Knixkik wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:I agree. Think he should be used on occasions where we are not stopping anyone. Minny game would have been a good one. I am an advocate of trying something new if nothing is working as long as it does not involve any over the top changes or demotions. Giving Deuce a few minutes with a "Defensive" lineup, the other night, would not have affected anyone's confidence or standing. Kinda like bringing in a three point specialist if you need a three.

great idea. Now onto the implementation phase: who sits so McBride can play?

Depends. Not talking giving him a rotational spot. Talking when you need a boost defensively. Ie. Minny.
Lineup of Deuce, IQ, Grimes and Jhart (best defensive players) for a stint does not hurt you or does it mean anyone is giving up their spot.

I would rather see Deuce, Jhart. IQ and Grimes instead of Obi, with Ihart/MR.
Especially when you consider defensive rotations to guard the stripe is our biggest issue at times.

My point was that if you just gave up 79 points in a half (not often) it may be a good time to try something new without having to worry about "who will have to sit". Especially since it is not a long term move. That is as long as giving up 79 in a half does not become a habit.

this is the right answer... play McBride over Obi. I would do that now. Obi doesnt make us big on either side of the ball and McBride brings "it"

I means we go from playing 3 guard sets to 4 guard sets. Someone is going to have guard bigger players. I like McBride alot. I think both he and IQ are keepers. Hard to see a path for McBride to get minutes tho

Obi barely gets any minutes. He had 12 minutes last night. Hart got 29 minutes. The minutes would have to come from Hart

nope... Tell me again why Obi needs to get minutes?

I agree I would play McBride over Toppin. Ultimately I think the Knicks will find a big wing or forward to replace Toppin, and Deuce will maintain his emergency role he’s in now.

Team lacks perimeter defense and Deuce is the best perimeter defender in the league. But Grimes is growing on me. Grimes, Hart and IQ is why Deuce hasn't got any PT. Also old school Thibs playing his traditional lineups with a Center and a PF. If Thibs moves Randle to center, that opens up more playing opportunities for Deuce.

I'm wondering if we went to a smaller lineup sooner, that would've reduced the amount of open looks on the perimeter, and should increase our perimeter defense. Sure they would attack Randle in the paint, but when you go small, you can now put a defensive guard lineup to guard the point of attack. This would create steals and TOs and fastbreaks. Plus Randle will have even more room to shoot 3's or drive to the hole.

Since we can't guard the paint anymore, might as well go small.

fishmike wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:I agree. Think he should be used on occasions where we are not stopping anyone. Minny game would have been a good one. I am an advocate of trying something new if nothing is working as long as it does not involve any over the top changes or demotions. Giving Deuce a few minutes with a "Defensive" lineup, the other night, would not have affected anyone's confidence or standing. Kinda like bringing in a three point specialist if you need a three.

great idea. Now onto the implementation phase: who sits so McBride can play?

Depends. Not talking giving him a rotational spot. Talking when you need a boost defensively. Ie. Minny.
Lineup of Deuce, IQ, Grimes and Jhart (best defensive players) for a stint does not hurt you or does it mean anyone is giving up their spot.

I would rather see Deuce, Jhart. IQ and Grimes instead of Obi, with Ihart/MR.
Especially when you consider defensive rotations to guard the stripe is our biggest issue at times.

My point was that if you just gave up 79 points in a half (not often) it may be a good time to try something new without having to worry about "who will have to sit". Especially since it is not a long term move. That is as long as giving up 79 in a half does not become a habit.

this is the right answer... play McBride over Obi. I would do that now. Obi doesnt make us big on either side of the ball and McBride brings "it"

I means we go from playing 3 guard sets to 4 guard sets. Someone is going to have guard bigger players. I like McBride alot. I think both he and IQ are keepers. Hard to see a path for McBride to get minutes tho

Obi barely gets any minutes. He had 12 minutes last night. Hart got 29 minutes. The minutes would have to come from Hart

nope... Tell me again why Obi needs to get minutes?

Because mcbride is not a PF?

Philc1 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:I agree. Think he should be used on occasions where we are not stopping anyone. Minny game would have been a good one. I am an advocate of trying something new if nothing is working as long as it does not involve any over the top changes or demotions. Giving Deuce a few minutes with a "Defensive" lineup, the other night, would not have affected anyone's confidence or standing. Kinda like bringing in a three point specialist if you need a three.

great idea. Now onto the implementation phase: who sits so McBride can play?

