Well, we all like Crawford as a person and we are tantalized by his talent, his highlight plays and his lack of conscience/balls of steel with the game on the line.

But doesn't the offense and especially defense look better with him out?

We've all speculated that Marbury or Curry or Francis or Frye etc. are the problem with the Knicks lack of continuity.

I think the problem with the Knicks continuity is Crawford. We have less brain farts as a team with him out on offense and defense. He really doesn't play in the flow of the game.

Every player seems to be in the flow more now and it looks to me like the perimeter defense is better too.

And if Steve Francis can play, he is just flat-out a better player than Crawford; doing all of the same things except better: He gets into the paint at will except he gets fouled when he does it. He is a better passer in my opinion. He's made big shots throughout his career. He rebounds better. He makes the same boneheaded turnovers.

I wonder if we can get a late first-rounder for Crawford? Even if Francis' knee goes south again I think we need to go in a different direction than Crawford. Isiah should not be married to him, after all Crawford was always "plan B" in case Houston couldn't come back.

Whachoo guys think?

oohah

I've been saying that all season

Posted by Anji:

Think you are alittle too high on Francis three. Todays game was pretty much how the knicks have beenplaying for weeks, the only difference between today and when crawford was playing is that we played Jeffries with our two play making guards. Instead of playing the "Defensive stopper" know as mister sore lower back.......................... think we can get a late firstrounder for him??? LOL

Anji, if Francis has his legs is he a better player than Crawford? I think he is, I don't think a real argument can be made that he isn't.

But forget Francis' 3 pointer, and Francis altogether. Don't you think the team looks less out of sorts sans Crawford? How good do you think Crawford is? Don't we need to upgrade? I like him, but I think Crawford is way too inconsistent and always will be.

oohah

Posted by Anji:

But the thing is how can you post about francis doing a better job when he had 7 to's, 10 threes, the offense was stagnate(if not for making alot of jumpshots). And the defensive gave up alot of open shots/layups, but Stevenson wideopen finger roll in a win didn't happen all???? The game pretty much looked the same as it since Feburary, accept Rose, balkman and collins got to play for defense. Maybe they should play more whenJC comes back????

At this points in their careers I would not say Francis is better, the SteveFranchise in houston was. Of coures anybody would take an up grade, what is the up grade??? Carter Or Tmac, who would say no. Steve Francis??? I wouldn't saythat isan up grade.

Maybe you're right. I just prefer Francis' more aggressive style of going to the basket. I still don't like him pounding the air out of the ball or the dumb turnovers.

There are a lot of SG's beside Carter or T-Mac that would be an upgrade to Crawford, if for no other reason than better defense and less erratic offense, and just the ability to play within an offense rather than being like turning a wildcat loose on the court: maybe he kills other team, maybe he kills you!

If Francis has 2 legs I think he is a better player. He doesn't have to be Houston Stevie Franchise.

What I am saying is not so much a dig at Crawford's ability. You ever play pickup ball? And there is a guy who is super-talented but you just never know what he is going to do so it makes it hard for your team to get in sync? That is what I think Crawford does. And I am not just basing it on the past few games. I think that is the reason CHI cut him loose.

oohah

Why do people single out Jamal when Q also did not play last night. How quickly people forget.

Jamal's frustrating. He really should be a bench player, but he's so much better when he starts.

Him and Francis both make such awful mistakes to go along with their great plays. I like Craw better for his potential and because he actually has arc on his shot.

Well, we all like Crawford as a person and we are tantalized by his talent, his highlight plays and his lack of conscience/balls of steel with the game on the line.


His conscience might be questionable, but his balls of still should not. He's had six game winning shots. starbury couldn't even hit the damn free throw the other night.


But doesn't the offense and especially defense look better with him out?

His D might suc, but we do have a better record when he's playing on the offensive end.


We've all speculated that Marbury or Curry or Francis or Frye etc. are the problem with the Knicks lack of continuity.

But we do in fact have a problem with these guys continuity.


I think the problem with the Knicks continuity is Crawford. We have less brain farts as a team with him out on offense and defense. He really doesn't play in the flow of the game.

The real problem with this team is, we have guys who can play better at defense, with no real offensive game and guys who have good offense, but no defense (for the most part). No' one can have continuity with a lack of balance like that.


Every player seems to be in the flow more now and it looks to me like the perimeter defense is better too.

Yeah, but the more important thing about that is 'does it reflect the our record in a better light'? No' it does not. We have basically been a win, loss, win, loss, win, loss team in about the last dozen games. So the flow is in question.


And if Steve Francis can play, he is just flat-out a better player than Crawford; doing all of the same things except better: He gets into the paint at will except he gets fouled when he does it. He is a better passer in my opinion. He's made big shots throughout his career. He rebounds better. He makes the same boneheaded turnovers.

'If' is the operative word here. If' he's healthy and his history with us tells us that he more than likely will not be.


I wonder if we can get a late first-rounder for Crawford? Even if Francis' knee goes south again I think we need to go in a different direction than Crawford. Isiah should not be married to him, after all Crawford was always "plan B" in case Houston couldn't come back.

Well, Houston is no longer here, so Craw is suppose to be plan 'A' now.


Whachoo guys think?

That's what I think. oohah!

Posted by NYKresurrection:

But remember fellas, Curry's production is tied to Crawford weither we like it or not. So, we must consider the fact that by trading Craw, are scoring will be effected in 2 areas, so we MUST get someone back that make up that difference in scoring and getting Curry looks.

That's another great point! Forgot about that one. Since Craws missing in action, Curry hasn't done much with scoring, which also brings up another question. It proves that he can't do it by himself, which disproves that he is anything close to being a franchise player.

It's one game NY, it's one game! Show me da money and I'll start to believe more.

Personally, I think all of Marbury, Francis, and Crawford have to go. Crawford is a good player, but he'll be better on a team with a tough coach. Not a coach who's trying to be his best friend. Francis holds the ball way too much, and Marbury is passing his prime. Anyone notice how he's been jacking up just as many 3s as Crawford, lately?

>>It's one game NY, it's one game! Show me da money and I'll start to believe more.

4949 - they plays 'em one game at a time. If you don't care to enjoy the ride, that's cool.

But you are missing the subtle maturation of a determined team playing without two starters (Quentin a fierce defender; and Jamal - the second leading scorer) and one of it's best players (Lee, according to some) put up a helluva fight down the stretch.

These guys fight back.

Bandwagon jumpers do not deserve to be shown any "money".

Besides, it ain't my money.

[Edited by - misterearl on 03-11-2007 09:53 AM]