[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Next year if we want to improve--they better have a plan to remove Q rich and his 28 minutes
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
3/6/2008  1:50 PM
Posted by Cosmic:
Posted by bitty41:



Order of business:

1. Point guard

2. Small forward


It goes a lot farther than this I have no idea why some fans still believe this is a viable core that only needs a tweak or two before they can return to greatness. There never was greatness with anything Isiah brought here and just adding or changing a part or two will do absolutely nothing of value to the situation.

You need to fire Isiah and you need to deport his entire "franchise cornerstones" starting five of Marbury, Crawford, QRich, Zach, Curry out of here and they need to take Malik and Jeffries and Jerome James with them.
You can not build a winner with those guys. It's impossible. I don't know why fans are still sucked into that idea that all it takes is one trade or the right coach or the right draft pick and we'll be that 50+win elite team.

That's never happening.

Bite the bullet, Fire Isiah, tear his mess down, endure two seasons of waiting for the tearing down to be completed. Endure the next two seasons of building back up. Then start talking about simple additions to make us a contender!


Oh, I know, "Yeah but we can't just sit here and stink for four years! New York won't allow that!"

Yeah, know what? We've stunk for seven because of a refusal to tear it down and Isiah has presided over 4+ years of those seven years of STINKING IT UP while ADDING JUST ONE MORE PIECE OR THE RIGHT COACH TO THE MIX in an attempt to BE AN ELITE TEAM.

How'd that go? Yet...here you guys are STILL sucked into the same old problem. If only we make the right trade, one more draft pick, or the right coach!


BLEH......How do you guys keep doing this to yourselves!?

exactly, it all starts right there cosmic, except, I am for keeping jamal, but everything else I agree with.. Get those guys out of here along with Isiah. any thoughts of keeping marbury is friggin foolish..

Have a good draft, Hopefully it is derrick rose.. give the minutes to chandler, morris, balkman, lee and nate, plus any draft picks. Let these kids develop and go from there. This needs to happen, this has to happen.
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
AUTOADVERT
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/6/2008  2:27 PM
Posted by Cosmic:
Posted by bitty41:



Order of business:

1. Point guard

2. Small forward


It goes a lot farther than this I have no idea why some fans still believe this is a viable core that only needs a tweak or two before they can return to greatness. There never was greatness with anything Isiah brought here and just adding or changing a part or two will do absolutely nothing of value to the situation.

You need to fire Isiah and you need to deport his entire "franchise cornerstones" starting five of Marbury, Crawford, QRich, Zach, Curry out of here and they need to take Malik and Jeffries and Jerome James with them.

You can not build a winner with those guys. It's impossible. I don't know why fans are still sucked into that idea that all it takes is one trade or the right coach or the right draft pick and we'll be that 50+win elite team.

That's never happening.

Bite the bullet, Fire Isiah, tear his mess down, endure two seasons of waiting for the tearing down to be completed. Endure the next two seasons of building back up. Then start talking about simple additions to make us a contender!


Oh, I know, "Yeah but we can't just sit here and stink for four years! New York won't allow that!"

Yeah, know what? We've stunk for seven because of a refusal to tear it down and Isiah has presided over 4+ years of those seven years of STINKING IT UP while ADDING JUST ONE MORE PIECE OR THE RIGHT COACH TO THE MIX in an attempt to BE AN ELITE TEAM.

How'd that go? Yet...here you guys are STILL sucked into the same old problem. If only we make the right trade, one more draft pick, or the right coach!


BLEH......How do you guys keep doing this to yourselves!?

I'm looking at this from perspective as a new coach coming in and being dealt this roster. Sure in a perfect world I would love to see most of the roster revamped. But with the poor play that still continues in the East the Knicks (with good coaching) could very well be an 8th, 7th, or even 6th spot right now. Thats not of course the utlimate goal but it would be a major stepping stone. I do acknowledge that there's a long distance between those lower playoff spots and the top so this is not to say any of those positions will be competing for the ECF anytime soon. But this team could learn to be competitive again.

On the flip side it takes absolutely no thought process or basketball knowledge to say the team sucks and most of the roster should be thrown into the garbage. I know its hard to imagine but there is another perspective out there. And not everything is black and white they either suck or they're great. If this team whatever the roster is starts playing some consistent good ball thats a win/win situation all-around; you become more attractive to free-agents, builds confidence, it becomes easier to root out where the problems are and where your building blocks are.
4949
Posts: 29378
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/25/2006
Member: #1126
USA
3/6/2008  2:34 PM
This team was never competitive to begin with.
I'll never trust this' team again.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/6/2008  2:36 PM
Posted by 4949:

This team was never competitive to begin with.

I'm not saying they were competitive.
4949
Posts: 29378
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/25/2006
Member: #1126
USA
3/6/2008  2:40 PM
Posted by Bippity10:

I think at this point you have to get rid of Zach. Curry is far more agressive without him at that spot. Unless you can get a superstar at the PF spot you really need to target a PF that can defend, block shots and rebound. The addition of Zach was assssinine.

That was why he brought in Jeffries. isiah just doesn't know how to pick anyone who can be effective for this team. We're told he has mental illness.
I'll never trust this' team again.
4949
Posts: 29378
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/25/2006
Member: #1126
USA
3/6/2008  2:41 PM
But this team could learn to be competitive again.

I'll never trust this' team again.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/6/2008  2:55 PM
Posted by 4949:
But this team could learn to be competitive again.

This franchise was competitve at one time.
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
3/6/2008  3:05 PM
Posted by Masterplan:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by Bippity10:

Regardless of who is on the roster. We will be better next year if we balance the roster. Balance is far more important than who is in the line-up.

Order of business:

1. Point guard

2. Small forward

Thats what we are missing and IMO those are far more glaring areas of need then anything else on this roster. Now if moving Randolph or Curry can net you either one or both of these needs then get it done. The Curry and Randolph experiment failed for a number of reasons but at the very top of reasons is due to horrible coaching. Not saying that it would have worked with good coaching or even great coaching but something could have been made out of that combo. There should have been roles established early in the season, along with some more plays involving these two working together, and allow Curry to work in his comfort area (down low) with Randolph playing the short corners or high post areas.

Ideally you go in that order. But if we are looking at it long-term we need all that you and I mentioned. A PG, A SF, a PF/C that can play d rebound and block shots. We need all of it. Whatever moves we make it should be to find the following. A veteran leader. A future star that can lead us to the future. Or a player that fits our philosopy.

Draft-We need a future star. Best player available is the only way to go. Doesn't matter what position they play. There should be no locks on our roster. Ideally they would fall in the PG, PF/C or SF spots(although why not give Chandler a shot)

Free Agency-We aren't getting a star here. If we use a MLE it should be used to bring in a veteran leader. This is where position becomes important. IT should be someone that has won, can command respect and will be in the rotation. Ultimately we want 2 or 3 or 4 of these guys that can't take over the locker room and wrestle it from the Marbury's of the world and mentor the Nates of the world. PG to me would be ideal

Trades-A trade to plug holes on this current team is a waste of time. All trades in my view should target the same veteran leaders we are targeting in the free-agency pool, or to clear cap space. We need guys with reasonable salaries on this roster to provide flexibility. This again shouldn't be position specific. As long as they don't block "your future" they can be from whatever spot you want. Again, ideally you would want a PG, PF/c(shotblocker) or SF but with our current roster I wouldn't be picky.

To me all moves should target one of these areas: Leadership and culture over position. If you get the right position it's a bonus. We need them all.

[Edited by - Bippity10 on 06-03-2008 1:17 PM]


good post. this team is at least 3-4 successful moves from being balanced and competitive. there are definitely a lot of directions we can go to get there, although none are going to be easy. but there's no reason to jump down the throat of someone who proposes a first step.

Did I jump down someone's throat?
I just hope that people will like me
King1
Posts: 22993
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/2/2005
Member: #998
USA
3/6/2008  3:25 PM
Bitty I agree with you. We need guards that can guard someone. We have to draft guards that can score and be efficient. Quentin has to go and one of the three big men have to go.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
3/6/2008  3:34 PM
Bottom line

If we get rid of Zach Randoplh for a simple expiring contract or use him vaguely

We get lucky enough to get Beasley

Marbury comes back healthy as a third guard OR we add a guard with the MLE

Morris Chandler and Balkman improve use Chandler as back up 3-2 and Balkman as a back up 4

This team will go from winning 20 something to 50 something in one year. Unfortuantely the key is getting pick 1 but gosh dang it--there has to be a little luck out there for us??????

If we do get Beasley--and make a few additional small SMART decisions --this team will be a top team in the east that fast.

If we went from Q-rich 28 minutes 6 points on 35% shooting to Michael Beasley 25 points 9 rebounds 3 assits 2 blocks 50+% we go +25-30 games. That is the sweepstakes in the lottery. Derrick Rose will help a great deal but he isnt Beasley.
RIP Crushalot😞
Masterplan
Posts: 21571
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/9/2002
Member: #362
3/6/2008  3:40 PM
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by Masterplan:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by Bippity10:

Regardless of who is on the roster. We will be better next year if we balance the roster. Balance is far more important than who is in the line-up.

