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

Eric Goodwin Tears Into Berman And Rightfully Slams Curry....Good Read
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 2 ‹ Previous 1  2 
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
3/6/2008  7:49 PM
Let's say you took player A and put him on a team that won 12 games a year. He arrives and the same team now wins 30 a year. His team has a losing record but I'd have to say that Player A is a winner. He made a positive change to that team.

There is more to being a winning player than your teams record. It's a lot more subjective than that. I am a coach and I'm telling you, with the proper roster you can win with anyone in your line-up. You can marginalize a trouble maker. You can cover for a poor defender. You can lessen the impact of an inconsistent shooter. But without the proper line-up everyone looks like a loser.

Now there are guys that make winning very difficult. They force you to find the perfect roster to accomodate them. Then there are other players that can fit into any roster or any system. Now that second group is who you really want to target, but that does not mean you can't win with a player that is part of the first group. It's a team game and if you build the right roster you can win with ANYBODY
I just hope that people will like me
AUTOADVERT
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
3/6/2008  8:02 PM
Posted by Bippity10:

Let's say you took player A and put him on a team that won 12 games a year. He arrives and the same team now wins 30 a year. His team has a losing record but I'd have to say that Player A is a winner. He made a positive change to that team.

There is more to being a winning player than your teams record. It's a lot more subjective than that. I am a coach and I'm telling you, with the proper roster you can win with anyone in your line-up. You can marginalize a trouble maker. You can cover for a poor defender. You can lessen the impact of an inconsistent shooter. But without the proper line-up everyone looks like a loser.

Now there are guys that make winning very difficult. They force you to find the perfect roster to accomodate them. Then there are other players that can fit into any roster or any system. Now that second group is who you really want to target, but that does not mean you can't win with a player that is part of the first group. It's a team game and if you build the right roster you can win with ANYBODY

Which current Knicks would you put in that second group?
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
3/6/2008  8:23 PM
not debating about Arroyo but this agent seriously underrates what makes guys like Fisher and Rondo better options than his clients - COACHABILITY.

Rondo makes NY a play-off team and so does Fisher. NY has the offensive fire-power to stay with teams they just have guys who spaz in the clutch wheras those 2 show on a regular basis they know how to EXECUTE especially in the fourth qtr.
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
3/6/2008  8:41 PM
Rajon Rondo & Derek Fisher won't turn this team into a playoff contender, come on dude... we need better talent period... Nate's a better player than Derek Fisher is right now & at least as good as Rondo, maybe not as good in ball distribution or defense, but definitely a better shooter & talented scorer.

the difference is Rondo & Fisher play alongside some awesomely talented players like KG, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Kobe, Bynum & Gasol... we have some talent too but no franchise superstars like KG or Kobe certainly... put Fisher or Rondo on the Knicks & they're just more guys that will be fighting Jamal & Nate for playing time.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
TrueBlue
Posts: 29144
Alba Posts: 12
Joined: 9/20/2006
Member: #1172
3/6/2008  9:13 PM
Posted by Bippity10:

Let's say you took player A and put him on a team that won 12 games a year. He arrives and the same team now wins 30 a year. His team has a losing record but I'd have to say that Player A is a winner. He made a positive change to that team.

This scenario is subjective too because it's much easier to improve or to see improvement from that vantage point. Using your example let's reverse it

What do you say of such player or players who went from 33wins to 23wins with relatively the same roster?

It's better to look at their careers over a span of seasons to get a better judgement of where they're at in terms of winning.
LMFAO @ the Bio [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephon_Marbury[/url]
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
3/6/2008  9:29 PM
Posted by TMS:

Rajon Rondo & Derek Fisher won't turn this team into a playoff contender, come on dude... we need better talent period... Nate's a better player than Derek Fisher is right now & at least as good as Rondo, maybe not as good in ball distribution or defense, but definitely a better shooter & talented scorer.

the difference is Rondo & Fisher play alongside some awesomely talented players like KG, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Kobe, Bynum & Gasol... we have some talent too but no franchise superstars like KG or Kobe certainly... put Fisher or Rondo on the Knicks & they're just more guys that will be fighting Jamal & Nate for playing time.

any coach with half a brain starts Rondo (and gives him 30 mpg) at the point over either of Crawford or Nathaniel. He is a much better defender, he rebounds very well and he is smart with the ball.

