Posted by fishmike:

its not aggression, its being competitive. EC is playing ball because he's a great athlete and he's 6'11. But he's not very competitive. He doesnt push himself and he's not driven.

Remember you don't have to be competitive in "TUMBLING" eddy's 1st Love

The Knicks team that had the most killer Instinct in the past 20 years was Ewing, Jackson, Oakley, Mason, Starks, McDaniel, and Wilkins.

That was the only team the Knicks had that took the Bulls to 7 games in the playoffs.

People can say what they want about Isiah, but I consider trading Jackson, and letting Wilkins and the X-Man go to be worse than what Isiah has done. Because that team could have won a championship, even while Jordan was playing.

Ewing never got another easy shot in his career after they traded Jackson. When they were together Patrick feasted on alley-oops, easy dunks, and layups.

Wilkins was a tough but dumb player who could jam on anyone and was very tough on D. He looks like Einstein compared to Crawford.

And X-man was straight up in Pippen's head. Pippen pissed himself with X-Man on the court.

For some reason, Riley wanted them gone. That team lost a lot of toughness and smarts that summer. He turned those guys into Doc Rivers (Who I really like), Charles Smith, Tony Campbell, Rolando Blackman. And he turned the team over to Greg Anthony, who was such a bum that he got beat out by Charlie Ward.

Uhg.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 04-12-2007 08:14 AM]

Posted by misterearl:

oohah - you may want to check your rosters bro.

and the year.

Please explain.

oohah

1991 New York Knicks

http://databasebasketball.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=NYK&lg=n&yr=1991

Patrick Ewing
John Starks
Xavier Mcdaniel
Gerald Wilkins
Mark Jackson
Anthony Mason
Kiki Vandeweghe
Charles Oakley
Greg Anthony
Brian Quinnett
Kennard Winchester
Carlton Mckinney
Tim Mccormick
Patrick Eddie
James Donaldson


1992 New York Knicks

http://databasebasketball.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=NYK&lg=n&yr=1992

Patrick Ewing
John Starks
Charles Smith
Anthony Mason
Rolando Blackman
Doc Rivers
Tony Campbell
Charles Oakley
Greg Anthony
Hubert Davis
Bo Kimble
Herb Williams
Eric Anderson

****

91/92 Knicks take Chicago Bulls to 7 games in Eastern conference semi-finals:
http://databasebasketball.com/teams/teamscores.htm?tm=NYK&yr=1991&lg=n

And they never went past 6 games with the Bulls after that.

oohah



[Edited by - oohah on 04-12-2007 08:33 AM]

Well to be fair, the team next year went 6 games (it was tied 2-2 and the Knicks choked game 5 on Smith's layups). The next year they did go 7 games, but they Beat the Jordan-Less bulls. Then the only other time they faced them was years later, when they lost to the 70 win Bulls in the first round in Van Gundy's first playoff series. Not sure that Mark Jackson was the reason they pushed 7, but anyway...

The trade was a tough one. On the one hand, Smith was a 6-10 SF/PF/C- a talented guy coming off some good seasons with the Clips. And he had some good seasons with the Knicks too- we took him for soft in the context of those Knicks teams, but he'd be the hardest guy on this Knick team. Knicks also didn't know what they had in Mason at the time. And Rivers was a solid player too.

But trading Jackson, after they had already traded Strickland? It left a massive playmaking PG void, though they were clearly angling towards defense.

I'm sorry, but your recollection is a little off.

Well to be fair, the team next year went 6 games (it was tied 2-2 and the Knicks choked game 5 on Smith's layups).

Actually, the next year after they traded Jackson, they started out winning 2 playoff games vs. the Bulls then the bulls won 4 straight. Smith's layup choke was in game 6, not game 5, and that was how the series ended.

The next year they did go 7 games, but they Beat the Jordan-Less bulls. Then the only other time they faced them was years later, when they lost to the 70 win Bulls in the first round in Van Gundy's first playoff series.

When I talk about the Bulls, I am not referring to the Jordan-less version.

The next year after they traded Jackson, the Knicks won 60 games and had home-court advantage over the Bulls. The Bulls beat the Knicks in 6 games (Smith's layup.).

***

The in the next year after that, the Knicks beat the Jordan-less Bulls -- barely, then got beat by the Rockets in 7.

Not sure that Mark Jackson was the reason they pushed 7, but anyway...

It all depends on whether or not you value leadership and an offense run to perfection. The fact is, Jackson won at just about every stop in his career, and he ran every freakin' type of offense perfectly, running Pitino-style, to grind it out LB-style to perfection. Every player on his teams got the ball in exactly the right place at the right time, always.

When the Knicks traded Jackson, it completely changed Ewing's game from a cram it down your throat center to a set-up and shoot an fallaway in the lane center. It affected everyone else as well. There was no setup man. The Knicks became a hard-to-watch, terrible offensive team that needed to hold teams under 80 because they couldn't score more than 82.

In terms of running an offense and passing, Jackson is one of the top 5 all-time. He didn't end up #2 all-time in assists by mistake. Just look at the names around him. The reason it hurt the Knicks so much is that he got everybody on the team easy shots in the right place. No other Knick since has done that.

What Jackson did so great is exactly what everyone on this board is clamoring for. But when his name is brought up, so many are like: So what, he wasn't that good. He was a winner. I'll bet he has the record for PG with most players to have averaged a career-high in points. Maybe Jason Kidd has got him by now, but I doubt it.

Jackson gets so little credit. If he was the number 2 scorer or rebounder of all-time he wouldn't get the short-shrift so often.

And the guy to step in and fill the void was definitely not Rod Strickland. Strickland was more like Marbury, he was a scorer who passed decently. He certainly wasn't a leader. He divided locker-rooms. And his winning record was so-so.

oohah

Nothing was factually wrong with my post, despite you quoting seperate sentences.

A) Smith's layups happened in Game 5, at home at MSG, when the series was tied at 2-2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_D._Smith

B) I didn't say the Knicks beat the Bulls the year after we traded Jackson, I said the Knicks beat the Bulls the year after Smith missed his layups, which is correct.

Whether Jackson would've made a difference is a "what-if scenario." I think he could've made a difference- that's the question I brought up at the end.

you are overrating Mark Jackson to new levels. He was a good player. Great passer (obviously), but his shooting was bad and his defense was worse. Knicks were better with Harper. But anyway.. if you told me Jackson was going to be the next GM/coach of the Knicks I would be thrilled. I agree... he's one of the great BB minds. Ultimate example of high BB IQ

I misunderstood what you were saying about when the Knicks beat Jordan, and I guess I missed your point about Jackson when you wrote "Not sure that Mark Jackson was the reason they pushed 7, but anyway...?"

I was just saying its hard to say if Jackson was the main factor in them pushing 7. Sans Jax the next year they played an equally competetive series (though losing in 6).

Harp was a good player, but Harp couldn't create- not that the Knicks had room for that as they were constituted- dump to Ewing and not much else on offense. We all know that Riley was capable of being more creative though- so who knows. Jax was a good penetrator and distributor in his time and did a good job taking advantage of his size. I always wondered what the Knicks would do if they had a PG who could get into the lane. That didn't appear again untill Frank Williams for 4 games and then Marbury.

On Strick- it would've been interesting b/c he would've been a legit second scorer to Ewing.

Posted by fishmike:

you are overrating Mark Jackson to new levels. He was a good player. Great passer (obviously), but his shooting was bad and his defense was worse. Knicks were better with Harper. But anyway.. if you told me Jackson was going to be the next GM/coach of the Knicks I would be thrilled. I agree... he's one of the great BB minds. Ultimate example of high BB IQ

I think you mean me, Reggie Miller, and Larry Bird overate Jackson to new levels.

You surprise me because I always read you posting about pass-first PG's, properly run offenses. and leadership. I guess you don't value those qualities as much as I thought, because Jackson had those in spades.

Mark Jackson was such a bad shooter? You are believing what you read too much. His career field gaol percentage is .447 which is good for a point guard. You also have not factored in that he would only shoot as a last resort, taking tough shots when the clock is running out. His career 3 point percentage is .337 which is average at worst.

His man-to man defense was bad, but he was good at coming up with clutch steals and big rebounds. Panos says he got torched? The Charlie Ward was the worst ever, he got torched more than Jackson ever did, including by Jackson every time the pacers came to town. Don't believe me? Go look it up.

Jackson was a better PG than any PG we have had since. The Knicks were better with Harper? Defensively yes, offensively absolutely not. The Knicks had plenty of defense. But they had nobody who could run the offense. They had so much trouble scoring. Harper has one good playoffs and now he was better than Jackson. They could have used somebody to get the offense going in game 7 vs. Houston though. Guess what happened the next year? They get beat by Indiana because of a superior offense. Guess who was running that offense?

Breaking up Ewing and Jackson was criminal. Just go ask Ewing how he feels about it.

oohah

Posted by Marv:

oohah, i remember a downhill path in jax's play here. he started out so great as a pass-first floor leader as a rookie, came back in his second year much more intent on being part of the early offense as a scorer, and was much less effective as a result. then got into a bad relationship with the fans, who got tough on him. he seemed to get defensive and isolated as a result. it seemed timely when they made the decision to move him out. do you remember any of this? am i recalling things correctly?

Yes, you are. He was getting boo'ed at the garden when he'd get blown by on D.