Order of business:

1. Point guard

2. Small forward

Thats what we are missing and IMO those are far more glaring areas of need then anything else on this roster. Now if moving Randolph or Curry can net you either one or both of these needs then get it done. The Curry and Randolph experiment failed for a number of reasons but at the very top of reasons is due to horrible coaching. Not saying that it would have worked with good coaching or even great coaching but something could have been made out of that combo. There should have been roles established early in the season, along with some more plays involving these two working together, and allow Curry to work in his comfort area (down low) with Randolph playing the short corners or high post areas.

Ideally you go in that order. But if we are looking at it long-term we need all that you and I mentioned. A PG, A SF, a PF/C that can play d rebound and block shots. We need all of it. Whatever moves we make it should be to find the following. A veteran leader. A future star that can lead us to the future. Or a player that fits our philosopy.

Draft-We need a future star. Best player available is the only way to go. Doesn't matter what position they play. There should be no locks on our roster. Ideally they would fall in the PG, PF/C or SF spots(although why not give Chandler a shot)

Free Agency-We aren't getting a star here. If we use a MLE it should be used to bring in a veteran leader. This is where position becomes important. IT should be someone that has won, can command respect and will be in the rotation. Ultimately we want 2 or 3 or 4 of these guys that can't take over the locker room and wrestle it from the Marbury's of the world and mentor the Nates of the world. PG to me would be ideal

Trades-A trade to plug holes on this current team is a waste of time. All trades in my view should target the same veteran leaders we are targeting in the free-agency pool, or to clear cap space. We need guys with reasonable salaries on this roster to provide flexibility. This again shouldn't be position specific. As long as they don't block "your future" they can be from whatever spot you want. Again, ideally you would want a PG, PF/c(shotblocker) or SF but with our current roster I wouldn't be picky.

To me all moves should target one of these areas: Leadership and culture over position. If you get the right position it's a bonus. We need them all.

[Edited by - Bippity10 on 06-03-2008 1:17 PM]


good post. this team is at least 3-4 successful moves from being balanced and competitive. there are definitely a lot of directions we can go to get there, although none are going to be easy. but there's no reason to jump down the throat of someone who proposes a first step.

Did I jump down someone's throat?

i wouldn't know you're on my ignore list.
Allanfan20
Posts: 35947
Alba Posts: 50
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #542
USA
3/6/2008  3:40 PM
Posted by King1:

Bitty I agree with you. We need guards that can guard someone. We have to draft guards that can score and be efficient. Quentin has to go and one of the three big men have to go.

King, I would say 2 of the bigmen have to go and ideally it's Curdolf. We need 5 guys on the court who are willing to defend every time down the court and it's extremely difficult to build a team with a main frontcourt player who rarely defends, let alone 2 of them. At least Lee gives the effort, rebounds, leads and is developing a jumpshot and we don't know much about Morris to make any judgements right now.

However, if you're going to keep Lee and Curry, then one of those guys needs to be stuck playing 10-15 minutes a night, b/c they don't make a good frontcourt b/c Lee isn't a great defender and Curry sucks. You need at least a very good defender next to Lee (Maybe someone like Dalembert) and a superstar next to Curry (Someone like Camby). Either way, the player next to Lee or Curry has to be a shotblocker.

At least by getting rid of Curdolf, you're options aren't nearly as limited and you can have an easier time rebuilding a new frontcourt for the future, along with giving Morris an honest and genuine look as well as seeing how Lee can handle being the leader of the frontcourt until we find a star.

In my opinion, we need a new starting pg, sg, sf, pf AND C. 5 fresh faces, new leaf, new direction, and an official detox.
“Whenever I’m about to do something, I think ‘Would an idiot do that?’ and if they would, I do NOT do that thing.”- Dwight Schrute
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
3/6/2008  4:00 PM
Posted by Masterplan:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by Masterplan:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by bitty41:
Posted by Bippity10:

Regardless of who is on the roster. We will be better next year if we balance the roster. Balance is far more important than who is in the line-up.

Order of business:

1. Point guard

2. Small forward

Thats what we are missing and IMO those are far more glaring areas of need then anything else on this roster. Now if moving Randolph or Curry can net you either one or both of these needs then get it done. The Curry and Randolph experiment failed for a number of reasons but at the very top of reasons is due to horrible coaching. Not saying that it would have worked with good coaching or even great coaching but something could have been made out of that combo. There should have been roles established early in the season, along with some more plays involving these two working together, and allow Curry to work in his comfort area (down low) with Randolph playing the short corners or high post areas.

Ideally you go in that order. But if we are looking at it long-term we need all that you and I mentioned. A PG, A SF, a PF/C that can play d rebound and block shots. We need all of it. Whatever moves we make it should be to find the following. A veteran leader. A future star that can lead us to the future. Or a player that fits our philosopy.

Draft-We need a future star. Best player available is the only way to go. Doesn't matter what position they play. There should be no locks on our roster. Ideally they would fall in the PG, PF/C or SF spots(although why not give Chandler a shot)

Free Agency-We aren't getting a star here. If we use a MLE it should be used to bring in a veteran leader. This is where position becomes important. IT should be someone that has won, can command respect and will be in the rotation. Ultimately we want 2 or 3 or 4 of these guys that can't take over the locker room and wrestle it from the Marbury's of the world and mentor the Nates of the world. PG to me would be ideal

Trades-A trade to plug holes on this current team is a waste of time. All trades in my view should target the same veteran leaders we are targeting in the free-agency pool, or to clear cap space. We need guys with reasonable salaries on this roster to provide flexibility. This again shouldn't be position specific. As long as they don't block "your future" they can be from whatever spot you want. Again, ideally you would want a PG, PF/c(shotblocker) or SF but with our current roster I wouldn't be picky.

To me all moves should target one of these areas: Leadership and culture over position. If you get the right position it's a bonus. We need them all.

[Edited by - Bippity10 on 06-03-2008 1:17 PM]


good post. this team is at least 3-4 successful moves from being balanced and competitive. there are definitely a lot of directions we can go to get there, although none are going to be easy. but there's no reason to jump down the throat of someone who proposes a first step.

Did I jump down someone's throat?

i wouldn't know you're on my ignore list.

Ooh Ahh already fooled me with that mythical "ignore list" thing. I'm not falling for that aqain. Or am I?
I just hope that people will like me
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/6/2008  4:18 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:

Bottom line

If we get rid of Zach Randoplh for a simple expiring contract or use him vaguely

We get lucky enough to get Beasley

Marbury comes back healthy as a third guard OR we add a guard with the MLE

Morris Chandler and Balkman improve use Chandler as back up 3-2 and Balkman as a back up 4

This team will go from winning 20 something to 50 something in one year. Unfortuantely the key is getting pick 1 but gosh dang it--there has to be a little luck out there for us??????

If we do get Beasley--and make a few additional small SMART decisions --this team will be a top team in the east that fast.

If we went from Q-rich 28 minutes 6 points on 35% shooting to Michael Beasley 25 points 9 rebounds 3 assits 2 blocks 50+% we go +25-30 games. That is the sweepstakes in the lottery. Derrick Rose will help a great deal but he isnt Beasley.

I hate to rain on your parade but when you mentioned Marbury coming back healthy you lost me. And Balkman at the 4 the guy is built like a stick there is no way he's defending the power forward position at his size especially since he's really 6'6.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/6/2008  4:38 PM
Everyone puts an emphaize on defense which I agree with but its not so much as adding players its more about your team' strategy and executing on the defensive end. Meaning that 1 or 2 players is not going to make you into a juggernaut.

More than anything its about playing good team defense, the Denver Nuggets have one of the best defenders in the league with Camby but they still play horrible team defense hence the reason they are an 7th seed instead of 2, 3 seed in the Western Conference.

King1
Posts: 22993
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/2/2005
Member: #998
USA
3/6/2008  5:11 PM
The only reason Camby leads the league in blocks is because of the chances he gets. Hawks, Nuggets, and Clippers are awful on perimeter defense giving the bigs chances to block shots. We need team players, efficient players, and unselfish players.
bitty41
Posts: 22316
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 12/3/2006
Member: #1215
3/6/2008  6:06 PM
Posted by King1:

The only reason Camby leads the league in blocks is because of the chances he gets. Hawks, Nuggets, and Clippers are awful on perimeter defense giving the bigs chances to block shots. We need team players, efficient players, and unselfish players.

You mean more players like Zach Randolph Defense in general is a joke now in the NBA.
King1
Posts: 22993
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/2/2005
Member: #998
USA
3/6/2008  6:11 PM
Efficient is over 48% from the field and doesnt turn the ball over a lot. That is why Jamal kills us he turns the ball over and shoots 40%. We can get that from Larry Hughes and he will guard someone.
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
3/6/2008  6:22 PM
I fear we won't get Rose or Beasley in the draft.

Getting rid of QRich is a start, but there's a lot more to fix. For instance, adding Beasley doesn't add a defensive pressence at PF. I'm not opposed to keeping Curry, but if we do we need a SHOTBLOCKER at PF. And it seems its harder to find a shotblocking PF than a shotblocking C. Of course if we had better perimeter defense the need for a shotblocker wouldn't so high.

IMHO Zach has to go though. We cannot win with him.
¿ △ ?
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
3/6/2008  6:56 PM
Posted by Bippity10:

The addition of Zach was assssinine.

i think you left out a couple... here you go -> sssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Next year if we want to improve--they better have a plan to remove Q rich and his 28 minutes
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy