^ but q is injury prone. if q goes down do you have balkman starting?

For us to operate on all cylinders Q will be playing an important role for us(if not traded). There is some chance that he could be injured so I would prefer to put him in the backcourt where he will have to face less pounding.

WE are never going to be a great jumpshooting team with this roster so I'm leaning toward our strength. Let's use our size and rebounding to pound teams into submission. I would man the SF spot with Balkman as a starter and a combination of Lee/Jeffries and Q as backups depending on matchup.

To round out the starting line-up I would put Q at the two. This gives you a great rebounder at the 2,3 and 4. It gives you perimeter D at the 2 and 3. Of course jumpshooting would be your weakness.

Option 2 is to go with q at the 3 and Jamal at the 2. This gives you more shooting but takes away from your defense and rebounding. It's not a horrible option with this roster but I personally prefer the other one. The hope with this roster is that eventually Wilson or Nichols will prove ready and seize the SF spot. Without a balanced roster it makes decision making very tough for our coaching staff. They will always need to juggle the line-up depending upon opponent matchups. That's why I prefer the "pound them into submission" line-up. At least for a lot of games we may be able to dictate what happens on the floor instead of the other way around.

"Trim the fat"-Copyright Bippity11

[Edited by - bippity10 on 13-08-2007 11:36 AM]

>>Every single person knows who should be starting at the 3 and who should be starting period but our coach and that lies the problem. Lee is our most effective player, balkman is right there with production in all areas, collins needs close to 20 minutes a night.

MS - so "everyone" knows better than the coach who has not only played the game on a cvhampionship level, but who watches the players from a more intimate vantage point than anyone outside the organization?

Not only has the head coach had an intimate perspective on their college backgrounds, through scouting and evaluation - but also hand-picked the roster to suit his opinion of their complimentary skill-sets.... he has nutured them through orientation and now that they are poised to approach a new season with a renovated roster with more depth in the frontcourt than anytime iin the last decade ...

now that the hindsight discussion elevates to new levels of preposteriousnesss, self-officious jerkdom and wet fantasy mid day dreams of grandeur as the REAL GM...

he is an idiot and the fans are the experts?

c'mon

Huh?

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by nixluva:

Q should be OK if we limit his minutes. I've said this before, but his operation is said to have a very high success rate. It was a minimally invasive surgery. I don't know that we should expect any recurrance of his back problems. From what i've read it would take a major impact or long term stress to re-rupture his disk and obviously cause bone fragments to be knocked loose again. He could've had this surgery done earlier, but it's more a last resort type of thing. They always recommend therapy over back surgery, for obvious reasons.

Still you have to realize that most of the source of the problem was removed during the operation and once the swelling goes down there shouldn't be a problem unless he has something traumatic happen, which could happen to any athlete at anytime. It's like breaking a bone. Once it heals you should be fine unless of course you break it again. It doesn't necessarily make you more susceptible to it happening again. To me i'd start him at SG but watch his minutes and gradually increase them, if he shows that he has no problems.

No, its not like breaking a bone. The re-operation rate for a standard (lumbar) microdiskectomy is 9%. This is in patients who don't play basketball for a living.

Was your only point here to correct my bad analogy? Despite my slightly off the mark comparison, the POINT of what I was trying to say is that he should be healthy and able to play pain free unless he reinjures himself, which would likely take some sort of traumatic event or serious wear and tear to that area. Given that he was able to play professional BB, avg'ing 33 mpg with the condition and using only physical therapy. I would say that his chances are still pretty good that he'll be able to play more games than we've seen in recent years. He's reporting that he's pain free for the 1st time in years, with improved posture. If i'm not mistaken part of the operation involves the doctor removing more fragments that would be a possible cause for recurrance of the problem.

Nothing you've said really significantly changes my other point, which is that we should not "expect" a recurrance with a 9% re-operation rate. Even if it's a bit higher for an athlete which I would not know. Perhaps you have some other numbers to show which would address his particular level of risk.

Yea earl in typical fashion I'm sure you agreed with the following

Starting Frye, James, Jefferies at the four instead of David Lee

But of course it was easy to see that frye was lost out there because the coached used him as a decoy in order to create the illusion that his trade for Eddy Curry actually was worth what we gave up.

And I am going to say if the guy has such an intimate knowledge of players background why did he sign two players to long term contracts that provide virtually nothing when he could have saved to roseter spots and got better players for the league minimum.

Balkman outplayed Jefferies every single game for most of the season, was a better shot blocker, rebounder, scorer could bring the ball up and actually defend mutliple positions. Something Jefferies really doesn't do as much as isiah thinks so, which hurt the team.......

Earl of course you support isiah
1. Midlevel signings (worse GM in the entire NBA)
2. Ability to make trades (one of the worst in the league)
3. Ability to maxmize rotations (questionable)
4. Drafting (one of the most gifted in the league)

Again please refute anything I say instead of creating a positive cloud with no information behind it.

Before you say what a great job isiah did remaking the roster, ask yourself we won 33, 23, 33 games the past three season, we are lucky to win 45 and the conference keeps improving. We don't have a top 10 pf, we don't have a top 25 shooting guard, our sf is not top 15 we maybe have a top 5 center (Shaq, Yao, Chandler, Camby, AJefferson will play center) Marbury isn't a top 10 pg and we have no cap flexibilty. Love our bench, but you can't win in this league without a big time player that can carry a team, we don't know if we have that

Our franchise future lies in the hands of someone that doesn't love the game of basketball and isn't a hard worker, Zach is a tough guy to move if things don't work out and we have contracts no one will touch (marbury, rose, zach, q, james, jefferies........)

hold up, i almost forgot

Wilson Chandler for Mayor

Could This Be Magic?

masterplan - you show me any NBA General Manager with a 100% success rate in player transactions, and I'll show you an autographed photo of David Blaine

Masterplan - I feel you.... and understand the frustration with cats like Vin Baker. Just think of the context of the Knicks frontcourt when he was acquired and what else was available. Was Vin a risk? of course he was. Everyone knew his story.

But it was a risk, just like Zach Randolph is a type of risk, that you gotta take every once in a while.

No risk. No reward.


with that said, and looking forward, not constantly backwards... what would be your next move if you are the Knicks GM?

Just an observation; its amazing how every thread turns into an isiah, marbury, eddy, crawford sucks thread.

If I am the knicks gm my main focus has to be getting rid of redundant talent, and the player that can be moved is Jamal Crawford.

He is a bench player that can really score and is valuable to a team that is close to winning in the league, not to the knicks because we need someone that is calming influence and can actually run an offense.

Nate has shown he is an effective long range shooter and he has more defensive potential than jamal. His contract is only going to esculate and reaches 10million a year very soon, for a player that has consistently performed horrible for half the season and great the other half that price tag is to much.

Mo Taylor, Malik Rose, Jerome James, Jared Jefferies, Steve Francis were all moves that were met with questions, and his ability to give away draft choices and then talk about the importance of building through the draft is a big contridiction.....

Zach Randolf or Eddy Curry that is a big question I think the Knicks should move one at seasons end to get good value while they can they are to similiar to succeed long term, although that remains to be seen till the season starts.......

Also their is no use for Dickau or Fred Jones I would also look to package Randolf Morris because with Lee he is expendable.

Just an observation; its amazing how every thread turns into an isiah, marbury, eddy, crawford sucks thread.

Silverfuel - it is a barometer of the amount of resentment that some will always hold for current management, and select individual players, no matter what.