blkexec wrote:If only we had a team....i would agree. The problem is the best 5 on offense is the worst 5 on defense. And vice versa.

You ain't kidding. I would still roll with the best five for continuity. You can always adjust your defense later. When the floor is not balanced due to players that can't convert, it tends to affect scorers as well as the final outcome. After all, this game is a game of bucket made. Even the best defensive team has to score to stay in the game.

smackeddog wrote:

blkexec wrote:If only we had a team....i would agree. The problem is the best 5 on offense is the worst 5 on defense. And vice versa.

And to further complicate stuff everyone is so inconsistent from game to game- I really don't know how the heck anyone is meant to make sense of this roster.

Just because it does not work in in one game does not mean it won't work the next. It takes time for talents to match. Pick 5 guys and play the same starting 5 for 10 games and see what happens. If it does not work, then you change the line up. Allow 5 guys to marinade and get to learn each other's nuances on the court.

Acy is a good energy guy, but if you are going to play Carmelo at PF position, you simply can't have him as one of the starters.

NYKBocker wrote:If you put Melo at the 4 then you need a long 3 that can shoot.

Melo at the 4 if we want more offense and transition.
Melo at the 3 if we want more defense and rebounding.

It depends on our team philosophy. Does Phil want a defensive team or an offensive team. Once you make that decision, you go with that.
Are we an offensive team, trying to teach a defensive culture, then you will have multiple lineup changes and brace for loses like yesterday against Orlando.

This is why Phil prefers tall guards with high team oriented basketball IQ. Because they allow you to be a defensive and offensive team. Which is the secret to a championship at all levels.
This is coming from the Phil Jackson of city league or any kind of recreation ball. This is how I build my teams and I've won 80% championships, whenever I'm building a team. And this is how most of the championship teams are built. If you have small guards, then they have to play bigger than their size. Larkin is not a championship starting PG. He's a change of pace guard. Causes temporary disruptions on offense and defense, which is solid for a bench player.

This is also why I liked Shump coming out of college. He was a point guard his senior year, and at 6'6 and strong enough to play SF, I thought he was the perfect PG for this team. I think he's still a solid player to have, because of his multiple positions and defense.

blkexec wrote:

NYKBocker wrote:If you put Melo at the 4 then you need a long 3 that can shoot.

Melo at the 4 if we want more offense and transition.
Melo at the 3 if we want more defense and rebounding.

It depends on our team philosophy. Does Phil want a defensive team or an offensive team. Once you make that decision, you go with that.
Are we an offensive team, trying to teach a defensive culture, then you will have multiple lineup changes and brace for loses like yesterday against Orlando.

This is why Phil prefers tall guards with high team oriented basketball IQ. Because they allow you to be a defensive and offensive team. Which is the secret to a championship at all levels.
This is coming from the Phil Jackson of city league or any kind of recreation ball. This is how I build my teams and I've won 80% championships, whenever I'm building a team. And this is how most of the championship teams are built. If you have small guards, then they have to play bigger than their size. Larkin is not a championship starting PG. He's a change of pace guard. Causes temporary disruptions on offense and defense, which is solid for a bench player.

This is also why I liked Shump coming out of college. He was a point guard his senior year, and at 6'6 and strong enough to play SF, I thought he was the perfect PG for this team. I think he's still a solid player to have, because of his multiple positions and defense.

I agree......Iguodala would thrive in this system.

jrodmc wrote:Woodson stuck with the same crap lineup over and over and was vilified for it.
Play the yoots!
Don't run folks into the ground!

Fish has a new system, a new regime, major injuries to deal with and what amounts to a sub-par bench.
Other than Melo and Shump, who deserves a cemented role that's actually on the roster today?

Play everybody at this point and hope some type of consistency from somebody rises to the top.

I agree, but that does not mean he needs to change his lineups every freaking game. That does not make sense

Rookie wrote:Trade value. This team is terrible. Phil gave us a look behind the curtain the other day. Changes will be made this season, and likey before Christmas. Play a big rotation and more guys get seen by other teams. This reminds me of the MDA days when we pumped up the trade value of our players. The season starts for realz in January.

I want Amare, JR, and Shumpert traded. Shump showed a little improvement, but he can't sustain it all year. He is only effective because he is dominating the ball right now. When Calderon returns, he will lose his confidence, because he will touch the ball much less

knicks1248 wrote:You wonder why were are so inconsistent, look no further then the inconsistent line up, some guys play for a qtr, a half, or not a all..

I Understand D fish is testing the waters and seeing who fits, but cmon, have you ever seen anything this ridiculous

Even Larry Brown was better:)

OldFan wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Woodson stuck with the same crap lineup over and over and was vilified for it.
Play the yoots!
Don't run folks into the ground!

Fish has a new system, a new regime, major injuries to deal with and what amounts to a sub-par bench.
Other than Melo and Shump, who deserves a cemented role that's actually on the roster today?

Play everybody at this point and hope some type of consistency from somebody rises to the top.

I noticed the same thing. Last year the coach isn't playing enough players this year it's too many players. New coach, new gm, new system and we may be better off losing - what better time to experiment?

During Layden days....we didn't make enough moves. During Isiah days, we made too many moves. During Walsh days, we made moves just to make them.

This organization has been in disarray for over 15 years, from GM to Coach to Player personel.

The only consistant where a change is needed is the owner.

blkexec wrote:

OldFan wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Woodson stuck with the same crap lineup over and over and was vilified for it.
Play the yoots!
Don't run folks into the ground!

Fish has a new system, a new regime, major injuries to deal with and what amounts to a sub-par bench.
Other than Melo and Shump, who deserves a cemented role that's actually on the roster today?

Play everybody at this point and hope some type of consistency from somebody rises to the top.

I noticed the same thing. Last year the coach isn't playing enough players this year it's too many players. New coach, new gm, new system and we may be better off losing - what better time to experiment?

During Layden days....we didn't make enough moves. During Isiah days, we made too many moves. During Walsh days, we made moves just to make them.

This organization has been in disarray for over 15 years, from GM to Coach to Player personel.

The only consistant where a change is needed is the owner.

The fans need to be changed!!