[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

New lineup? Does Wilcox start at C with Lee at PF--makes most sense to me
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 3 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
McK1
Posts: 26527
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/16/2005
Member: #964
2/20/2009  11:52 AM
Posted by JamaicanJetFan:

I don't care whether or not we're trying to make the playoffs. Wilson Chandler needs to play and Wilson Chandler needs to START. We need to see if Wilson is going to be a NY Knick starter for the next 10 years.

The starting lineup (no-brainer to me) once Hughes is in game shape:

Wilcox C
Lee PF
Chandler SF
Hughes SG
Duhon PG

All those players are well defined at their respective positions.
Nate and Al are great fire-power-off-the-bench options.
Gallinari gets eased into the process.

I could care less whether QRich or Jeffries see any burn.

+ 1

any lineup that has Chandler in a position to finish vs initiate is thee lineup in my book, especially if you're going to go with a Wilcox Lee frontline.

hughes get what he craves which is a hevy dose of ballhandling responsibilities and he is a happy camper and may actually put forth the effort to win.
the stop underrating David Lee movement 1. FIRE MIKE 2. HIRE MULLIN 3. PAY AVERY 4. FREE NATE!!!
AUTOADVERT
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
2/20/2009  12:09 PM
Posted by JamaicanJetFan:

I don't care whether or not we're trying to make the playoffs. Wilson Chandler needs to play and Wilson Chandler needs to START. We need to see if Wilson is going to be a NY Knick starter for the next 10 years.

The starting lineup (no-brainer to me) once Hughes is in game shape:

Wilcox C
Lee PF
Chandler SF
Hughes SG
Duhon PG

All those players are well defined at their respective positions.
Nate and Al are great fire-power-off-the-bench options.
Gallinari gets eased into the process.

I could care less whether QRich or Jeffries see any burn.

i agree with this line of thinking. i bet jefferies keeps on starting for a while though.
¿ △ ?
LivingLegend
Posts: 25704
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 8/13/2007
Member: #1645
2/20/2009  12:43 PM
Posted by SupremeCommander:

I'm putting my money on

Duhon
Hughes
Chandler
Lee
Wilcox

Bench: Nate, Gallo, no Sharrington, QBrick

(edit:) or exactly what Cos said



[Edited by - supremecommander on 02-19-2009 2:14 PM]

Yep - you've got the right starting line-up.

Chandler will play the 3 and Harrington the 4 off the bench.
thejerk
Posts: 20457
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/14/2005
Member: #962
2/20/2009  12:51 PM
I dont think MDA should start this man unless he earns it, while MDA has been toying with this starting lineup I still feel that Wilcox should earn it.
fishmike
Posts: 53851
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
2/20/2009  12:58 PM
I love MDAs rotations. He has tried a lot of things but doesnt hand anyone something they dont deserve. He gave Gallo a shot at starting because of his shooting but he didnt produce and his minutes are minor. Seems like most nights the guys playing the best are playing the most. Nate is Mr 4th qtr these days
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
2/20/2009  1:04 PM
Posted by thejerk:

I dont think MDA should start this man unless he earns it, while MDA has been toying with this starting lineup I still feel that Wilcox should earn it.

Exactly---you don't hand a player who has been casted out a starting position over a player that has been here. The guy has not even played a game in 6 weeks. You want to cause problems--inject him into the starting line up and see how many happy campers there are on the team. To me Harrington despite a few too many shots and one dumb play has played well. Chandler has earned his way back in. With that line up we start 4 guys over 6-8--a much more physical line up. Bring in Hughes Jefferies Nate and Gallinari off of the bench. I know what Im getting with Al and Wilson--I have 0 clue what I am getting with Hughes. It's going to cause ruffles as is--there is no way around it--Q Rich is going to eb really pirsed off. If you want to start adding Al Wilson or Nate to that list--thats a good way to make sure we fail. Hughes was benched in Chicago--let him start off the bench and see how it goes. We didnt just acquire Kelvin Martin--this guy shoots in the high 30's
RIP Crushalot😞
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
2/20/2009  1:08 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by thejerk:

I dont think MDA should start this man unless he earns it, while MDA has been toying with this starting lineup I still feel that Wilcox should earn it.

Exactly---you don't hand a player who has been casted out a starting position over a player that has been here. The guy has not even played a game in 6 weeks. You want to cause problems--inject him into the starting line up and see how many happy campers there are on the team.

if that's how u feel why did u put Wilcox into ur starting rotation?
Posted by BRIGGS:

C-Wilcox
F-Lee
F Harrington
G Chandler
G Duhon
6th man Nate
Jefferies
Q Rich
Hughes

After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
2/20/2009  1:11 PM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by thejerk:

I dont think MDA should start this man unless he earns it, while MDA has been toying with this starting lineup I still feel that Wilcox should earn it.

