BRIGGS wrote:but I think for the best interest of the tam--perhaps it might be wise to revisit him as the back up PG. He handles well, he's a decent passer he keeps his head up hes athletic he can really guard the position hes 6-5 athletic--why wouldnt he be a smart choice as the back up PG with the middle minutes going to JR Hardaway and Carmelo?

i disagree. it would be IDEAL for shumpert to play PG the problem is hes a horrible passer with a poor IQ. I think the triangle would hide some of these deficiencies so im willing to see how it looks. But until then shump = tony allen 2.0

Bonn1997 wrote:How about NBDL PG?

Well I don't think you have to be Jason Kidd in his prime to play PG in this offense. I think that we should give Iman a chance in pre-season(if healthy) to go 15 minutes at that position.

I believe he can defend the position WAY better than anyone on the team--I think everyone will agree with that.
I think that he can handle the ball well enough to bring it up court and get us into our offense without incident and he has the ability to hit the open 3.
The offense is not predicated on a pure 1 and our porous defense--especially on the perimeter cried out for better personnel(i think that is fair) and we have Iman on the team. Dantoni used him at PG in his first year at times--I think he can be fine in this offense there for limited minutes--so why not try it out while it doesnt count?

To me--I think that both Early and Larkin are the guys who need developmental time in the NBDL. Larkin is going to need to learn how to use a floater, use angles better and to use his athletic ability to his advantage.What we watched the other night was a guy who simply was physically outmatched by length and size. He may need time to learn how to do that with big minutes that cna be afforded in our D league--Early as well. We don't need 15 guys on the bench roster to start the season--12-13 is fine. Lastly I believe they had overtures for Prigs this summer--I think this might be a case of selling a car before its transmission finally slips

VDesai wrote:He's played PG here...has done it at times over a couple of seasons, and proven he can't play there. So no.

Remember when he we tried to make Toney Douglas a PG and he went from useful rotational player to complete scrub and has had to spend the last several seasons rehabilitating his game?

Its just not worth it.

The triangle negates some of the traditional needs for a PG and thus Shump playing some back-up PG becomes an option. If you think about the triangle it is just a series of sets/motion depending on who has the ball and where the ball is. This isn't a spread the floor and run an high/screen roll and the pg gets into the paint to make plays offense.

What Shump would provide is great size/length/rebounding at the PG position and also in theory help our defense/physicality out at the defensive end while also freeing up time for THJ/JR at the SG position.

When Fisher is quoted as saying he can envision Shump/THJ/JR playing at the same time --- that is with Shump at PG.

Maybe a better way to say this is -- we'd have no true pg but just 2 guards getting us into our sets.

Ideally one our best line-ups could be Shump/JR/Melo/BARGS/Dally --- lots of size/length and enough offense in that 5-some.

Probably could have asked for a future 2nd

If we actually think Shumpert can play point guard

Look this is a round about way of coming to grips

Shumpert probably doesn't fit on this team

We asked him a yr ago to play point and he declined

He already stated Fisher sees his role as a

Slasher on this team in the triangle system

Trusting him to direct offense

And make decisive decisions is asinine

Not to mention if he can play point

Why the fuss of Calderon over Felton

This would obviously mean it doesn't take

Much to run point guard on this team

Shumpert barely deserves anything

Other than playing out his last yr here

LivingLegend wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:but I think for the best interest of the tam--perhaps it might be wise to revisit him as the back up PG. He handles well, he's a decent passer he keeps his head up hes athletic he can really guard the position hes 6-5 athletic--why wouldnt he be a smart choice as the back up PG with the middle minutes going to JR Hardaway and Carmelo?

While no part of me thinks Iman is a PG -- at this point in time I think I'd prefer either Shump or Larkin getting PG minutes over Pablo.

While I really do love Pablo -- I just don't think he provides enough physicality at the position either from a size/length or speed/quickness perspective. I would prefer to either go with Larkin's up-tempo / high energy or Shumps big/physical/defensive minded options over Pablo.

I was all for the Knicks moving Pablo to Utah this summer and would have preferred bringing back T-Murry.

Again - this isn't a knock on Pablo --- I think he'd be great with some other teams/systems but for us I think we need a more dynamic complement to Calderon at the back-up PG spot.

You're on the spot there for sure--we shouldve kept Murry and moved Prigs.

LivingLegend wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:but I think for the best interest of the tam--perhaps it might be wise to revisit him as the back up PG. He handles well, he's a decent passer he keeps his head up hes athletic he can really guard the position hes 6-5 athletic--why wouldnt he be a smart choice as the back up PG with the middle minutes going to JR Hardaway and Carmelo?

While no part of me thinks Iman is a PG -- at this point in time I think I'd prefer either Shump or Larkin getting PG minutes over Pablo.

While I really do love Pablo -- I just don't think he provides enough physicality at the position either from a size/length or speed/quickness perspective. I would prefer to either go with Larkin's up-tempo / high energy or Shumps big/physical/defensive minded options over Pablo.

I was all for the Knicks moving Pablo to Utah this summer and would have preferred bringing back T-Murry.

Again - this isn't a knock on Pablo --- I think he'd be great with some other teams/systems but for us I think we need a more dynamic complement to Calderon at the back-up PG spot.

I like pablo, but I think it's time to let go, definitely 4th on the depth chart..

While I like shump as an option, I can't help but think of all the times i seen him blow a fast break by leading the break and having no idea what to do once he got down court, his IQ is just real suspect, can't trust him. I think he's solid in a half court set, but solid defense usually leads to fast breaks, and do you really want him leading your break. I think thats what you have to ask youself.

gunsnewing wrote:

LivingLegend wrote:

VDesai wrote:He's played PG here...has done it at times over a couple of seasons, and proven he can't play there. So no.

Remember when he we tried to make Toney Douglas a PG and he went from useful rotational player to complete scrub and has had to spend the last several seasons rehabilitating his game?

Its just not worth it.

The triangle negates some of the traditional needs for a PG and thus Shump playing some back-up PG becomes an option. If you think about the triangle it is just a series of sets/motion depending on who has the ball and where the ball is. This isn't a spread the floor and run an high/screen roll and the pg gets into the paint to make plays offense.

What Shump would provide is great size/length/rebounding at the PG position and also in theory help our defense/physicality out at the defensive end while also freeing up time for THJ/JR at the SG position.

When Fisher is quoted as saying he can envision Shump/THJ/JR playing at the same time --- that is with Shump at PG.

Maybe a better way to say this is -- we'd have no true pg but just 2 guards getting us into our sets.

Ideally one our best line-ups could be Shump/JR/Melo/BARGS/Dally --- lots of size/length and enough offense in that 5-some.

I agree but what about Calderon. I think Amare, Bargnani, Calderon and JR will be gone by the trade deadline

I wasn't meaning to exclude Calderon was more talking about when he is on the bench --- but I suppose your thought process on him potentially being traded is possible.

Of those (4) -- I tend to think Amare/JR are the most likely to be traded --- I think Bargs/Jose are viewed as system fits where JR/STAT may be viewed as the anti-triangle fits.