martin wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:When Burk starts, RJ touches drop, burk is capable of 15 to 18 shots, while bullock looks to do a little of everything

We are a slow team with randle handling the ball, when peyton handles the ball, we have slow centers that don't run don't space, don't shoot.

We don't shoot enough 3's and we certainly don't make enough. But our most concerning issue is the pace we play at, it's half court 90% of the time.

We had a losing record with burk in the starting line up. Put IQ in the starting line up, and you have the same issue with peyton and the bench crew.

We need to make a trade and and acquire what we lack, which is speed and shooting.

I'd be curious to see the number behind your Burks/Barrett statement. I believe Burks is a solid ball mover and draws defense towards him unlike Bullock, which opens up the lanes for Barrett. Burks and Barrett should be a good pairing.

burk 3-14 against sac off the bench
burk 3-14 against utah started

In the last 6 games he's shooting 34% fg 31% FROM 3 in 25 min and we are 2 -4

I have to tell you, on the whole, I like knicks1248's assessment of the plus/minus of pulling Bullock for Burks. For every switch of players, got to take in consideration what you are adding and also what you are taking away, both in terms of the starting lineup and the second line with IQ.

The starting lineup has 2 dominant players: RJ and Randle, every other player in that lineup is an outlet player. Mitch is the dunker, Bullock tries to play the spacer/shooter, Elf should be on the shelf but what can you do.

The second line is similar'ish: IQ and Burks *should* be the main guys with any of Noel, Rivers, Obi, Knox as outlet players. Rivers dominates the ball too much for my tastes but he is out there as another ball handler.

Switch Burks and Bullock and the chemistry of those two units is a HUGE adjustment. Starting lineup get a distance player but you are taking away touches and shots from mostly RJ. In the second line, you take away a gravity player that will help IQ in Burks.

Yeah it makes perfect sense. And maybe Burks is a guy to keep as 6th man if quickley is eventually promoted. Something has to change and Payton and Bullock aren’t starting level players on a good team

knicks1248 wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:Again I'd rather sell high and trade Randle and try to reboot even if it means Toppin isn't ready for more minutes (which he isn't). I don't know if Toppin will become what we all hope - but he plays fast and will really never be anything more than a bench player if Randle remains. Now if we could make Randle the 6th man that would be great but it's not happening and doesn't solve all of the roster problems either way.

Basically it goes back to either Randle or RJ for me as their games both require more spacing and outside shooting support since neither is a great outside shooter at this point. We don't have to rush but I really hope we at least see what we have in Toppin before resigning Randle to anything long-term. Last year we couldn't give Randle away and he likely has decent value at the moment - its a gift we should use.

How long are you going to keep driving in reverse

You drive in reverse to back the truck up when you're going down a road with a dead end. After you back it up you try a different road. The road we're on feels good because we've been down so many bad roads before. This road is very clear in that the ceilings for Randle and RJ playing the majority of minutes together is not high for long-term or significant success. We can be solid/good and that's helpful - but not much beyond that. The talent for these two is good to very good - but not great! Skill sets are redundant and you only need one. The chemistry while improved can't be overcome unless both of their shooting skills improve dramatically. Everyone else is playing 24 feet out and we play 16-20 feet - we are at a disadvantage that we can sometimes overcome when we get "hot" from outside, or when the opposing teams talent isn't great, etc.

I think we're stuck on Randle the way some guys get stuck on the girl they're dating because she looks good, is a good person, etc - when deep down it's clear it's not gonna work in the end. So for all of Randle's positives - it doesn't really matter. Again, I recognize and applaud Randle for improving his conditioning and if it were easier to rebuild around him with knockdown shooters at the remaining positions it wouldn't be as risky. But it's either keep Randle and move Toppin and/or RJ or stick with the younger guys and try to replace Randle's high production through free agency/trades. I've been high on Lavine lately - but last night Lauri killed us and made the Bulls unguardable because of the spacing he created by shooting so well from deep. Randle's much better in many aspects (passing, rebounding), but our defense simply has to work so much harder when you have to cover more ground. It's the way of the entire NBA these days. While Lauri is less well-rounded skill wise compared to Randle - really think swapping Lauri as a 4 would bring out more spacing and ball movement and help make some of the other players more effective. Not advocating for Lauri but trying to make the point.

jskinny35 wrote:

blkexec wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:Again I'd rather sell high and trade Randle and try to reboot even if it means Toppin isn't ready for more minutes (which he isn't). I don't know if Toppin will become what we all hope - but he plays fast and will really never be anything more than a bench player if Randle remains. Now if we could make Randle the 6th man that would be great but it's not happening and doesn't solve all of the roster problems either way.

Basically it goes back to either Randle or RJ for me as their games both require more spacing and outside shooting support since neither is a great outside shooter at this point. We don't have to rush but I really hope we at least see what we have in Toppin before resigning Randle to anything long-term. Last year we couldn't give Randle away and he likely has decent value at the moment - its a gift we should use.

This is why I can't understand the justification for RJ and Randle to lead the league in minutes played. They do not compliment each other. And if 2 people deserve to get the most minutes, shouldn't they compliment each other somehow? If not, then regardless which lineup you put out there, there will always be 3 players who can't shoot (if you include a center). Now put Payton as your starting PG, and you see why we sometimes have bad starts. If teams are smart, and realize we only have to guard 1 players outside the 3 pt line. And if that 1 player is not consistently hitting open shots, he becomes a single point of failure (Bullock or Burk).

If you notice the lineup that closed the game yesterday, it had 3 shooters....With RJ on the bench. As soon as you sub a shooter our for RJ, all you have to do is play zone to stop us. But when you have 3 shooters on the floor, that zone will get busted, especially if IQ is 1 of the 3 guards.

Thank you - glad you see what seems obvious in that they just don't compliment each other but merely take turns offensively. Take last night as example - Lavine and Lauri seem to have decent/good chemistry as Lavine handles and Lauri spaces. They all move, backcut, etc because there is room. Mitch hangs around the rim like the guy who sits outside work when you're shift is over. Without more spacing and ball movement - the game tightens up and you likely have to be a more cerebral player and more skilled.

Barrett is a solid off ball mover and has improved chemistry with Randle. I don’t see it as an either-or type thing. They aren’t a perfect fit together but not like it can’t work. Their on-court chemistry has improved leaps and bounds from last season.

knicks1248 wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:Again I'd rather sell high and trade Randle and try to reboot even if it means Toppin isn't ready for more minutes (which he isn't). I don't know if Toppin will become what we all hope - but he plays fast and will really never be anything more than a bench player if Randle remains. Now if we could make Randle the 6th man that would be great but it's not happening and doesn't solve all of the roster problems either way.

Basically it goes back to either Randle or RJ for me as their games both require more spacing and outside shooting support since neither is a great outside shooter at this point. We don't have to rush but I really hope we at least see what we have in Toppin before resigning Randle to anything long-term. Last year we couldn't give Randle away and he likely has decent value at the moment - its a gift we should use.

How long are you going to keep driving in reverse

You drive in reverse to back the truck up when you're going down a road with a dead end. After you back it up you try a different road. The road we're on feels good because we've been down so many bad roads before. This road is very clear in that the ceilings for Randle and RJ playing the majority of minutes together is not high for long-term or significant success. We can be solid/good and that's helpful - but not much beyond that. The talent for these two is good to very good - but not great! Skill sets are redundant and you only need one. The chemistry while improved can't be overcome unless both of their shooting skills improve dramatically. Everyone else is playing 24 feet out and we play 16-20 feet - we are at a disadvantage that we can sometimes overcome when we get "hot" from outside, or when the opposing teams talent isn't great, etc.

I think we're stuck on Randle the way some guys get stuck on the girl they're dating because she looks good, is a good person, etc - when deep down it's clear it's not gonna work in the end. So for all of Randle's positives - it doesn't really matter. Again, I recognize and applaud Randle for improving his conditioning and if it were easier to rebuild around him with knockdown shooters at the remaining positions it wouldn't be as risky. But it's either keep Randle and move Toppin and/or RJ or stick with the younger guys and try to replace Randle's high production through free agency/trades. I've been high on Lavine lately - but last night Lauri killed us and made the Bulls unguardable because of the spacing he created by shooting so well from deep. Randle's much better in many aspects (passing, rebounding), but our defense simply has to work so much harder when you have to cover more ground. It's the way of the entire NBA these days. While Lauri is less well-rounded skill wise compared to Randle - really think swapping Lauri as a 4 would bring out more spacing and ball movement and help make some of the other players more effective. Not advocating for Lauri but trying to make the point.

You want us to go through FA like we have any luck since we both were born..Try allan houston and Amare in the last 30 yrs.

We have drafted 2 solid players (quickly, rj) in what seems like the last 20 drafts..

FA are more likely to look at the knicks if RJ, Randle and Quckly are on the team, not OBI, knox and frank.

There's no perfect flawless NBA player, so stop worrying about what randle can't do and concern yourself with what he does, and hope the FO can add more talent, not trade him away for some unknown draft pick that has 80% chance of being just another role player or bust

Honestly our best bet is building around Randle, Barrett, Quickley (and to a lesser extent Mitch) until a superstar agrees to come here via free agency. Any trade for a star would drain the asset pool and force us to lose at least 1 or 2 players from that core, and any trade to move Randle would send us in the wrong direction. We have a solid core, a good culture (finally), many picks, and unlimited flexibility. This team still isn't anywhere near good, but i want to ride it out with this core we have now. I look at it as 4 players right now.

Allanfan20 wrote:I’m with Knicks1248. Our roster is not going to improve too significantly with what we have.

1- We know Randle shouldn’t be a top option.
2- We seem to play better when RJ is touching the ball.
3- Payton is pretty bad.
4- Burks and Rivers are nowhere close to being stars.
5- Obi is developing pretty slow.

We either should trade Randle while he has value or just suck it up with what we have and see where the lotto balls go. It never worked out when we completely sucked. Maybe for once it will work while being mediocre with a somewhat like-able team.

I'm saying Toppin and Randle can't play much together due to their deficiencies defensively. Randle plays like 36/37 minutes which leaves 11-12 minutes. I'm not even a fan of Toppin but if you use your #8 pick on a PF that they believe they are so lucky to land - then he needs to play somewhere. It's math. I was not a fan of the pick btw. Randle actually has some value but do you really think his spinovers and decision-making is going to continue to improve with no shooting around him? It should be easy to see the limits of what our roster gives us by now. When you run your whole offense through somebody - they usually are physically dominant, very cerebral, possess exceptional court vision, etc... Do you honestly see any of that with Randle? Just because he's our best player doesn't mean he's not really a 3rd option on a good team. I think he can be a piece to work with, but not to build around and run the offense through with long-term success (unless you surround him with Milw-type shooting).

[b]The way you improve a team is by keeping good solid players and continue to add to the talent. Also disagree with the narrative that Randle and RJ cannot play together. This to me is extremely impatient. Typical of what we have seen from our FO forever. How about we let them have more than 2 years together and allow them to build the chemistry and compatibility everyone seems to expect in such a short period of time.[/b]

If the setup is right - then yes you allow time to develop chemistry. 2 ball dominant guys that don't shoot well from outside will struggle to coexist on the court. Randle and RJ's skillset is too similar/redundant and each needs a lot of room to operate. With knockdown shooters around them it can work - but we can't replace 3 other positions as easy as replacing one with value. We could move RJ and try to find a better outside shooting guard to better complement Randle - but with RJ being 20 does that make more sense? RJ will grow into the workhorse that Randle is now ideally.

martin wrote:

jskinny35 wrote:If the setup is right - then yes you allow time to develop chemistry. 2 ball dominant guys that don't shoot well from outside will struggle to coexist on the court. Randle and RJ's skillset is too similar/redundant and each needs a lot of room to operate. With knockdown shooters around them it can work - but we can't replace 3 other positions as easy as replacing one with value. We could move RJ and try to find a better outside shooting guard to better complement Randle - but with RJ being 20 does that make more sense? RJ will grow into the workhorse that Randle is now ideally.

Over the past 10-15 games both RJ and Randle have demonstrated to be average or much better 3 point shooters, the number play that out. You can hide a player like Mitch in the dunking position or as the pick man in the PnR and get enough action going to mask a centers ability to not be able to shoot 3's.

The problem is the shooters. PG, SG. For PG we know the long term solution is right around the corner. Knicks need better shooting wings. You don't trade your best players just because you need a better SG. I'm guessing that this next draft and/or offseason will address the shooting.

And not for nothing but RJ/Randle have co-existed playing the most minutes in the NBA while carrying their team to overachieving.

They are doing nothing wrong

+1. Completely agree. Getting an elite shooter on the wing is the next step.