Exactly---you don't hand a player who has been casted out a starting position over a player that has been here. The guy has not even played a game in 6 weeks. You want to cause problems--inject him into the starting line up and see how many happy campers there are on the team.

if that's how u feel why did u put Wilcox into ur starting rotation?
Posted by BRIGGS:

C-Wilcox
F-Lee
F Harrington
G Chandler
G Duhon
6th man Nate
Jefferies
Q Rich
Hughes

Wilcox comes in as a superior player and a true 4-5 where we were using Jefferies out of position. The only true frontcourt player we have is Lee. Jefferies is more of a hybrid 3-4 who is a bench player
RIP Crushalot😞
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
2/20/2009  1:13 PM
i agree that Wilcox should start... it's just weird why u would agree to what thejerk just posted when he said Wilcox should earn his starting spot & not have it handed to him.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Cosmic
Posts: 26570
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1115
USA
2/20/2009  1:15 PM
Chandler is NOT a two-guard.
When Larry Hughes gets into shape he should start at the 2.
Chandler slumped when starting. He is best served OFF the bench - Harrington starts at the 3 he is not a bench player and is better than Chandler.
Lee of course starts at the 4.
Jeffries will continue to start at the five, again though, once (if) Wilcox gets into shape, if he does well, he SHOULD start at the 5 so we have a traditional lineup - and not for nothing but sending Jeffries and Q to the bench helps us with depth.

In the meantime I don't think Wilcox, even if he plays into the starting 5 role, can play more than 20 minutes a game at least not for some time.

Hughes will probably start slow but should be good for 30 minutes a game at the starting 2 guard.


Of course, again, we're dealing with players with a long history of not getting it and recently not playing as a result. So it's up to them. If they show what they've been known to be able to do then there's no reason why both won't be starting by mid-March. Hughes should get his act together the quicker of the two and be starting by the end of next week.

Wilcox might take more time and MikeD might still be in love with Ared "Intangibles like Turning it over and bricking layups" Effries and not want to sit him.

http://popcornmachine.net/ A must-use tool for NBA stat junkies!
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
2/20/2009  1:16 PM
Posted by TMS:

i agree that Wilcox should start... it's just weird why u would agree to what thejerk just posted when he said Wilcox should earn his starting spot & not have it handed to him.

I mustve misread his post. I think Hughes should earn playing time off of the bench and Wilcox should be inserted into the starting line up tonight
RIP Crushalot😞
martin
Posts: 76300
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
2/20/2009  1:16 PM
neither Wilcox nor Hughes will start right away, the offense is just too complicated. it's something the players have to adjust to.
Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
LivingLegend
Posts: 25704
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 8/13/2007
Member: #1645
2/20/2009  1:16 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:

I absolutely and vehemently disagree with Hughes starting over Chandler at 2 guard. Chandler has been developing his shot and play all year and is looking like he can be a really really good 2 guard with size and athletic ability

Larry Hughes is a DOWNGRADE from Chandler in every way. I can say OK we have Hughes for more guard bench depth but if the plan is to make him a main cog--what a blunder---he is very inconsistent--don't you guys think there might be a reason why he wasnt playing in Chicago. Chandler is a willing team player 21 years old with burgeoning skills. You don't replace that with a watered-down Crawford lite who is 30 with his bets days behind him./

I'll take action on when we hear the first boos for Larry Hughes--I'll give it two weeks.

Funny - I've never seen anyone say they vehemently disagree with anything on this message board.

Hughes will start at the 2 and Chandler at the 3 -- this gives us a decent defender at the 1, 2 and 3.

Lee is a liability at the 4 but rebounds like a demon -- Wilcox will eventually start at the 5 and will defend the post (if not the pick & roll) pretty well.

Al the non-defender will be productive off the bench.

It will be interesting to see if Lee is as productive trying to run the pick and roll against power forwards (I don't think so).
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
2/20/2009  1:18 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by TMS:

i agree that Wilcox should start... it's just weird why u would agree to what thejerk just posted when he said Wilcox should earn his starting spot & not have it handed to him.

I mustve misread his post. I think Hughes should earn playing time off of the bench and Wilcox should be inserted into the starting line up tonight

i wouldn't have a problem w/that... Jefferies is a good soldier if nothing else so i wouldn't even worry about how he would take not being a starter anymore... starting Hughes right off the bat might cause a bit of friction w/guys like Q Rich & Nate who've been busting their asses here all year long... Hughes can handle the ball & play some point in a tough spot so maybe MDA uses him like he used Mardy Collins to start things off just til he gets used to the system & the other guys on the team... i got no problems if things start off that way.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
2/20/2009  1:22 PM
Posted by Cosmic:

Chandler is NOT a two-guard.
When Larry Hughes gets into shape he should start at the 2.
Chandler slumped when starting. He is best served OFF the bench - Harrington starts at the 3 he is not a bench player and is better than Chandler.
Lee of course starts at the 4.
Jeffries will continue to start at the five, again though, once (if) Wilcox gets into shape, if he does well, he SHOULD start at the 5 so we have a traditional lineup - and not for nothing but sending Jeffries and Q to the bench helps us with depth.

