5:14 PM
Curry
Frye
Jeffries
Q
Marbury

Bench:
Lee
Balkman
Crawford
Francis
Nate

i'd have frye play backup C and maybe even a little bit of jeffries/lee backing up the 5

[Edited by - nyballer on 07-31-2006 5:14 PM]
"easy like sunday morning..." - walt clyde
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
7/31/2006  5:26 PM
alright dream lineup, no politics?

Curry
Martin
JJ
Crawford
Marbury
-------
Frye(C)
Lee(PF)
Woods(SG)
Balkman(SF)
Nate(PG)
-------
Collins

the hell with everyone else. Frye & Lee will see a ton of minutes because like Jerome James, Curry will never learn to stay out of foul trouble. Not in his 6th year in the league

[Edited by - gunsnewing on 07-31-2006 5:34 PM]
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
7/31/2006  6:31 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by fishmike:

If I could magically make guys disappear this would be my rotation/line ups for next year:
PG Marbury
SG Nate
SF Jeffries
PF Lee
C Curry
bench: Crawford, Frye, Balkman

the rest can float away like a fart in the wind

I think that 8-man rotation would finish above .500. Hopefully Isiah won't worry about contracts but will worry about putting the players most likely to help the team win on the court.
I dont, but it would be the most enjoyable to watch and the best possible chance for some kind of style of play

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
7/31/2006  6:44 PM
Nate starting at SG? that's not a good plan... we'd be exposed every single game w/bad mismatches... Nate needs to come off the bench.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/31/2006  7:20 PM
Posted by fishmike:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by fishmike:

If I could magically make guys disappear this would be my rotation/line ups for next year:
PG Marbury
SG Nate
SF Jeffries
PF Lee
C Curry
bench: Crawford, Frye, Balkman

the rest can float away like a fart in the wind

I think that 8-man rotation would finish above .500. Hopefully Isiah won't worry about contracts but will worry about putting the players most likely to help the team win on the court.
I dont, but it would be the most enjoyable to watch and the best possible chance for some kind of style of play
I was probably getting excited but I think it would win at least 38.
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
7/31/2006  7:49 PM
Posted by TMS:

Nate starting at SG? that's not a good plan... we'd be exposed every single game w/bad mismatches... Nate needs to come off the bench.
I disagree... Marbury is better guarding bigger players that he can stay in front of. I would rather have Paul Pierce shoot 20 jumpers over Marbury than watch Marbury let Delonte West into the paint every time he dribbles the ball. Nate can guard the opposing PGs. JJ and Lee are quick long forwards that disrupt offenses and Curry can at least clog the lane.

Its not conventional, but I think its the best with what we have. Not to mention that Nate or Marbury are going to draw someone on offense they can probably blow by. Part of the reason I like a more hustle pair of forwards that can really finish and get garbage points. JJ, Curry and Lee can all do that well.

"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
7/31/2006  9:19 PM
i feel u on why you want to have a mobile G who can G other team's PG's... i don't want to see the Milt Palacio's & Tyronn Lue's of the world putting up 30 a night w/Marbury guarding them either... i just like Nate's energy coming off the bench... him, Crawford, Q Rich, Balkman & Jefferies are my hustle second unit to breathe life into the team during games where they need a jolt to get back into the flow.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Page 1 of 2  1  2 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
What would your rotations look like if the Jefferies signing goes through?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy