Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by Bippity10:

A great man named Bippity once said:

"We should go big and use our size as a constant advantage. Make teams finally adjust to us instead of the other way around."

What a great man that guy is.

You prefer to start Lee over Q or Crawford?

I like this line-up until we are able to balance the roster
SF-Lee
PF-Randolph
C-Curry
SG-Q
PG-Marbs

Now Craw will be getting plenty of minutes so it doesn't matter if he starts at the two or comes off the bench. The reason I like this line-up to start the games is because it allows me to set the pace and put a stamp on the game. We are saying to the other teams that we are going to pound you down low and on the boards, now see if you can handle us.

Since Randolph could shoot, having Lee play SF wouldn't hurt to bad. What would be your offensive game plan though. Run the offense through Randolph or Curry. Or maybe Marbury & Randolph on the pick and pop? The just have Lee, Curry, Randolph & Q crash the boards.

After hearing Crawford speak earlier though. If he isn't starting, I think he would start to sulk.

It does make it tough with Lee not being able to shoot but not impossible because like you said Zach can get some of that done. I have to be honest I've only seen Zach play 5 or 6 times so I don't have a great grasp of his game but based on what I know here is what I would do.

I would go double low blocks with Lee on a wing, Q on a wing and my point up top. It's basically a two man offense with cutters. I play two man game mostly with Lee and a post player to his side. When the ball is dumped I have alternate cuts from the point and the opposite wing. So Lee dumps to curry(or Randolph). Randolph is on the opposite block. Opposite wing cuts to the middle, hopefully Curry finds him. If not wing goes through and back to the weak side. Randolph now pops to the high post, sets a back screen on Marbs man and now Marbs cuts through. We can now run a high low with Randolph and Curry if Curry kicks back out. This is just an example and this type of offense and I think Isiah ran a version of it last night. It creates action, gives our big guys time to work and will put our PG in position to go one on one which is their strength. It also allows our wing players to get in position for weakside rebounds after shots from the post. It's easier to draw on a chalkboard than to explain of course.

The ideal team would have a great passer in the post and a great shooter on both wings and be very good at swinging the ball. But it can work without these things. We ran it in spurts last night with Lee and Randolph and it looked very good. With good passing from the guards and forwards it can work with Curry as well

Posted by misterearl:

Posted by TheGame:

Posted by misterearl:

Like Killa said, "The only number I care about are the number of wins."

Who cares about individual stats?

The more important numbers are team turnovers and team assists. If the Knicks can reduce the former and increase the latter then it will be a very good year.

bulledat

The purpose of posting the question was not so much to say it was a problem, but to see if people thought Lee's rebounding numbers would go down to a more average level rather than the superhuman level they were last year. I agree that it does not really matter as long as someone gets the ball, but it was an interesting point because I remember people saying last year that Lee got so many rebounds because Frye and Curry could not rebound.

Hold up, did you say Superhuman?

When Lee starts to reach 20 rebounds per game you might have a valid point.

Superhuman?

C'mon.


[Edited by - misterearl on 10-12-2007 1:36 PM]

20 rebounds off the bench?

Posted by EwingsGlass:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by Bippity10:

A great man named Bippity once said:

"We should go big and use our size as a constant advantage. Make teams finally adjust to us instead of the other way around."

What a green man that guy is.

You prefer to start Lee over Q or Crawford?

I like this line-up until we are able to balance the roster
SF-Lee
PF-Randolph
C-Curry
SG-Q
PG-Marbs

Now Craw will be getting plenty of minutes so it doesn't matter if he starts at the two or comes off the bench. The reason I like this line-up to start the games is because it allows me to set the pace and put a stamp on the game. We are saying to the other teams that we are going to pound you down low and on the boards, now see if you can handle us.

I co-sign this post. I think Q at the 2 gives us a more oversized presence. My only issue is that while David Lee may be able to be more athletic than his opponent's counterpart off the bench (or after 10 mins of play) I am not sure that he is fast enough to handle starting SFs in this league. I want him to prove me wrong on this, and I invite him to do so in a starting SF role to begin the season (or during preseason). I also like Crawford off the bench (however, Marbs can come off the bench for all I care) because his offensive presence is more definitive against second teams.

It's not perfect and it has it's flaws. There will be nights where it simply doesn't work. But I think every line-up we put on the floor has some holes in it. At least for me, this line-up allows us to send a message, set an identity and control tempo. Of course the players have to make it work, but to start games that's what I would do. On good nights we will force teams to sub in the first 4 or 5 minutes trying to adjust to us. We haven't made teams do this in about 7 years. We have been forced to adjust to them to start games but rarely the other way around