In the meantime I don't think Wilcox, even if he plays into the starting 5 role, can play more than 20 minutes a game at least not for some time.

Hughes will probably start slow but should be good for 30 minutes a game at the starting 2 guard.


Of course, again, we're dealing with players with a long history of not getting it and recently not playing as a result. So it's up to them. If they show what they've been known to be able to do then there's no reason why both won't be starting by mid-March. Hughes should get his act together the quicker of the two and be starting by the end of next week.

Wilcox might take more time and MikeD might still be in love with Ared "Intangibles like Turning it over and bricking layups" Effries and not want to sit him.

Wilson Chandler is not only a 2 guard--he's going to be a great NBA 2 guard. It's too bad we couldn't draft high like we have low. Wilcox played 40 minutes in a game 4 weeks ago. Look at his numbers on a slower tempo team when he started with big minutes. He's 26 you dont get that out of shape in 3 weeks. Hughes is a LOW% player. To me the deadline day deal was all about Wilcox---Wilcox can get us better. Hughes is iffy he could easily make us worse. Wilcox is a no brainer
RIP Crushalot😞
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
2/20/2009  1:28 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:
Posted by Cosmic:

Chandler is NOT a two-guard.
When Larry Hughes gets into shape he should start at the 2.
Chandler slumped when starting. He is best served OFF the bench - Harrington starts at the 3 he is not a bench player and is better than Chandler.
Lee of course starts at the 4.
Jeffries will continue to start at the five, again though, once (if) Wilcox gets into shape, if he does well, he SHOULD start at the 5 so we have a traditional lineup - and not for nothing but sending Jeffries and Q to the bench helps us with depth.

In the meantime I don't think Wilcox, even if he plays into the starting 5 role, can play more than 20 minutes a game at least not for some time.

Hughes will probably start slow but should be good for 30 minutes a game at the starting 2 guard.


Of course, again, we're dealing with players with a long history of not getting it and recently not playing as a result. So it's up to them. If they show what they've been known to be able to do then there's no reason why both won't be starting by mid-March. Hughes should get his act together the quicker of the two and be starting by the end of next week.

Wilcox might take more time and MikeD might still be in love with Ared "Intangibles like Turning it over and bricking layups" Effries and not want to sit him.

Wilson Chandler is not only a 2 guard--he's going to be a great NBA 2 guard. It's too bad we couldn't draft high like we have low. Wilcox played 40 minutes in a game 4 weeks ago. Look at his numbers on a slower tempo team when he started with big minutes. He's 26 you dont get that out of shape in 3 weeks. Hughes is a LOW% player. To me the deadline day deal was all about Wilcox---Wilcox can get us better. Hughes is iffy he could easily make us worse. Wilcox is a no brainer

gotta love how u work in your dig at Gallo on every post regardless of the topic... lol.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Cosmic
Posts: 26570
Alba Posts: 27
Joined: 3/17/2006
Member: #1115
USA
2/20/2009  1:43 PM
BRIGGS - Chandler can play spot minutes at the 2 but he is simply not quick enough for the position. He is best suited for the 3 - if he learns he can be both aggressive and take jumpers - but he also excelled most at the 4 earlier in the year. He is simply not a starting 2-guard.

As to Wilcox - look at his box scores and tell me if you think he can step right into this faced paced team and play 35 minutes a game:

wilcox box scores

Note his physical appearance as well - he's not in great shape - he hasn't played frequently at all - and it will take some time to get there.


Same really goes for Hughes but being a guard it would likely take less time to get back into NBA game shape and be able to give us 30 minutes as the starting 2G.

hughes box scores

Worse off with Hughes is the grossly inconsistent shooting - and at worst - the stretches of terrible shooting. Note mid-November for example.


So, while it's nice to acquire two players who might be solid rotation players for us it's not a no-brainer these guys are going to make a big difference. It remains to be seen.

Optimistically you'd expect both players to relish a rebirth and get their butts into gear and come in and play the team game and be in top shape. If they do we could be surprised.

Yet, they must do it first, we cannot just give them a pass on this season so far, and say they're going to be great. Just not realistic.
http://popcornmachine.net/ A must-use tool for NBA stat junkies!
Page 3 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 
« Reply To Topic
New lineup? Does Wilcox start at C with Lee at PF--makes most sense to me
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy