Posted by Allanfan20:

Posted by Bippity10:

"versatile" I like that. that's what we will call it from now on.

I prefer calling it intoxicating.

Our new Knicks motto "intoxicating versatility"

from what i have witness, we are an INCONSISTANT team, that looks like a playoff contender one night, and a lottery team the next.

PROBLEMS= No superstar, half ass chemistry, sub par defense, medicracy at the FT line, and a coaching staff thats mind boggling in the last two minutes of games, from the time outs, the playcalling, and motivational tactics

gross if it wasnt for the great coach we have, this team wouldnt win a game

One that is probably on the road to being better than some people here want to admit.

Posted by SlimPack:

well its actually kinda the same thing with other teams too, like the cavs, and the twovles, what kind of teams are they?

Superstar driven?

Posted by djsunyc:

i remember in preseason how after a made basket, we would speed down and try to score quick like the suns. i think nate and francis did it during those preseason games.

haven't seen it since.

we are, like others have said, a half court team. and when curry gets doubled, we start scrambling.

no the answer is we don't have an identity........yet.


If you're gonna run you need a shotblocker or 2, speedy versatile guards and forwards, shooters, and not necessarily a pass-first PG, but a PG that is a willing passer none the less (hey look at the Baron).


Our identity "centers" around Eddy Curry, pun intended.

I've gone into this in detail in previous threads...

Posted by SlimPack:

^well its true that those teams have superstars and we dont, but you get what i mean.

I do. But having a guy who can put the team on his back is a significant component that we lack.

Posted by SlimPack:

well its actually kinda the same thing with other teams too, like the cavs, and the twovles, what kind of teams are they? anyway Im more concerned with the fact that we seem to have a bad mix of players..

I'm a big fan of not trying to compare your team to teams that are not going to win a title so you feel better about yourself. The point is we need an identity, we know we need one to be successful and yes we will eventually get one. But we won't get one until our GM decides on a specific direction and sticks to it. In the meantime we will all be sitting here going well the "Bobcats don't have an identity so why should we". Or "we will have an Identity eventually".

I know it seems obvious we are building around Eddie Curry. But what is the proof? What move shows us this. Who can guarantee that in a desperation move one of our young guys isn't jettisoned again(ARiza for Francis) in order to save a job.

Posted by Allanfan20:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by SlimPack:

well its actually kinda the same thing with other teams too, like the cavs, and the twovles, what kind of teams are they? anyway Im more concerned with the fact that we seem to have a bad mix of players..

I'm a big fan of not trying to compare your team to teams that are not going to win a title so you feel better about yourself. The point is we need an identity, we know we need one to be successful and yes we will eventually get one. But we won't get one until our GM decides on a specific direction and sticks to it. In the meantime we will all be sitting here going well the "Bobcats don't have an identity so why should we". Or "we will have an Identity eventually".

I know it seems obvious we are building around Eddie Curry. But what is the proof? What move shows us this. Who can guarantee that in a desperation move one of our young guys isn't jettisoned again(ARiza for Francis) in order to save a job.

I'll be flat out honest Bip, I don't know that I agree that the team is building around Curry, simply because, as you stated, that the Knicks haven't made one move to really really compliment Curry. Everything has been short term. The one thing that might make you believe that is the way some of the Knicks speak and the way they give Curry the ball all the time, but other than that, what is the reasoning?

No that's my point. We trade away a draft pick for a guy with tremendous potential. We call him the next Patrick. We tell everyone that he is our franchise guy and not marbs. Then we make moves during the offseason for role players so we can hopefully get the most out of our again backcourt and sneak into a playoff spot TODAy. To me if you have a "franchise" guy that is a post player and 24 you must find him a young guy to grow with him(1st choice) or a vet that can feed him the ball. If you have a PF on your roster that you want to put alongside him for years to come and that PF earns a starting spot you put him next to him so taht they can develop a chemistry. Instead of worrying about what that does to your second unit.

But the problem is that as soon as a coach starts making moves for the long-term. Starts worrying more about the young guys and developing them at the expense of our record, what happens to them. Canned!!!!!!!

We have no vision, and that's why even today we aren't sure that we are building around Curry even though it keeps being mentioned. Curry is 24. Role players should be obtained last. Find young guys with potential to grow with him. If we are building around Marbs than do so. Enough of this half -asse shiot. Pick something, even if I don't agree with it, so that I can watch some winning basketball for once.