Oohaah please reread my post before you make further responses. Their is a huge difference between a one dribble and shoot player and a slasher. As a matte of fact your first two paragraphs are pretty much exactly what I said. So in summary we don't disagree at all. Steve Kerr was a stand in one spot shooter. Allan was a catch and create space with is dribble and then shoot his jumpshot. He was forced to become a spot shooter the day he came to NY and played in the plodding offense. This is the point you and I both just made. But even though he had to change his game and develop into more of a Steve Kerr type you never heard him cry about "systems". That's the point I was trying to make.

Bippity, I did read your post. What's with you and the "please read..." today?

Who's not reading who? I did not repeat what you said in any way. In my earlier post I disagreed of your assessment of AH as "not a spot up shooter". He was a spot up shooter. That is why he had his some of his best years with Grant Hill and Sprewell, because they were slashing players that made the defense sag, and allowed him to "spot up" for his shot. Not like Steve Kerr at th three point line only, but like Allan Houston, from anywhere on the court.

I never wrote he could not do this or that, simply his best game was catching and shooting.

You took to this to the extreme of equating a spot up shooter to a Steve Kerr type, and brought up AH's (irrelevant) college career, and his trouble adjusting to Van Gundy's poor offensive scheme as evidence that he was not a spot up shooter, but in fact a "one-dribble" shooter, which by the way is a new term to me. If it is your opinion that after a guy takes one dribble he is no longer a spot-up shooter, well then Steve Kerr ain't a spot up shooter either because sometimes he faked and took a dribble before shooting too.

In any case this is in its heart an argument of semantics. If yu want to call him a one-dribble shooter, that's cool, but that seems to me an over-specialization of terms. AH was at his best when he could feed off another player who slashes by finding spots (or "spotting up") for open to semi-open shots which he drained by rising up quickly, not by dribbling around.

Please read the previous post thoroughly before replying.

***

By the way, I almost fell off my chair the other day when I read a post in which you wrote "LB has not done a good job this year"

oohah

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by joec32033:

In the last 2 years, Allan would have been a GREAT influence, IMO for alot of the reasons you said. The only argument I could come up with otherwise is he was a quiet leader. I think that guys like the rookies, Craw, Q1, and Q2 would have beend really drawn to the guy but I think that Steph being here would have undone alot of that. Steph would have really hindedred Allan's ability to lead in this construct of the team, IMO.

Personally, I want if I could only pick 2 guys LJ or Oak and Derrick Harper here to steady this ship. My only concern would be Oak would slap Steph so hard his tattoos would fall off.

Joe C I don't disagree with you. But I think having Marbs and Stevie run their mouths and then watching Allan do his duty would have been the perfect contrast for the young guys to see what is really going on. Charlie would provide the same contrast but I think he tended to push the religion agenda more than Allan and that would hurt him on this young and immature team.

Honestly people have short memories. Allan was a ball handler in college. When he got to the pros he was a one dribble stop and pop shooter. I remember reading articles every day about how he was struggling to adjust to playing with Patrick because he did not feel comfortable standing in one spot and being a catch and shoot player like Steve Kerr. This is a myth created by those people who wanted to point out how one dimensional he was so they described him as a spot up shooter. Over time in started to become reality in most peoples eyes and still is. I even remember him talking about how he had to get in the gym and work on catching and shooting in order to help the team win because he didn't feel comfortable doing it. Am I the only one who remembers the struggles when he first arrives and how the papers used to write about this issue EVERYDAY. What is wrong with you people.

I just think Marbury hyas a much stronger personality that Allan and that sharp contrast would divide he team heavily. Allan is one of those guys that walks into a room he just ooses class, and he just does this thing...Steph is the type of guy that walks into the locker room and has to yell "Hey, look guys, I ooze class, really, it's dripping off me can't you see it?".

Regarding Allan, he was a point guard in college. When he was with Detroit, I think Lindsay Hunter was one year in and he was a PG so Allan got moved....to say Allan was only spot up shooter is correct when faced in regards to the system, but he was in reality, IMO, alot more. He posted up ALOT under JVG his next to last season (I loved that...I remember that turnaround like I just saw it), he was able to create his own shot (like he did in Miami, like he did in his 50 point game in LA). I have said for a long time that the system dictated he be what he was and I think that is what happened. Spot up shooters arent able to do some of what Allan did on the offensive end (can Steve Kerr, get that shot off in Miami? Post up like he did in 1999? Show an almost unlimited arsenal in a game he scores 50? I loved Allan's leadership style, but I always wished he was a little more vocal. Lead by example at first if that doesn't work lead with words.

