I think it's been clear that Crawford can be a really good ball distributer in this league. He said he was confused with what to do towards the end (And I'm sure Marburys comments didn't help) but hey, this is what happens after playing with the Bulls. I have a ton of confidence in Crawford and I think he doesn't get nearly enough credit.

However, this is what I'd like to see. Good basketball teams have GOOD SHOOTERS. Last year, our best shooter was injured for 62 games, and besides that, we had nobody who could consistently spread that defense. Is Q that type of player? Or can Crawford Bulk up and work on his mid range game some more? Right now though, we don't have any pure shooters. Q is a posting up 3 pt jump shooter who barely hits 40% of his shots and takes about a gazillion 3s a game. He needs to step in more, especially under Larry Brown. I think if anyone is out, it will be Q, unless he Ds up and moves in more.

About the defense, I've been saying all along that Crawford can be a pretty good defender, if he just beefs up a bit. But at point guard, his body is fine and he can guard most guards, with his quickness and length.

Why people have been saying that the chemistry between Marbury and Crawford is bad, is beyond me. B/c we lost 33 games? How about watching the games. The 2 played fine together and Marbury never had a problem giving up the ball to Crawford.

I think the biggest problem you will see is the defense at the shooting guard position. Q has the tools to be a good defender at the 3 or 2, but does he have the willingness and the mind/skill set. I don't know. However, there is noway that I want to see Marbury guarding the 2 guards. His biggest problems were just likes Allans (ANd heck, Crawfords.) He can guard the ball alright, but when he's off the ball, he is in trouble, b/c he gets lost in screens, and then he sees his man taking an open 3, runs out and doesn't put a hand up. What will he do when he's guarding the riphamiltons of the world? This is why I'm in favor of either starting Marbury and having Craw come off the bench, or trade Marbury for a big and start Craw at the 1, and make Q the main shooter.

The frontcourt on the other hand is not looking pretty.

If you're not taking a step forward, you're taking one backwards.

thats bad thinking. Thats how bad trades are made, because Mo Taylor is more talented than Vin Baker and Mooch.

Great GMs are willing to take 1 step BACK in order to take 2 steps forward. Something like trading a proven and tough NBA bigman for HS kid thats done nothing but ride pine for 4 years. Thats why Donnie Walsh is great. Trading Dale Davis for Jermain Oneil took cajones, but my god, look at the results.

As for your great well thought out posts, here's a tip: try to avoid being condecending or insulting people. I think you have a lot of good points, but they are lost if you make someone feel like an ass by the time they are done reading. Funny how that works... you can explain to me why the sky is blue when its sunny but do it the wrong way and all I take from it is; wow... bobs a real ass.

The O'Neal trade was a step back b/c he couldn't get off the Portland bench, and when he played, he didn't look that good. At the same time, Dale Davis was a solid defensive player, and a core player for an Eastern Conference champion Pacers. It was a risky and even a ballsy trade at the time, and immediately paid off for the Pacers.

I have nothing to offer on their potential defensive prowess, but JCraw and Q are not totally awful shooters in their own right. From 2-point range, they're both very respectable, Craw at 43.1% and Q at 43.7%. Compare that with the well regarded Richard Hamilton who hit 45.5% of his 2-pointers. Not that much of a difference.

The big question is whether Larry Brown can rein them in and cut their 3-pointers down (considerably). I remember reading this in an article when Larry got hired, but Craw and Q combined for 15.3 3-pointers last year. The Pistons as a team, only 12.8! If LB can put those kinds of restraints on them next year, I think their shooting percentages will be much improved and just fine for this team.

Posted by bobs3304:

Donnie Walsh taking JO was a step FORWARD. Call me crazy, but didn't Jermaine immediately make his presence felt as soon as he arrived in Indy?

Point made.

Taking a step backward in order to make 2 steps forward would be what the Lakers are doing right now. And you know what, I still don't understand what Mitch Kupcake was thinking, ESPECIALLY with Phil there now.

At this point, we can't make the same mistake. Our "frachise" player is turning 29, and we can't afford to take a step back. We just don't have the luxury right now. We need to move FORWARD. Period.


^ Did I make you feel like an ass?


[Edited by - BOBS3304 on 08/01/2005 18:43:12]

then your suggesting that we are built around Marbury or will be building around Marbury. Not sure I am in love with that plan if its the case. I would rather take at least one more year of what we just did. Not losing per say, but adding a couple extra picks in round one and adding young depth and pieces. Than in a season in half we would have a roster full of pretty young guys that are well coached and I think we would be in more realistic position to trade for a star type guy. Maybe then you have the pieces to put together for an Elton Brand caliber player. Maybe we do in 6 months. For all I know thats all this draft was about.. so come next deadline we can package Sweetney, Nate Robinson, TT and the our 2 #1s in 2006 for Elton Brand. Then see where a run with Larry coaching a core of Marbury, Brand, Q, Craw, Ariza, Frye, James and Lee takes us for the next 3 years.

Posted by fishmike:

Posted by bobs3304:

Donnie Walsh taking JO was a step FORWARD. Call me crazy, but didn't Jermaine immediately make his presence felt as soon as he arrived in Indy?

Point made.

Taking a step backward in order to make 2 steps forward would be what the Lakers are doing right now. And you know what, I still don't understand what Mitch Kupcake was thinking, ESPECIALLY with Phil there now.

At this point, we can't make the same mistake. Our "frachise" player is turning 29, and we can't afford to take a step back. We just don't have the luxury right now. We need to move FORWARD. Period.


^ Did I make you feel like an ass?


[Edited by - BOBS3304 on 08/01/2005 18:43:12]

then your suggesting that we are built around Marbury or will be building around Marbury. Not sure I am in love with that plan if its the case. I would rather take at least one more year of what we just did. Not losing per say, but adding a couple extra picks in round one and adding young depth and pieces. Than in a season in half we would have a roster full of pretty young guys that are well coached and I think we would be in more realistic position to trade for a star type guy. Maybe then you have the pieces to put together for an Elton Brand caliber player. Maybe we do in 6 months. For all I know thats all this draft was about.. so come next deadline we can package Sweetney, Nate Robinson, TT and the our 2 #1s in 2006 for Elton Brand. Then see where a run with Larry coaching a core of Marbury, Brand, Q, Craw, Ariza, Frye, James and Lee takes us for the next 3 years.

That's basically the kind of deal Isiah supporters have been saying they think he'll do all along. That might be a little too much to give up for Brand, but it's along the lines of what I'd expect.

Never followed JO when he was with Portland. Can say this though - Kwame WAS given chances in Washington, and fell short of expectations. I think LA really dropped the bomb on this one. Bynum and Kwame added to a team that SHOULD be trying to contend for the playoffs...


bad personell moves on Kupcakes' part.

Posted by bobs3304:

Never followed JO when he was with Portland. Can say this though - Kwame WAS given chances in Washington, and fell short of expectations. I think LA really dropped the bomb on this one. Bynum and Kwame added to a team that SHOULD be trying to contend for the playoffs...


bad personell moves on Kupcakes' part.

bobs... how old are you?

Posted by bobs3304:

19 buddy.

2 years from poppin over to Gristedes for a quick fix (if you know what I mean).

And by not paying attention to JO in Portland, I meant that I don't and never have given a **** about the Blazers. That orginization has always been run by dopes.

OK... well that explains a lot. I'm not calling you immature. That would be quite hypocritical as few are as immature as myself.

The point is the amount of change between 19 and 21, or 20 and 24 is huge. Priorities change, attitudes change. Maturation for some is a longer process than others. There are guys in the league that really didnt "get it" until after 30. Antonio Davis and KT come to mind. Anyone notice one year KT just stopped getting Ts and always in foul trouble?

FYI: Portland was in the playoffs for something like 20 years in a row. Some dopes.

Dopes:


Taking Sam Bowie over MJ. I don't care what ESPN says about that - just plain dopey.

Overloading on talent nearly every year.

Never making use of expiring contracts.

Always bringing in dope-heads -- no pun intended.


And there's no way they made the playoffs 20 years in a row.

your right... it was actually 21 years in a row, and 26 of 27 years.

Every single NBA has made bad moves. You cant be good without taking some risks. The really good ones balance their decisions and move on from their mistakes.