Depends. Not talking giving him a rotational spot. Talking when you need a boost defensively. Ie. Minny.
Lineup of Deuce, IQ, Grimes and Jhart (best defensive players) for a stint does not hurt you or does it mean anyone is giving up their spot.

I would rather see Deuce, Jhart. IQ and Grimes instead of Obi, with Ihart/MR.
Especially when you consider defensive rotations to guard the stripe is our biggest issue at times.

My point was that if you just gave up 79 points in a half (not often) it may be a good time to try something new without having to worry about "who will have to sit". Especially since it is not a long term move. That is as long as giving up 79 in a half does not become a habit.

this is the right answer... play McBride over Obi. I would do that now. Obi doesnt make us big on either side of the ball and McBride brings "it"

I means we go from playing 3 guard sets to 4 guard sets. Someone is going to have guard bigger players. I like McBride alot. I think both he and IQ are keepers. Hard to see a path for McBride to get minutes tho

Obi barely gets any minutes. He had 12 minutes last night. Hart got 29 minutes. The minutes would have to come from Hart

nope... Tell me again why Obi needs to get minutes?

Because mcbride is not a PF?

Panos wrote:

blkexec wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Philc1 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:

fishmike wrote:

HofstraBBall wrote:I agree. Think he should be used on occasions where we are not stopping anyone. Minny game would have been a good one. I am an advocate of trying something new if nothing is working as long as it does not involve any over the top changes or demotions. Giving Deuce a few minutes with a "Defensive" lineup, the other night, would not have affected anyone's confidence or standing. Kinda like bringing in a three point specialist if you need a three.

great idea. Now onto the implementation phase: who sits so McBride can play?

Depends. Not talking giving him a rotational spot. Talking when you need a boost defensively. Ie. Minny.
Lineup of Deuce, IQ, Grimes and Jhart (best defensive players) for a stint does not hurt you or does it mean anyone is giving up their spot.

I would rather see Deuce, Jhart. IQ and Grimes instead of Obi, with Ihart/MR.
Especially when you consider defensive rotations to guard the stripe is our biggest issue at times.

My point was that if you just gave up 79 points in a half (not often) it may be a good time to try something new without having to worry about "who will have to sit". Especially since it is not a long term move. That is as long as giving up 79 in a half does not become a habit.

this is the right answer... play McBride over Obi. I would do that now. Obi doesnt make us big on either side of the ball and McBride brings "it"

I means we go from playing 3 guard sets to 4 guard sets. Someone is going to have guard bigger players. I like McBride alot. I think both he and IQ are keepers. Hard to see a path for McBride to get minutes tho

Obi barely gets any minutes. He had 12 minutes last night. Hart got 29 minutes. The minutes would have to come from Hart

nope... Tell me again why Obi needs to get minutes?

I agree I would play McBride over Toppin. Ultimately I think the Knicks will find a big wing or forward to replace Toppin, and Deuce will maintain his emergency role he’s in now.

Team lacks perimeter defense and Deuce is the best perimeter defender in the league. But Grimes is growing on me. Grimes, Hart and IQ is why Deuce hasn't got any PT. Also old school Thibs playing his traditional lineups with a Center and a PF. If Thibs moves Randle to center, that opens up more playing opportunities for Deuce.

I'm wondering if we went to a smaller lineup sooner, that would've reduced the amount of open looks on the perimeter, and should increase our perimeter defense. Sure they would attack Randle in the paint, but when you go small, you can now put a defensive guard lineup to guard the point of attack. This would create steals and TOs and fastbreaks. Plus Randle will have even more room to shoot 3's or drive to the hole.

Since we can't guard the paint anymore, might as well go small.

Mitch/iHart are having big effects on the game with their rim defense and rebounding. And as much as I would love a little more offensive versatility from them, I'm not willing to watch the opposing team hoover up all the rebounds.

Gotta pick your poison!

Give up rebounds?

Give up wide open threes?

Now Randle averages a double double. So I'm not worried about rebounds. But I am worried about open 3s and defense at the point of attack.

If there are 6'8 players getting rebounds over Randle, thats a problem within itself. But most teams have centers close to Randle's height. If we going with Mitch at center, then feed him the ball. But again, these are in game adjustments. Different lineups at certain parts of the game. I don't think thats asking too much. Giving up rebounds would be a concern if Randle wasn't a rebounder. And if the small ball lineup was permanent. Neither is true. Randle is a solid rebounder. And my small ball suggestions only in certain situations of the game and depending on matchups.