Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:Horford is a phenomenal player. But he was too expensive and too offense oriented. Not what the Knicks needed.

I thinks the reason why Horford would've been nice is his offense fits in rather than having another guy who needs the ball. He's just as good as Noah in terms of passing rebounding and defense but his efficient offense that he expanded out to 3 is a whole different level of player. I understand we fit in both players compares to 1 but now that superior player is on the Celtics. I'd rather the Celtics has Noah and we had Horford

I watched more Hawks games then I care to remember this year and Horford was embarrassing on the board and defensively this yr. Perhaps he started to mail it in because he was frustrated with his role there but his level of effort and non-contributions in those categories can't be denied.

That's interesting because he held his man to 45.9% from the field this year and his opponents shot 47.0% on the season as a whole. (Noah's opponents shot 42.7% vs. 45.9% overall.)

I don't look at the advanced defensive stats but I do watch games. Do they factor in if my guy scores on a dump off when I come over to help? I'm genuinely asking the question.

We needed more of an interior force and rebounder. I didn't see much of either from Horford this yr. I saw multiple games where he had 5 rebounds in 40 minutes. Just minimal effort. No thanks when we woulda had to use all our cap space on him. I'm sure people woulda lost their minds if we did that.

smackeddog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:Horford is a phenomenal player. But he was too expensive and too offense oriented. Not what the Knicks needed.

I thinks the reason why Horford would've been nice is his offense fits in rather than having another guy who needs the ball. He's just as good as Noah in terms of passing rebounding and defense but his efficient offense that he expanded out to 3 is a whole different level of player. I understand we fit in both players compares to 1 but now that superior player is on the Celtics. I'd rather the Celtics has Noah and we had Horford

I watched more Hawks games then I care to remember this year and Horford was embarrassing on the board and defensively this yr. Perhaps he started to mail it in because he was frustrated with his role there but his level of effort and non-contributions in those categories can't be denied.

That's interesting because he held his man to 45.9% from the field this year and his opponents shot 47.0% on the season as a whole. (Noah's opponents shot 42.7% vs. 45.9% overall.)

A fair few Hawks fans have said he looked demotivated- his dad even said he was due to the lack of fan interest. I do think once you start dogging it, it's hard to return to full effort.

Thanks for adding that. I was unaware his father said that. I am glad that him own family noticed this as well.

dwiley20 wrote:you sleep if you think Horford has been a better player

or if you go after OJ Mayo in free agency

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

SwishAndDish13 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:Horford is a phenomenal player. But he was too expensive and too offense oriented. Not what the Knicks needed.

I thinks the reason why Horford would've been nice is his offense fits in rather than having another guy who needs the ball. He's just as good as Noah in terms of passing rebounding and defense but his efficient offense that he expanded out to 3 is a whole different level of player. I understand we fit in both players compares to 1 but now that superior player is on the Celtics. I'd rather the Celtics has Noah and we had Horford

I watched more Hawks games then I care to remember this year and Horford was embarrassing on the board and defensively this yr. Perhaps he started to mail it in because he was frustrated with his role there but his level of effort and non-contributions in those categories can't be denied.

That's interesting because he held his man to 45.9% from the field this year and his opponents shot 47.0% on the season as a whole. (Noah's opponents shot 42.7% vs. 45.9% overall.)

I don't look at the advanced defensive stats but I do watch games. Do they factor in if my guy scores on a dump off when I come over to help? I'm genuinely asking the question.

We needed more of an interior force and rebounder. I didn't see much of either from Horford this yr. I saw multiple games where he had 5 rebounds in 40 minutes. Just minimal effort. No thanks when we woulda had to use all our cap space on him. I'm sure people woulda lost their minds if we did that.

Exactly. When people talk about Starph****** why would it not be the case if they went all in on Horford? That wouldn't have addressed enough of the team's issues for the cost. Seems to me that Phil made the best moves he could under the circumstances. He knew he had a ton of holes and limited cap to fill them. How could he justify blowing most of it on Horford???

Bonn1997 wrote:

dwiley20 wrote:you sleep if you think Horford has been a better player

Better at what point in time? Through 2013-14 I agree but Noah has watched Horford play in the last 2 all-star games.

Bonn1997 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dwiley20 wrote:you sleep if you think Horford has been a better player

Better at what point in time? Through 2013-14 I agree but Noah has watched Horford play in the last 2 all-star games.

You just gonna ignore the knee and shoulder surgery? Sure an injured Noah wasn't as good. No different than an injured Horford would not be as good. This season will be a much better reference point.

Oh I don't ignore it. That's part of the problem. Injury history is a good (but not perfect) predictor of future injuries. You can't make all your decisions assuming that players will have their first healthy season in 3 or 4 years (Noah and Rose). You can wish for it to happen but you shouldn't expect it to happen. This is what I was referring to in the other thread where I said you need to make decisions where the probabilities (not just possibilities) are in your favor.

I'm not assuming issues that would prevent the Knicks from having a winning record next year. Can it happen? Sure! Are the odds increased over a totally health set of players without the injury history? Of course! That still doesn't mean that they can't have a good season and with relatively good health. This is something that can be managed as it has been over the years with other players who had similar health issues. This has been done before.

BRIGGS wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:Horford is a phenomenal player. But he was too expensive and too offense oriented. Not what the Knicks needed.

I thinks the reason why Horford would've been nice is his offense fits in rather than having another guy who needs the ball. He's just as good as Noah in terms of passing rebounding and defense but his efficient offense that he expanded out to 3 is a whole different level of player. I understand we fit in both players compares to 1 but now that superior player is on the Celtics. I'd rather the Celtics has Noah and we had Horford

horford is a great player there is no doubt. so far as fit with rose and melo and kp... i think noah is the better fit. noah is also the better leader and will be a better mentor to kp6 than horford. when noah gets the ball he is more likely to make plays for others than horford. also, lee doesn't need the ball. horford's talents would have been a bit squandered here and i just don't see that with noah and lee.

you have to think of the intangibles.