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

Next year if we want to improve--they better have a plan to remove Q rich and his 28 minutes
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 1 of 3  1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
3/6/2008  10:33 AM
per game. Hopefully it's Michael Beasley. If we get rid of Randolph and Q--add Beasley Chnadler imporves and we add another guard Marbury?? we'll win 50
RIP Crushalot😞
AUTOADVERT
Cosmic
Posts: 26570
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1115
USA
3/6/2008  10:38 AM
That's it? Get rid of Q, add Beasley, and we're good to go?

Pfffftttt...please wake up.

This roster is garbage from top to bottom.


Just Q? Try...

Q, Curry, Crawful, Zachass, Marbury, Jeffries, Malik, Jerome...... maybe once ALL of them are gone, INCLUDING ISIAH, we could watch a game of BASKETBALL instead of and-1 no defense chucking TRASH that Isiah has filled the Garden with.

http://popcornmachine.net/ A must-use tool for NBA stat junkies!
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
3/6/2008  11:15 AM
Posted by BRIGGS:

per game. Hopefully it's Michael Beasley. If we get rid of Randolph and Q--add Beasley Chnadler imporves and we add another guard Marbury?? we'll win 50

Its called moving Q to the Malik role off the bench...
VDesai
Posts: 43301
Alba Posts: 44
Joined: 10/28/2003
Member: #477
USA
3/6/2008  11:29 AM
QRich is a bottom 5 NBA shooter. His leaving won't save the team, but taking that presence out of the game for 30 mins per would greatly improve the team's offense.
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
3/6/2008  11:45 AM
I think at this point you have to get rid of Zach. Curry is far more agressive without him at that spot. Unless you can get a superstar at the PF spot you really need to target a PF that can defend, block shots and rebound. The addition of Zach was assssinine.
I just hope that people will like me
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
3/6/2008  11:47 AM
Posted by VDesai:

QRich is a bottom 5 NBA shooter. His leaving won't save the team, but taking that presence out of the game for 30 mins per would greatly improve the team's offense.

Q is taking up minutes from players that could actually contribute to our future... he has been so bad offensively this year that we cannot unload him to another team.


Balkman can cause havoc, set picks, chase loose rebounds and run the break... Chandler can shoot and drive...
Balkman and Chandler deserve heavy minutes to audition for starting SF...
both of these players bring dynamic offensive intangibles on the offensive end and they both play credible D.
kam77
Posts: 27664
Alba Posts: 25
Joined: 3/17/2004
Member: #634
3/6/2008  11:47 AM
Q is a 15-20mpg player. I can't believe we went the whole season with him starting.
lol @ being BANNED by Martin since 11/07/10 (for asking if Mr. Earl had a point). Really, Martin? C'mon. This is the internet. I've seen much worse on this site. By Earl himself. Drop the hypocrisy.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/6/2008  11:47 AM
Posted by Bippity10:

I think at this point you have to get rid of Zach. Curry is far more agressive without him at that spot. Unless you can get a superstar at the PF spot you really need to target a PF that can defend, block shots and rebound. The addition of Zach was assssinine.

You wouldn't want a center that can defend, block shots, and rebound?

Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
3/6/2008  11:47 AM
Posted by kam77:

Q is a 15-20mpg player. I can't believe we went the whole season with him starting.

Q is a 0 mpg player.
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
3/6/2008  11:51 AM
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by Bippity10:

I think at this point you have to get rid of Zach. Curry is far more agressive without him at that spot. Unless you can get a superstar at the PF spot you really need to target a PF that can defend, block shots and rebound. The addition of Zach was assssinine.

You wouldn't want a center that can defend, block shots, and rebound?

Bitty: Curry is my least favorite player on this team. I would love to reshuffle my line-up by getting rid of both of them but........this is not realistic. So then I have to weight what is best for the team. I think Zach is the better player. But I think Curry has better chemistry with his teammates. Either way it doesn't matter. A defensive center to pair with Zach. fine. A defensive PF to pair with Eddie. Fine. Either way you are still left with a player that has never won and doesn't play defense.
I just hope that people will like me
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
3/6/2008  11:56 AM
Regardless of who is on the roster. We will be better next year if we balance the roster. Balance is far more important than who is in the line-up.
I just hope that people will like me
Allanfan20
Posts: 35947
Alba Posts: 50
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #542
USA
3/6/2008  12:09 PM
Yup, and to balance the frontcourt, it's imperative to get a defensive player of the year, b/c neither Curry or Zach play defense.
“Whenever I’m about to do something, I think ‘Would an idiot do that?’ and if they would, I do NOT do that thing.”- Dwight Schrute
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
3/6/2008  12:16 PM
Posted by Allanfan20:

Yup, and to balance the frontcourt, it's imperative to get a defensive player of the year, b/c neither Curry or Zach play defense.

We should bring back the philosophy of the '90s...
Any player that is not a fierce defender gets no playing time...

