Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by bobs3304:

Posted by Pharzeone:

That trade is horrible. That is all.

^.... Care to expand on that. Or you short on words today....

There is this notion that LB will be calling shots and is a misconception. He didn't call the shots in Philly, he didn't call the shots in Detroit, he only had coaching decisions and played who he had. They allowed him input but it is not the Riley deal, first off because they know his history. I don't believe for one second that IT will make what he view as impact decisions based on LB, who could be out of here next season.

Posted by bobs3304:

I'll make this long and sweet.

1.) If it were up to Larry, and published reports recently have reiterated this, he would rather have a pure PG running the show as opposed to Marbury or Crawford.

2.) Option B would be to simply give in and let Marbury play point as he always has, and rely on Q Rich to play the off guard.

3.) That, in turn, would mean Jamal is coming off the bench and playing both positions for around 25 MPG.

4.) And THAT would mean Timmy is gone, plain and simple. Larry would never accept a 1,2,3 of players that are all below-average defenders. Team defense alone cannot salvage that.

5.) But what if he decides to move Marbury to SG permanently? What if he really does bring in a pure PG like the rumors are suggesting? Well, that, as a matter of fact, would be the best case scenario for CRAWFORD, and here's why:

If we can bring in a David Wesley or Eric Snow, both defensive-minded, team oriented PG's, that would free up both Marbury and Crawford to play minutes at either position, knowing that our backcourt defense won't be as much of a liability. Now, granted, there are other option besides guys like Snow and Wesley. Earl Watson is said to be a solid perimeter defender as well. But my point is, and I'll say it again, bringing in a defensive-minded PG would give a certain cushion for Larry to give Crawford and Marbury significant minutes. And just like Isiah's been saying all along, it doesn't mattter who's designated what guard position. So an Earl Watson or Eric Snow could be designated the PG, but maybe Marbury or Jamal are handling the ball. As long as that defensive presence is there alongside them, Larry doesn't have to worry, and Crawford doesn't need to be traded.

That's all folks!

[Edited by - bobs3304 on 08/04/2005 13:29:22]

Posted by bobs3304:

Using your site:


Watson and Snow Vs. Marbury and Crawford (and why a guy like that would really shore up our backcourt)

Net Points Per 100 Possessions

Marbury: -1.3

Crawford: -4.3

Watson: +5.4

Snow: +3.3

Meaning that Crawford, despite his own offensive production, still gave up more than 4 PPG from the opposing guard(s). Marbury just over a point. Watson actually stopped the opposing guard enough to score 5 more points than him/them, and he's not known as a scorer, so he must be a pretty solid defender.

Also, when Marbury comes off the floor, our backcourt defense gets even worse, falling from -1.3 to -13.6, whereas when Crawford is subbed out, the defense slightly improves, from -4.3 to -1.2.

I realize there are other factors to account for here, but if we're going by the same stats, Watson and Snow are clearly the better defenders.

your reading the stat wrong. Those are #'s on the floor vs. off the floor, not what one player does or doesnt do.

What that really tells you is Watson is one of the best backups in the league, and the team plays well in his 17-20 minutes he's on the floor. The team is still + when he's not in the game.

Look at Marbury. With Marbury on the floor the Knicks are about even... only -0.4 or half a point. But when he's off the floor? a nasty -12. Its not a secret and that # renforces it. When Marbury sits the Knicks sink.

I know your young and I dont know if you remember Ward at 25-26 years old. He was a tough player that was always moving and scrambling on D. Good athlete and good defender. He could hit a couple shots when needed. His role was to walk it up court, dont turn it over and pass it Ewing.

Posted by Pharzeone:

I agree with some of your points. I think up to the Webber deal everyone on that PHilly team knew their role but at times they really sucked at it. Fish is right though it of course began, and ended with AI. I wouldn't call their roster that far superior to the Knicks before Webber but they had better guys who knew their roles. If I remember right the KNicks matched up well against them last season. As far as second option on this team, I think that Sweetney should be your second option and then Q. I also would like this team to concentrate on the post guys, like if James could pick up where he left off during the playoffs and use some of those nice post moves he has to cause trouble in the paint. In time I believe that Frye will be a legit 2nd option to Marbury. His offense is that good, I think he should do anything he can to draw a foul because that is like another weapon for him as a big men.

Posted by bobs3304:

Posted by Pharzeone:

I agree with some of your points. I think up to the Webber deal everyone on that PHilly team knew their role but at times they really sucked at it. Fish is right though it of course began, and ended with AI. I wouldn't call their roster that far superior to the Knicks before Webber but they had better guys who knew their roles. If I remember right the KNicks matched up well against them last season. As far as second option on this team, I think that Sweetney should be your second option and then Q. I also would like this team to concentrate on the post guys, like if James could pick up where he left off during the playoffs and use some of those nice post moves he has to cause trouble in the paint. In time I believe that Frye will be a legit 2nd option to Marbury. His offense is that good, I think he should do anything he can to draw a foul because that is like another weapon for him as a big men.

Buddy...he's talkin about Philly with Larry Brown. Like 3 years ago and before...