Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Pharzeone:

Posted by sidsanders:

is it just a missing center thats allowing opp to shoot > 50% routinely? the perimeter d is still not where it needs to be given that they have to know they are weak in the post. is it really that much to ask to toughen up on the d side of things? good d is desire to me. it helps feed into other nice play. they dont need to be great at it, though that would be nice if they were.

Yes. Shotblocking is important. That's why it is foolish to just waste draft picks on projects that won't even help your team. This organization has to take a serious look at itself in the off-season. See what is working and what's not. What do we really need to move forward vs. what's nonsense. IMHO, drafting a 6'10 player who can't play in the post, lacks man-to-man defense and hustle for rebounding is another step in the realm of nonsense. If you wanted a SG draft a SG. If you wanted a PF draft a PF.

That's really unfair. Gallinari has obviously just hit the 12 game wall... in limited minutes.

And you're totally ignoring that he shot 100% from the field last night.

Isles you just don't bring anything to the table. Its the same crap over and over- 1) put down walsh for drafting Gallo 2) put down Gallo for everything 3) trade nate the clown. What else do you have???

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Nate and Lee are both prototypical 6th men for championship teams.

That's the problem.

Chandler will develop into a starter if he's not already.

We only need to find four more legit starters... that's all.

Posted by Panos:

Posted by fishmike:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Nate and Lee are both prototypical 6th men for championship teams.

That's the problem.

Chandler will develop into a starter if he's not already.

We only need to find four more legit starters... that's all.

Lee is good for 16points, 13rebs and shoots over 55%. Nate is scoring 16 a game and has taken over games during crunchtime, is getting others involved and can single handedly change games. Both continue to improve year by year and game by game under the new coaching regime. Those dont sound like 6th men to me. They sound like starters and good ones.

Agreed. At worst, they are solid starters. Add one superstar, and see what happens.

Solid starters on a good team or bad team?

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Panos:

Posted by fishmike:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Nate and Lee are both prototypical 6th men for championship teams.

That's the problem.

Chandler will develop into a starter if he's not already.

We only need to find four more legit starters... that's all.

Lee is good for 16points, 13rebs and shoots over 55%. Nate is scoring 16 a game and has taken over games during crunchtime, is getting others involved and can single handedly change games. Both continue to improve year by year and game by game under the new coaching regime. Those dont sound like 6th men to me. They sound like starters and good ones.

Agreed. At worst, they are solid starters. Add one superstar, and see what happens.

Solid starters on a good team or bad team?

What part of "solid" didn't you understand. What difference does it make on a good team or bad? Its not like they are low efficiency/high volume players. I could understand if you were talking about Zach and Craw. These are not those players.

Posted by Allanfan20:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Panos:

Posted by fishmike:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Nate and Lee are both prototypical 6th men for championship teams.

That's the problem.

Chandler will develop into a starter if he's not already.

We only need to find four more legit starters... that's all.

Lee is good for 16points, 13rebs and shoots over 55%. Nate is scoring 16 a game and has taken over games during crunchtime, is getting others involved and can single handedly change games. Both continue to improve year by year and game by game under the new coaching regime. Those dont sound like 6th men to me. They sound like starters and good ones.

Agreed. At worst, they are solid starters. Add one superstar, and see what happens.

Solid starters on a good team or bad team?

Islesfan, I know you freaking hate Nate, and you're entitled to your opinion: However, if you watch the game, you'll actually see the improvement in Nate's game. He's developed something else, during his maturity (Which you don't see, so I can't argue that with you) and that is killer instinct. Who was the last Knick to have that? Patrick Ewing. I'm not putting Nate on nearly the same level, but last I checked, championship teams thrive with players with killer instincts. He may make some mistakes, but the fact that he's growing up, playing smarter and playing team ball and can score whenever he wants, and wants to destroy his opponents shows me that any winning team would do well with him.

Lee would get his numbers too. He rebounds, moves without the ball, hits open shots, has a couple of posts moves, guards the best big men on the team and plays smart and hard. Last time I checked, those are qualities winning teams thrive on too.

So yes, I believe they would both thrive on winning teams. As the best players? Na, but they'd stand out.

There was no malice intended. It was a serious question.

When given the minutes and opportunity to play in a system where numbers are inflated, a lot of mediocre players can put up numbers. That's not a knock on anybody, it's just the truth. But how would they perform when they're asked to play within a team concept where they don't have the ball as much and expectations are much greater than just doing better than last years disaster?

I think Lee would still play well in that situation because he doesn't need the ball to impact the game. That's why I would do whatever I could to keep him, as long as it doesn't keep them from signing a 2nd top free agent.

Nate is an entirely different story. Don't be fooled by the last 3 games when he's averaged 40 minutes and 25 shots a game. That's a perfect example of minutes + opportunity = inflated numbers. On a bad team that needs someone to score and have the ball in their hands, Nate looks a lot better than he is. Put him on a good team with a real go to player, and his shortcomings will stand out as he plays more without the ball. Bad shot selection, bad decision making and bad defense. How does Nate help his team when he doesn't have the ball in his hands?

Right now, after the last 3 games in addition to his contract situation, Nate's trade value will never be higher. It would be a huge mistake to let this opportunity pass.

Posted by fishmike:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Nate and Lee are both prototypical 6th men for championship teams.

That's the problem.

Chandler will develop into a starter if he's not already.

We only need to find four more legit starters... that's all.

Lee is good for 16points, 13rebs and shoots over 55%. Nate is scoring 16 a game and has taken over games during crunchtime, is getting others involved and can single handedly change games. Both continue to improve year by year and game by game under the new coaching regime. Those dont sound like 6th men to me. They sound like starters and good ones.

Fishmike stop it you're making too much sense for these guys. There are people here even if Nate averages 50-50-50 he still wouldn't be good enough. Sure he's short but if let's say if Curry had a 1/4 of Nate's heart and drive he would be a monster in this league. We are actually developing our young players for the first time in eons and here's everyone trying to get rid of them because of their superstar deficiency complex. Newsflash everyone, it has been tried before by this organization of many occasions and it didn't work. We tried with the X-man, LJ, Csmith, H2O and we still have won the chip yet this is the reason we are currently in this salary mess. Yeah keep holding on to 2010 for the day when Lebron waltzes into the garden to score 50 on us again because that's the only thing he'll be doing to Knicks that year.

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Allanfan20:

Posted by islesfan:

Posted by Panos:

Posted by fishmike:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Nate and Lee are both prototypical 6th men for championship teams.

That's the problem.

Chandler will develop into a starter if he's not already.

We only need to find four more legit starters... that's all.

Lee is good for 16points, 13rebs and shoots over 55%. Nate is scoring 16 a game and has taken over games during crunchtime, is getting others involved and can single handedly change games. Both continue to improve year by year and game by game under the new coaching regime. Those dont sound like 6th men to me. They sound like starters and good ones.

Agreed. At worst, they are solid starters. Add one superstar, and see what happens.

Solid starters on a good team or bad team?

Islesfan, I know you freaking hate Nate, and you're entitled to your opinion: However, if you watch the game, you'll actually see the improvement in Nate's game. He's developed something else, during his maturity (Which you don't see, so I can't argue that with you) and that is killer instinct. Who was the last Knick to have that? Patrick Ewing. I'm not putting Nate on nearly the same level, but last I checked, championship teams thrive with players with killer instincts. He may make some mistakes, but the fact that he's growing up, playing smarter and playing team ball and can score whenever he wants, and wants to destroy his opponents shows me that any winning team would do well with him.

Lee would get his numbers too. He rebounds, moves without the ball, hits open shots, has a couple of posts moves, guards the best big men on the team and plays smart and hard. Last time I checked, those are qualities winning teams thrive on too.

So yes, I believe they would both thrive on winning teams. As the best players? Na, but they'd stand out.

There was no malice intended. It was a serious question.

When given the minutes and opportunity to play in a system where numbers are inflated, a lot of mediocre players can put up numbers. That's not a knock on anybody, it's just the truth. But how would they perform when they're asked to play within a team concept where they don't have the ball as much and expectations are much greater than just doing better than last years disaster?

I think Lee would still play well in that situation because he doesn't need the ball to impact the game. That's why I would do whatever I could to keep him, as long as it doesn't keep them from signing a 2nd top free agent.

Nate is an entirely different story. Don't be fooled by the last 3 games when he's averaged 40 minutes and 25 shots a game. That's a perfect example of minutes + opportunity = inflated numbers. On a bad team that needs someone to score and have the ball in their hands, Nate looks a lot better than he is. Put him on a good team with a real go to player, and his shortcomings will stand out as he plays more without the ball. Bad shot selection, bad decision making and bad defense. How does Nate help his team when he doesn't have the ball in his hands?
Right now, after the last 3 games in addition to his contract situation, Nate's trade value will never be higher. It would be a huge mistake to let this opportunity pass.

Isles you don't get it when it comes to nate. Is he a starting 2 guard all-star player? I don't know. What I do know is that he is a game changer. He is at least a instant offense player off the bench who disrupts the other team . His defense is improving and he can get 2-3 steals a game. He has tremendous heart and when your team is down and tired he gets them fired up. He has a great outside shot and is improving.He is young and still maturing. If you are old enough to remember the old knick championship teams, they had henry bibby who was instant offense off the bench. Nate is WAY better than that. Also remember the Yanks trading buhner. At the time they focused on his negatives but when hes gone and improves and matures we will regret trading him for years.