Suddenly, you will see Randolph and Curry bruising opponents because they are motivated to get playing time...
JrZyHuStLa
Posts: 25677
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 1/5/2007
Member: #1241
3/6/2008  12:18 PM
Posted by colorfl1:
Posted by Allanfan20:

Yup, and to balance the frontcourt, it's imperative to get a defensive player of the year, b/c neither Curry or Zach play defense.

We should bring back the philosophy of the '90s...
Any player that is not a fierce defender gets no playing time...

Suddenly, you will see Randolph and Curry bruising opponents because they are motivated to get playing time...

Ha! Wanna bet ?
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/6/2008  12:37 PM
Posted by Bippity10:

Regardless of who is on the roster. We will be better next year if we balance the roster. Balance is far more important than who is in the line-up.

Order of business:

1. Point guard

2. Small forward

Thats what we are missing and IMO those are far more glaring areas of need then anything else on this roster. Now if moving Randolph or Curry can net you either one or both of these needs then get it done. The Curry and Randolph experiment failed for a number of reasons but at the very top of reasons is due to horrible coaching. Not saying that it would have worked with good coaching or even great coaching but something could have been made out of that combo. There should have been roles established early in the season, along with some more plays involving these two working together, and allow Curry to work in his comfort area (down low) with Randolph playing the short corners or high post areas.
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
3/6/2008  12:58 PM
Posted by JrZyHuStLa:
Posted by colorfl1:
Posted by Allanfan20:

Yup, and to balance the frontcourt, it's imperative to get a defensive player of the year, b/c neither Curry or Zach play defense.

We should bring back the philosophy of the '90s...
Any player that is not a fierce defender gets no playing time...

Suddenly, you will see Randolph and Curry bruising opponents because they are motivated to get playing time...
Ha! Wanna bet ?

Just sit Curry's fat ass down and tell him to quit whining about playing time... Knock some heads in and make bodies role, Oakly style... then we can talk about minutes...
The dude plays D like a gummy bear... he brings no intimidation factor to opposing teams trying to drive the lane...

The problem with this team is they do not intimidate anyone.
Even if you have the worst record in the NBA, there is something to be said about opposing teams thinking twice before driving down the lane...
Intimidation has nothing to do with talent, it has to do with intensity, pride and being a man.



[Edited by - colorfl1 on 03-06-2008 1:03 PM]
Cosmic
Posts: 26570
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1115
USA
3/6/2008  1:05 PM
Posted by bitty41:



Order of business:

1. Point guard

2. Small forward


It goes a lot farther than this I have no idea why some fans still believe this is a viable core that only needs a tweak or two before they can return to greatness. There never was greatness with anything Isiah brought here and just adding or changing a part or two will do absolutely nothing of value to the situation.

You need to fire Isiah and you need to deport his entire "franchise cornerstones" starting five of Marbury, Crawford, QRich, Zach, Curry out of here and they need to take Malik and Jeffries and Jerome James with them.

You can not build a winner with those guys. It's impossible. I don't know why fans are still sucked into that idea that all it takes is one trade or the right coach or the right draft pick and we'll be that 50+win elite team.

That's never happening.

Bite the bullet, Fire Isiah, tear his mess down, endure two seasons of waiting for the tearing down to be completed. Endure the next two seasons of building back up. Then start talking about simple additions to make us a contender!


Oh, I know, "Yeah but we can't just sit here and stink for four years! New York won't allow that!"

Yeah, know what? We've stunk for seven because of a refusal to tear it down and Isiah has presided over 4+ years of those seven years of STINKING IT UP while ADDING JUST ONE MORE PIECE OR THE RIGHT COACH TO THE MIX in an attempt to BE AN ELITE TEAM.

How'd that go? Yet...here you guys are STILL sucked into the same old problem. If only we make the right trade, one more draft pick, or the right coach!


BLEH......How do you guys keep doing this to yourselves!?
http://popcornmachine.net/ A must-use tool for NBA stat junkies!
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
3/6/2008  1:15 PM
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by Bippity10:

Regardless of who is on the roster. We will be better next year if we balance the roster. Balance is far more important than who is in the line-up.

Order of business:

1. Point guard

2. Small forward

Thats what we are missing and IMO those are far more glaring areas of need then anything else on this roster. Now if moving Randolph or Curry can net you either one or both of these needs then get it done. The Curry and Randolph experiment failed for a number of reasons but at the very top of reasons is due to horrible coaching. Not saying that it would have worked with good coaching or even great coaching but something could have been made out of that combo. There should have been roles established early in the season, along with some more plays involving these two working together, and allow Curry to work in his comfort area (down low) with Randolph playing the short corners or high post areas.

Ideally you go in that order. But if we are looking at it long-term we need all that you and I mentioned. A PG, A SF, a PF/C that can play d rebound and block shots. We need all of it. Whatever moves we make it should be to find the following. A veteran leader. A future star that can lead us to the future. Or a player that fits our philosopy.

Draft-We need a future star. Best player available is the only way to go. Doesn't matter what position they play. There should be no locks on our roster. Ideally they would fall in the PG, PF/C or SF spots(although why not give Chandler a shot)

Free Agency-We aren't getting a star here. If we use a MLE it should be used to bring in a veteran leader. This is where position becomes important. IT should be someone that has won, can command respect and will be in the rotation. Ultimately we want 2 or 3 or 4 of these guys that can't take over the locker room and wrestle it from the Marbury's of the world and mentor the Nates of the world. PG to me would be ideal

Trades-A trade to plug holes on this current team is a waste of time. All trades in my view should target the same veteran leaders we are targeting in the free-agency pool, or to clear cap space. We need guys with reasonable salaries on this roster to provide flexibility. This again shouldn't be position specific. As long as they don't block "your future" they can be from whatever spot you want. Again, ideally you would want a PG, PF/c(shotblocker) or SF but with our current roster I wouldn't be picky.

To me all moves should target one of these areas: Leadership and culture over position. If you get the right position it's a bonus. We need them all.

[Edited by - Bippity10 on 06-03-2008 1:17 PM]
I just hope that people will like me
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
3/6/2008  1:25 PM
Posted by colorfl1:
Posted by JrZyHuStLa:
Posted by colorfl1:
Posted by Allanfan20:

Yup, and to balance the frontcourt, it's imperative to get a defensive player of the year, b/c neither Curry or Zach play defense.

We should bring back the philosophy of the '90s...
Any player that is not a fierce defender gets no playing time...

Suddenly, you will see Randolph and Curry bruising opponents because they are motivated to get playing time...
Ha! Wanna bet ?

Just sit Curry's fat ass down and tell him to quit whining about playing time... Knock some heads in and make bodies role, Oakly style... then we can talk about minutes...
The dude plays D like a gummy bear... he brings no intimidation factor to opposing teams trying to drive the lane...

The problem with this team is they do not intimidate anyone.
Even if you have the worst record in the NBA, there is something to be said about opposing teams thinking twice before driving down the lane...
Intimidation has nothing to do with talent, it has to do with intensity, pride and being a man.



[Edited by - colorfl1 on 03-06-2008 1:03 PM]
Masterplan
Posts: 21571
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/9/2002
Member: #362
3/6/2008  1:48 PM
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by Bippity10:

Regardless of who is on the roster. We will be better next year if we balance the roster. Balance is far more important than who is in the line-up.

Order of business:

1. Point guard

2. Small forward

Thats what we are missing and IMO those are far more glaring areas of need then anything else on this roster. Now if moving Randolph or Curry can net you either one or both of these needs then get it done. The Curry and Randolph experiment failed for a number of reasons but at the very top of reasons is due to horrible coaching. Not saying that it would have worked with good coaching or even great coaching but something could have been made out of that combo. There should have been roles established early in the season, along with some more plays involving these two working together, and allow Curry to work in his comfort area (down low) with Randolph playing the short corners or high post areas.

Ideally you go in that order. But if we are looking at it long-term we need all that you and I mentioned. A PG, A SF, a PF/C that can play d rebound and block shots. We need all of it. Whatever moves we make it should be to find the following. A veteran leader. A future star that can lead us to the future. Or a player that fits our philosopy.

Draft-We need a future star. Best player available is the only way to go. Doesn't matter what position they play. There should be no locks on our roster. Ideally they would fall in the PG, PF/C or SF spots(although why not give Chandler a shot)

Free Agency-We aren't getting a star here. If we use a MLE it should be used to bring in a veteran leader. This is where position becomes important. IT should be someone that has won, can command respect and will be in the rotation. Ultimately we want 2 or 3 or 4 of these guys that can't take over the locker room and wrestle it from the Marbury's of the world and mentor the Nates of the world. PG to me would be ideal

Trades-A trade to plug holes on this current team is a waste of time. All trades in my view should target the same veteran leaders we are targeting in the free-agency pool, or to clear cap space. We need guys with reasonable salaries on this roster to provide flexibility. This again shouldn't be position specific. As long as they don't block "your future" they can be from whatever spot you want. Again, ideally you would want a PG, PF/c(shotblocker) or SF but with our current roster I wouldn't be picky.

To me all moves should target one of these areas: Leadership and culture over position. If you get the right position it's a bonus. We need them all.

[Edited by - Bippity10 on 06-03-2008 1:17 PM]


good post. this team is at least 3-4 successful moves from being balanced and competitive. there are definitely a lot of directions we can go to get there, although none are going to be easy. but there's no reason to jump down the throat of someone who proposes a first step.
Page 1 of 3  1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Next year if we want to improve--they better have a plan to remove Q rich and his 28 minutes
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