They lost because they probably had the whole day off before a road game.

Zach and Curry are 2 of the worst defensive players i have ever seen.

So far as I know, there's no such thing as a tie in the NBA, so there are really only two possibilities: Winning or losing. Well, actually, there's a third possibility of a game that goes on infinitely but that doesn't happen very often.

For all practical purposes, there are only two possibilities: Winning or losing. In the Knicks case, they just lose more often than they win.

It ain't no big thang.

Posted by TMS:

Posted by nixluva:

Posted by BRIGGS:

Posted by King1:

This team would have been a better team if we would have kept Frye and let Curry be the focal point of this team.

Nothing to do about what ifs etc..

David Lee has been averaging 14 points 8 rebounds shooting 67% in his last 3 games.
When he has played more than 30 minutes which has been a whole 4 times this year
32:29 7 10 70.0 0 0 0.0 2 3 66.7 4 7 11 1 2 3 0 1 16
37:59 4 6 66.7 0 0 0.0 5 5 100.0 0 7 7 0 1 0 1 3 13
49:54 8 12 66.7 0 0 0.0 8 10 80.0 5 11 16 1 2 2 0 4 24
39:05 6 15 40.0 0 0 0.0 2 2 100.0 2 12 14 0 3 1 1 4 14

avg 16.3 pts 12 rebounds 58%


IF we LEAVE Lee and Curry in for 36 minutes each and give Zach 24--the numbers will work in our favor. Also--if we accept Q rich shooting 30% we're going to lose at that position every night. I'd like to see the Knicks go out and make a subtle little trade--like walter Hermann from Charlotte and stick him into the starting 3 slot. Give them nate and 2mm$ or something.

This is a great analysis of what's really going on. It comes down to Isiah not using his roster properly. Yeah we would love for guys to be smart enough to know what to do and just execute, but in this case the minutes have to be redistributed. I didn't like the idea of letting Zach stay out there and embarrass himself like that. Isiah has to read the situation better. When Zach is under control and going good then you leave him in, but when he looks like he did last night you have to pull him.

I know Curry has been a very spotty defender, but it appears that he's losing his confidence and aggression offensively too. We can't have that, since that's his biggest contribution. He did pass out of the doubles better, but overall he still has a long way to go in that regard. He's been looking to block shots more too, but again he's been lazy on getting back on D and teams have exploited that.

At SF we lose every single night and I thought that was the reason we added Chandler. If he can't do anything at all, which is what Isiah seems to be suggesting, then a move to add a SF would make sense. It's just hard for me to believe that he's that bad. I hadn't seen even a hint of that in his short time on the floor. In fact how do we know what he'll do if he never plays? All I saw when Chandler played was a guy that seemed to play well defensively, could shoot, run the floor and even lead the break. He got steals and blocked shots and rebounded. I'm not sure what it is that Isiah is scared will happen if the kid plays a few minutes a night to get his feet wet and build confidence.

I have to blame Isiah for the way this team has played. It seems to me that he very rarely makes a move that improves the teams play during a game. It happens now and then, but more often his moves don't make sense. Jones made him look good on a few occassions. Balk and Nate haven't been as impactful as they have in the past. I just get the feel that there's no rhythm to the rotations and the team is disjointed.

i thought the frontcourt wasn't the problem in your eyes? apparently you feel differently now after a loss.

i agree w/u about Chandler getting minutes... the kid deserves some playing time... this team isn't going anywhere this year regardless if he plays or not... mine as well see what he's got since we used a 1st round pick on him.

u really think Isiah coaching the team better is going to fix this mess & get them to your 46 win goal this season? honestly, do you?

They just need to go 40-24. No problem!

Posted by kam77:

I've said it before i'll say it again, we gotta get NY's own JAMAL MASHBURN as our next GM.

[Edited by - kam77 on 12-08-2007 11:06 AM]

You know, I usually HATE the idea of getting an ex-player to be a GM... typically, it doesn't work out unless that player was a role player, which Mashburn was not. In this case though, I think his injury would add a unique angle and the man seems to be humble about his basketball knowledge. I'd be okay with Mash being a GM, just not NY's.

I do not want he next GM to have limited-to-no basketball or business experience. What we don't need is a GM cutting his teeth with the Knicks. What the team needs is someone with some savvy and know-how. they could write a Harvard Case Study on how ****ed this franchise is and only a master would be able to turn it around. The team hands out millions like candy... instead of spending that on hack players and coaches, it needs to spend it on management.

Are you gonna watch it 3 times tonight Briggs?

No, we're making two bad, lazy, out of shape NBA players look even worse by pairing them together.

briggs couldn't agree with you more. first, you should be running an nba team.

the biggest problems with this team are 1) curry/z-bo playing together and 2) Q. Q has been WOEFUL at 3, he should be removed immediately.

i love the idea of playing z-bo and lee to start, why does curry get the nod? i like z-bo's offensive game better (at least he palys inside and outside) and he rebounds too.

jeffries is a waste of time obviously and i dont think balkman can start, too many fouls, but he might as well learn. its better than Q, anything is better than him chucking up shots at a 25% clip.

thinking pragmatically about this team is just worthless b/c of the dumb asses who run the team (dolan/isiah)