The NBA has been dumbed down since the late 60s, largely because the four year rule was eliminated.

Also, the adoption of the three point rule has opened up the game, making athleticism more important.

Monk-you bring up some good points. Yes other teams may have guys quicker to the ball but smart teams switch off and the others rotate to cover. It helps to have abilitites but wanted to point out it's not necessary to have a team of acrobats. In almost every sport there are older players who stay on top as their physical ability fades but the use their heads to make up for the loss of step.

I have listened to 2 of our picks and if their basketball smarts is equal to their athletic ability we may be in for a treat. The third is short but has some hops and quickness.

Posted by Killa4luv:

I don't think Amare, Shaq, or Ben Wallace are the players in the league who rank high in the bball IQ dept. But their athletic ability more than makes up for it.

Amare was notably lacking in the basketball IQ dept prior to his draft--- a lot of teams never thought he had a clue, and even Phoenix thought they were dealing w/ a blank slate, who kept forgetting plays. How quickly things change.

Shaq's a different case altogether... you know things are going on in his brain. He's managed to have rapping and acting careers in addition to the NBA, got through an MBA program... and is arguably one of the top-5 players of all time. You don't get to be one of the best passing big men ever without basketball IQ (let alone regular IQ!)

guys like TT and Crawfford have very low basketball IQ, because neither of the two really know their strength. Crawfford should be using his quickness to get by defenders and play more like RIP or Reggie. TT should be posting players up, especially at the SF position where he always has an advantage, because of his length and strength.

Posted by Allanfan20:

Posted by DarkKnicks:

Athletism is overrated.

You're right. Being athletic alone is very overrated. See Darius Miles. I'm sure glad Isiah never went after HIM. It's the whole mentality that goes with it, along with having talent. But if you have 2 of those 3 things I listed above, you CAN be a successful NBA player. But it's preferred that mentality is always included.

Yes, this is even more important to me: I have never understood why a lot of people nowadays consider that is more important to jump a lot or being super fast rather than shoot the ball well or being a good scorer in the paint.
Everybody seems to think that a player can't be a good defender if he is not athletic.

Posted by Allanfan20:

But I guess what separates an Allan Houston from the Tim Thomas's is the commitment ON AND OFF the court.

I think Kurt Thomas and JYD showed more commitment ON AND OFF the court than both bums, Houston & TT. Both Houston and TT have the talent but when you talk about commitment, I would rather compare TT to KT or JYD. KT is no longer a Knick so I would say JYD.

JYD is not talented when compared to TT. He made it into the NBA purely on commitment ON AND OFF the court. I have friends that are 6'9 that couldnt even come close to his level of play because they didnt try enough.

I dont want to get into the old school knicks like Oakley. I havent even mentioned guys from around the NBA like Ben Wallace, Troy Murphy etc. Troy Murphy went to High School in NJ. His father would first drive him to the tougher neighborhoods for pickup games. Later on this guy started going there himself. Thats commitment.

Please keep Houston out of it (ON AND OFF the court) when he hasnt been able to stay on court for almost two years. Another thing, TT is the worst of the lot and also had his worst season last year. I dont want to insult any Knick players by comparing them to TT. I would say Shandon Anderson and Howard Eisely played harder that TT.

Look man, I was replying to the H2O and TT comparision. I dont think either of them are the paragon of commitment. You cannot use them as an example especially since neither of them have done anything to add to their style of play.

Posted by DarkKnicks:

Yes, but just by playing hard you are not winning games. I'm not saying that is not important, but this is basketball, and you have to put the ball in the basket in order to win games. If you just try you are not going to win.
Allan Houston was an All-Star player. I can tolerate that you want him to leave now, but come on, he was a great player.

All this stuff about putting the ball in the basket to win games is crap cause we didnt win much with Houston putting the ball in the basket. Just because he was an All-Star player doesnt mean anything either. That has nothing to do with "great" players.

Let me list some All-Star players for you so you will know what I mean.
1996-2000: Christian Laettner ATL, Latrell Sprewell GSW, Detlef Schrempf SEA, Tom Gugliotta MIN, Chris Gatling DAL, Steve Smith ATL, Mitch Richmond SAC.

The years Houston was an all-star there were players along with him that will be surprising. Allan Houston NYK, Glenn Robinson MIL, Dale Davis IND, Theo Ratliff PHI, Latrell Sprewell NYK, Antonio Davis TOR oh and Anthony Mason MIA!!!!!

Is Glen Robinson a great player? What about Dale Davis or Antonio Davis? Was Sprewell a great player? Please reserve the word great for where is belongs. He is and was a good jump shooter. He shot well for the Knicks in his years. Most of those years I would like to forget as a Knick fan but still, he did shoot well.

I didnt want to make this an anti-Allan Houston thing, I just wanted to point out he is not the model of commitment. I didnt like him much but I do like your posts. Stay fair DarkKnicks. Just cause he was a Knick doesnt make him great. Stephon was an all star, he isnt great. He is much better than Houston but even he isnt great.

As far as being a smarter team, we should note that Channing Frye and Nate are both smart. I am not much for young and athletic as much as I am for being a smart player. We need people that can rebound and pass well. That requires smarts and instincts but how about this......

You cannot teach athletic, can you teach IQ?

[Edited by - Silverfuel on 07/01/2005 13:56:03]

Posted by TheloniusMonk:

It's very difficult to compare that team to this current NBA era. True, they weren't all that athletic but the guys in the NBA now are far more athletic (even said by Clyde himself) than when they played. Then you could get away with having an entire team that wasn't very athletic at all.
Secondly,they just had a good all around team with one of the great coaches in NBA history implimenting a system. They just bought into a team system. The team I would say was not very athletic but they were extremely disciplined, team oriented and very very talented position by position pretty much. Holzman preached sharing the ball at all costs. Swing the ball, swing the ball, swing the ball he'd say. They were of course intelligent but when you were passing the ball to a Bradley or a Reed or Frazier or a Monroe or a Debusschere you had a group of talent that is rare to have. Kinda like a Pippen, Jordan Rodman kinda thing in my opinion.

Look at Detroit as a defensive unit.....or even Iniana (with Artest). It's not always strictly about intelligence but TO ME moreso about buying into a system that works (this comes back to good coaching too). I wouldn't consider Artest a 'smart guy' but when on the court that guy just has something special. Bruce Bowen has it. Ben Wallace has it....I'm talking defensively now.

That said, we DO have to look at athleticism because if we do not, people like Amare will just walk right around an imoble player of ours on every play. I sick and tired of us ALWAYS having to double because the players on the other team are quicker to the ball, quicker to jump, quicker to recover on D and just plain superior atheletically. After all, basketball falls into the category of athletics. However I do agree that bball iq is very important. Some may disagree, but I believe that Marbury is a smart player. NOT ALL OF THE TIME. But i do believe that put around the right players the pass he just made looks much better because the person he's passing to can finish. I don't think he has a problem with moving the ball it's just that so often he finds himself in the position where he has to call his own number because of cicumstances. Who was gonna take the last few shots? Kurt? No. Mohammad? No. Tim Thomas hmmmmmm...No. Crawford? If he's on yes, if he's off No. Ariza? (see Crawford). So if I'm steph i'd have to call my own number. This is where players like Q come into play. Or Steph driving to the basket, making the center commit and then setting up Frye for a layup (or whoever our center will be).

You need a blend.

Artest is athletic and does some things very well.. he's got a specific skill set that is unique.. that incorporates his athleticism, that can translate
into the margin of victory.

The same with Wallace, his athletisicm paired with desire to play defense, and skills with defensive rotation make him a difference maker in areas
that don't show up in a box.

Shaq is pure size and athleticism.. he's a dominant center and doesn't have to have basketball IQ. He passes out of the double team, and uses his
body to intimidate. Some dilineations there.

Athleticism is part of the puzzle that makes someone a winner. But if you are maxed out in other areas, you contribute to wins in more subtle ways.



[Edited by - rain on 07/01/2005 15:42:35]