As 4 Fish he gets 20 a night off the bench and gets burn in close games as a spot up threat regardless of those 2 b/c you don't have to worry about him passing up the correct shot for some high degree of difficulty off-balance shot or some bone-headed forray into the D.

Kobe and KG have both been on lottery teams. everybody needs help. we may not have the guy to lead the team to 50-plus wins but IMO either of those 2 gets NY a 4th seed in the East





[Edited by - McK1 on 06-03-2008 9:30 PM]
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
3/6/2008  10:50 PM
Some teams managed to be winners with average players, without stars, and even without luck.
But no team was a winner without decent GM and good coach.
With Isiah on the helm the players are irrelevant. And by the way this is with Isiah wants - to have only irrelevant people around him. Definitely genius...
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
3/7/2008  12:43 AM
This is really getting to the heart of the matter with this team. We actually do have some talent on this team and unfortunately it's the combination that is not working. It doesn't mean we have a bunch of loser's, perhaps together on the same roster it works out that way, but you could take guys from this team and put them somewhere else and they'd be productive.

The challenge now is to figure out who to keep and who to move out and to build this team with a real plan and concrete approach. We don't have to start from scratch as some have suggested. We can still make good use of some of the players we have. But we can't keep most of this group together anymore cuz it just isn't working.

How many times have we noted the fact that Nate had come to camp more ready to play and Isiah himself said he was the best in practice, but then we really haven't seen a complete commitment to Nate. Isiah hasn't really given him more support. He's a more efficient player than Jamal. Isiah seems to lay blame on Nate for his Zach & Curry deal not working out, but that's really not fair at all. He has to look in the mirror on that one.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
3/7/2008  1:47 AM
Posted by McK1:
Posted by TMS:

Rajon Rondo & Derek Fisher won't turn this team into a playoff contender, come on dude... we need better talent period... Nate's a better player than Derek Fisher is right now & at least as good as Rondo, maybe not as good in ball distribution or defense, but definitely a better shooter & talented scorer.

the difference is Rondo & Fisher play alongside some awesomely talented players like KG, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Kobe, Bynum & Gasol... we have some talent too but no franchise superstars like KG or Kobe certainly... put Fisher or Rondo on the Knicks & they're just more guys that will be fighting Jamal & Nate for playing time.

any coach with half a brain starts Rondo (and gives him 30 mpg) at the point over either of Crawford or Nathaniel. He is a much better defender, he rebounds very well and he is smart with the ball.

As 4 Fish he gets 20 a night off the bench and gets burn in close games as a spot up threat regardless of those 2 b/c you don't have to worry about him passing up the correct shot for some high degree of difficulty off-balance shot or some bone-headed forray into the D.

Kobe and KG have both been on lottery teams. everybody needs help. we may not have the guy to lead the team to 50-plus wins but IMO either of those 2 gets NY a 4th seed in the East





[Edited by - McK1 on 06-03-2008 9:30 PM]

i'll submit that Rondo probably gets the nod over Nate due to his superior orchestrating & defense, but come on, he's not making us a playoff team all by his lonesome... this team lacks several parts, including biggest of all IMHO, a defensive shotblocking intimidator in the paint.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
3/7/2008  8:02 AM
Posted by TrueBlue:
Posted by Bippity10:

Let's say you took player A and put him on a team that won 12 games a year. He arrives and the same team now wins 30 a year. His team has a losing record but I'd have to say that Player A is a winner. He made a positive change to that team.

This scenario is subjective too because it's much easier to improve or to see improvement from that vantage point. Using your example let's reverse it

What do you say of such player or players who went from 33wins to 23wins with relatively the same roster?

It's better to look at their careers over a span of seasons to get a better judgement of where they're at in terms of winning.

I think that's why I said it's subjective
I just hope that people will like me
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
3/7/2008  8:10 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Bippity10:

Let's say you took player A and put him on a team that won 12 games a year. He arrives and the same team now wins 30 a year. His team has a losing record but I'd have to say that Player A is a winner. He made a positive change to that team.

There is more to being a winning player than your teams record. It's a lot more subjective than that. I am a coach and I'm telling you, with the proper roster you can win with anyone in your line-up. You can marginalize a trouble maker. You can cover for a poor defender. You can lessen the impact of an inconsistent shooter. But without the proper line-up everyone looks like a loser.

Now there are guys that make winning very difficult. They force you to find the perfect roster to accomodate them. Then there are other players that can fit into any roster or any system. Now that second group is who you really want to target, but that does not mean you can't win with a player that is part of the first group. It's a team game and if you build the right roster you can win with ANYBODY

Which current Knicks would you put in that second group?

Let's exclude the rookies from this. I'm not talking talent, I'm talking the ability to accept your role and help your team

QRich-Forgetting about poor play and/or health and just taking him for what he is, he can adapt to any situation
Zach-To date has not shown he can make a positive impact on any team. I personally would not want him
Curry-I wouldn't want this guy on my team and would certainly not use him as a franchise guy, but don't get it twisted, teams have won with lazy defenseless players before
Jamal-The way he plays makes it difficult. But with the proper coaching I think Jamal could have had a better career.
nate-There are winning teams that would take this guy. Maybe not in the same role, but they would definitely take him
Lee-would fit on any team
Balkman-Would fit on any team
Jeffries-In the proper role could help a team, and has in the past
Malik Rose-In the proper role could help a team
Marbs-May be the closest thing we have to a player that you can't win with.

It's not so much the individual players but the make up of the team that makes these guys look so bad. Malik Rose was always a part of winning situations until he got here. He played his part and helped the team. Here he is useless. A lot of the guys on this roster would be far different players in different situations. It's just hard to see from where we are.
I just hope that people will like me
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
3/7/2008  8:13 AM
It's all situational. You take Dennis Rodman and put him on today's Knicks and he is a mental case that at some point sabotages your season. Put him on a team of championship vets like the Bulls and his offcourt distractions are minimized and he wins titles.
I just hope that people will like me
nysportsfan11
Posts: 20252
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 12/20/2007
Member: #1782
3/7/2008  9:59 AM
Stuff like this is why they're LeBron's former agents. Sure, Eric is right, but who the hell is Marc Berman to where he needed to waste all that time? Who didn't laugh at Berman's assertion that Arroyo is a pass first point guard? Berman doesn't watch the games.

Calm down Eric, we all know it's time for Nate to get a raise. Everyone knows what the sweaty groupie masquerading as a beat writer is all about. Case in point: publishing the email. Now he'll be hanging from Goodwin's sack like he does anyone else that makes him feel "special".
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
3/7/2008  10:09 AM
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Bippity10:

Let's say you took player A and put him on a team that won 12 games a year. He arrives and the same team now wins 30 a year. His team has a losing record but I'd have to say that Player A is a winner. He made a positive change to that team.

There is more to being a winning player than your teams record. It's a lot more subjective than that. I am a coach and I'm telling you, with the proper roster you can win with anyone in your line-up. You can marginalize a trouble maker. You can cover for a poor defender. You can lessen the impact of an inconsistent shooter. But without the proper line-up everyone looks like a loser.

Now there are guys that make winning very difficult. They force you to find the perfect roster to accomodate them. Then there are other players that can fit into any roster or any system. Now that second group is who you really want to target, but that does not mean you can't win with a player that is part of the first group. It's a team game and if you build the right roster you can win with ANYBODY

Which current Knicks would you put in that second group?

Let's exclude the rookies from this. I'm not talking talent, I'm talking the ability to accept your role and help your team

QRich-Forgetting about poor play and/or health and just taking him for what he is, he can adapt to any situation
Zach-To date has not shown he can make a positive impact on any team. I personally would not want him
Curry-I wouldn't want this guy on my team and would certainly not use him as a franchise guy, but don't get it twisted, teams have won with lazy defenseless players before
Jamal-The way he plays makes it difficult. But with the proper coaching I think Jamal could have had a better career.
nate-There are winning teams that would take this guy. Maybe not in the same role, but they would definitely take him
Lee-would fit on any team
Balkman-Would fit on any team
Jeffries-In the proper role could help a team, and has in the past
Malik Rose-In the proper role could help a team
Marbs-May be the closest thing we have to a player that you can't win with.

It's not so much the individual players but the make up of the team that makes these guys look so bad. Malik Rose was always a part of winning situations until he got here. He played his part and helped the team. Here he is useless. A lot of the guys on this roster would be far different players in different situations. It's just hard to see from where we are.
I'd agree with all those except Malik and Q-Rich. Earlier in their careers, I think they definitely did fit into that second group but I don't think they have enough left in the tank to fit on any team's NBA roster right now. I'm sure they still have the right attitude to fit into that second group, just not the physical abilities. I wasn't going to include Jared in the 2nd group but you have a good point about him fitting well in Washington. I'm not convinced any coach could fix Jamal, though.
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
3/7/2008  10:16 AM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Bippity10:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by Bippity10:

Let's say you took player A and put him on a team that won 12 games a year. He arrives and the same team now wins 30 a year. His team has a losing record but I'd have to say that Player A is a winner. He made a positive change to that team.

There is more to being a winning player than your teams record. It's a lot more subjective than that. I am a coach and I'm telling you, with the proper roster you can win with anyone in your line-up. You can marginalize a trouble maker. You can cover for a poor defender. You can lessen the impact of an inconsistent shooter. But without the proper line-up everyone looks like a loser.

Now there are guys that make winning very difficult. They force you to find the perfect roster to accomodate them. Then there are other players that can fit into any roster or any system. Now that second group is who you really want to target, but that does not mean you can't win with a player that is part of the first group. It's a team game and if you build the right roster you can win with ANYBODY

Which current Knicks would you put in that second group?

Let's exclude the rookies from this. I'm not talking talent, I'm talking the ability to accept your role and help your team

QRich-Forgetting about poor play and/or health and just taking him for what he is, he can adapt to any situation
Zach-To date has not shown he can make a positive impact on any team. I personally would not want him
Curry-I wouldn't want this guy on my team and would certainly not use him as a franchise guy, but don't get it twisted, teams have won with lazy defenseless players before
Jamal-The way he plays makes it difficult. But with the proper coaching I think Jamal could have had a better career.
nate-There are winning teams that would take this guy. Maybe not in the same role, but they would definitely take him
Lee-would fit on any team
Balkman-Would fit on any team
Jeffries-In the proper role could help a team, and has in the past
Malik Rose-In the proper role could help a team
Marbs-May be the closest thing we have to a player that you can't win with.

It's not so much the individual players but the make up of the team that makes these guys look so bad. Malik Rose was always a part of winning situations until he got here. He played his part and helped the team. Here he is useless. A lot of the guys on this roster would be far different players in different situations. It's just hard to see from where we are.
I'd agree with all those except Malik and Q-Rich. Earlier in their careers, I think they definitely did fit into that second group but I don't think they have enough left in the tank to fit on any team's NBA roster right now. I'm sure they still have the right attitude to fit into that second group, just not the physical abilities. I wasn't going to include Jared in the 2nd group but you have a good point about him fitting well in Washington. I'm not convinced any coach could fix Jamal, though.

On Malik and Q, they appear to be on the downslide(to be nice) but I do think both could fit on a winning team. Not in the roles they play for us, but both are capable players for small minutes and would accept their roles on a winning team. I think they look like losers on our team because we need them to do things that they are no longer capable of doing. Unbalanced rosters have a way of making players look worse than they are IMO
I just hope that people will like me
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
3/7/2008  10:51 AM
Posted by Bippity10:

On Malik and Q, they appear to be on the downslide(to be nice) but I do think both could fit on a winning team. Not in the roles they play for us, but both are capable players for small minutes and would accept their roles on a winning team. I think they look like losers on our team because we need them to do things that they are no longer capable of doing. Unbalanced rosters have a way of making players look worse than they are IMO

Great point. How many times have we seen players being wasted on poor teams who suddenly blossom when they get into a better situation? Some GM's are capable of seeing this and plucking those guys off other rosters ie Boris Diaw.
newyorknewyork
Posts: 30259
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #541
3/7/2008  11:27 AM
Posted by Bippity10:

Let's say you took player A and put him on a team that won 12 games a year. He arrives and the same team now wins 30 a year. His team has a losing record but I'd have to say that Player A is a winner. He made a positive change to that team.

There is more to being a winning player than your teams record. It's a lot more subjective than that. I am a coach and I'm telling you, with the proper roster you can win with anyone in your line-up. You can marginalize a trouble maker. You can cover for a poor defender. You can lessen the impact of an inconsistent shooter. But without the proper line-up everyone looks like a loser.
Now there are guys that make winning very difficult. They force you to find the perfect roster to accomodate them. Then there are other players that can fit into any roster or any system. Now that second group is who you really want to target, but that does not mean you can't win with a player that is part of the first group. It's a team game and if you build the right roster you can win with ANYBODY

Been saying that for yrs. Balance and putting players in position of strength. I agree 100%

Rondo has better defense & passing ability then Nate but that doesn't make him a better player just a different player. Say its the 4th quarter and your team is struggling and needs a player to take over offensivly and put up pts. I know that Nate can do that. Can Rondo do that? Does he have that scoring ability and talent? Jason Kidd failed in the playoffs many times because he wasn't able to do that consistantly. Chancey Billups won his championship and MVP because he was. So did Tony Paker.

I haven't watched Rondo enough to know. That doesn't make Nate a better player either, but they have different skills. It depends on the Makup of your team. Maybe the makeup of your team requires a scoring guard like Nate instead of Rondo & vise versa. Having both would be good, one player with both skills would be even better. If you have a player like Shaq or Duncan who you want to run the offense though the post. Then you can get by with a scoring guard like Nate
https://vote.nba.com/en Vote for your Knicks.
Bippity10
Posts: 13999
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/26/2004
Member: #574
3/7/2008  1:22 PM
Posted by newyorknewyork:
Posted by Bippity10:

Let's say you took player A and put him on a team that won 12 games a year. He arrives and the same team now wins 30 a year. His team has a losing record but I'd have to say that Player A is a winner. He made a positive change to that team.

There is more to being a winning player than your teams record. It's a lot more subjective than that. I am a coach and I'm telling you, with the proper roster you can win with anyone in your line-up. You can marginalize a trouble maker. You can cover for a poor defender. You can lessen the impact of an inconsistent shooter. But without the proper line-up everyone looks like a loser.
Now there are guys that make winning very difficult. They force you to find the perfect roster to accomodate them. Then there are other players that can fit into any roster or any system. Now that second group is who you really want to target, but that does not mean you can't win with a player that is part of the first group. It's a team game and if you build the right roster you can win with ANYBODY

Been saying that for yrs. Balance and putting players in position of strength. I agree 100%

Rondo has better defense & passing ability then Nate but that doesn't make him a better player just a different player. Say its the 4th quarter and your team is struggling and needs a player to take over offensivly and put up pts. I know that Nate can do that. Can Rondo do that? Does he have that scoring ability and talent? Jason Kidd failed in the playoffs many times because he wasn't able to do that consistantly. Chancey Billups won his championship and MVP because he was. So did Tony Paker.

I haven't watched Rondo enough to know. That doesn't make Nate a better player either, but they have different skills. It depends on the Makup of your team. Maybe the makeup of your team requires a scoring guard like Nate instead of Rondo & vise versa. Having both would be good, one player with both skills would be even better. If you have a player like Shaq or Duncan who you want to run the offense though the post. Then you can get by with a scoring guard like Nate

How about Steve Kerr. Put an in his prime Steve Kerr on this team and he does nothing. But him on the 90 Bulls and he is "winner" that makes giant shots down the stretch because teams are trying to stop MJ and Pippen.
I just hope that people will like me
Page 2 of 2 ‹ Previous 1  2 
« Reply To Topic
Eric Goodwin Tears Into Berman And Rightfully Slams Curry....Good Read
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