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by joec32033:

In the last 2 years, Allan would have been a GREAT influence, IMO for alot of the reasons you said. The only argument I could come up with otherwise is he was a quiet leader. I think that guys like the rookies, Craw, Q1, and Q2 would have beend really drawn to the guy but I think that Steph being here would have undone alot of that. Steph would have really hindedred Allan's ability to lead in this construct of the team, IMO.

Personally, I want if I could only pick 2 guys LJ or Oak and Derrick Harper here to steady this ship. My only concern would be Oak would slap Steph so hard his tattoos would fall off.

Joe C I don't disagree with you. But I think having Marbs and Stevie run their mouths and then watching Allan do his duty would have been the perfect contrast for the young guys to see what is really going on. Charlie would provide the same contrast but I think he tended to push the religion agenda more than Allan and that would hurt him on this young and immature team.

Honestly people have short memories. Allan was a ball handler in college. When he got to the pros he was a one dribble stop and pop shooter. I remember reading articles every day about how he was struggling to adjust to playing with Patrick because he did not feel comfortable standing in one spot and being a catch and shoot player like Steve Kerr. This is a myth created by those people who wanted to point out how one dimensional he was so they described him as a spot up shooter. Over time in started to become reality in most peoples eyes and still is. I even remember him talking about how he had to get in the gym and work on catching and shooting in order to help the team win because he didn't feel comfortable doing it. Am I the only one who remembers the struggles when he first arrives and how the papers used to write about this issue EVERYDAY. What is wrong with you people.

I just think Marbury hyas a much stronger personality that Allan and that sharp contrast would divide he team heavily. Allan is one of those guys that walks into a room he just ooses class, and he just does this thing...Steph is the type of guy that walks into the locker room and has to yell "Hey, look guys, I ooze class, really, it's dripping off me can't you see it?".

Regarding Allan, he was a point guard in college. When he was with Detroit, I think Lindsay Hunter was one year in and he was a PG so Allan got moved....to say Allan was only spot up shooter is correct when faced in regards to the system, but he was in reality, IMO, alot more. He posted up ALOT under JVG his next to last season (I loved that...I remember that turnaround like I just saw it), he was able to create his own shot (like he did in Miami, like he did in his 50 point game in LA). I have said for a long time that the system dictated he be what he was and I think that is what happened. Spot up shooters arent able to do some of what Allan did on the offensive end (can Steve Kerr, get that shot off in Miami? Post up like he did in 1999? Show an almost unlimited arsenal in a game he scores 50? I loved Allan's leadership style, but I always wished he was a little more vocal. Lead by example at first if that doesn't work lead with words.

Joe C I agree with you 100%. That's the point I was trying to make. Allan added a post up game, a dribble pull up , spot up, the system did dictate what he needed to do and he never complained. That's all I was trying to say, not trying to critique his game at all.

Posted by Panos:

I have three letters for you:
J.Y.D.

We could have used his front court defense, BIG TIME.
I miss that dog.

you know how i felt about the buying out of JYD issue... he should have been retained... too bad they didn't buy out Mo T instead.

Imagine JYD, Malik and Allan Houston instead of the rest of this garbage. Probably not win many more games but the effort level and buy-in would have been a different story.

I would take Allan back on this team right now even if they amputated his leg. He was a pro's pro. We need someone like him whether we liked him as a player or not.

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by Bippity10:

I would take Allan back on this team right now even if they amputated his leg. He was a pro's pro. We need someone like him whether we liked him as a player or not.

because? Don't leave us in suspense. To try and shoot a ball when you can't jump anymore and that's your whole one dimensional game down the drain. To sell us some high Optimum speed modems? To wear expensive suits and tell us that Jesus loves you. To tell us how great it was to play with Patrick Ewing. Got it, I understand.

[Edited by - pharzeone on 03-27-2006 6:40 PM]

It's clear to me that some miss the point of the post.

It was about his professionalism, not about whether he could still play. Yeeesssh.

Why does that surprise you? I've said a million times he hasn't done a good job of coaching us to win games. And I do feel there is a reaon behind it, because he is not coaching for the short run, he is coaching for the long run. That's why I can easily say he hasn't done a great job coaching this year without going into whining hysterics and calling for his firings.

sure, at 65 larry brown is in for the long run......unreal

^Touche.

Dear fans: Seven years of nonsense and some of us still haven't figured out that there is no savior. Winning takes hard work.