kam77 wrote:

oohah wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:He is playing so well for the most part but has taken bad 3's/shots in the 4th Q the last 2 games. If he sticks to a quality 3 1-3 times a game and concentrates on the 2--I think he can shoot 50%.

Yeah, but this is D'Antoni's system so you have to understand that Chandler is essentially required to take a large number of three-point shots.

oohah

This isn't true. Dude takes stupid shots. He cost us the game vs. Portland by taking an ill-advised and contested three point shot (trying to answer Andre Miller's three) with a ton of time left on the shot clock in a one point game with 2 minutes to play.

Papabear Says

Thats crap!! If it wasn't for Chandler we would not have been in the game with a chance to win. Whats all this hate still on Chancler. He is the only one that had 3 good games.

knicks1248 wrote:I hate to be the negative..but were still losing games..when all is said and done, its the W's the matter..I'm sick of losing and 1 or 2 players play well, what's the point. Dude had a monster game like so many of David lee's win less efforts...its a shame because chandler efforts will probably get him traded...

Papabear Says

If Chandler is that good why trade him??

Papabear wrote:

TMS wrote:we're not going to win many games this year if Wilson Chandler is our featured player in the offense.

Papabear Says

Who do we have thats better besides Amear and he ain't knockin down any doors. Look this team can be a playoff team. We just need to give it some time. As long as we don't he our outside shots Amear will have 3 guys on him every night.

If Chandler proves to be our #2 this means.....

Someone else didn't step up or pull their weight

or

D'AnToni has no clue who to develop to become that #2 option

I thought those who lust after Carmela would be ecstatic Chandler looks like he could be a #2 option because apparently Denver isn't interested in any of our young talent, maybe Chandler changes this slightly.

Me personally I hope we don't trade our youth for a Starphuck but hey this is what we do here in New York. We don't farm and breed our own talent to the point we extend them we always look for the sexy splash.

Papabear wrote:

TMS wrote:we're not going to win many games this year if Wilson Chandler is our featured player in the offense.

Papabear Says

Who do we have thats better besides Amear and he ain't knockin down any doors. Look this team can be a playoff team. We just need to give it some time. As long as we don't he our outside shots Amear will have 3 guys on him every night.

well no sh!t Wilson is our best option right now under the circumstances... where did i say any different?

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

Juice wrote:

TMS wrote:

Juice wrote:

TMS wrote:we're not going to win many games this year if Wilson Chandler is our featured player in the offense.

ditto with Amar'e being the #1 option. I really don't understand statements like this because obviously there must have been a clear #2 you had in mind. As in Pre-Ordained

care to explain what's so assinine about saying we're not likely going to be a good team if Wilson is our featured offensive weapon? do you consider him to a star that can carry a team at this point? & how about offering some evidence that proves that Amare can't be a #1 option on a winning franchise that goes against what he's shown over his entire NBA career in Phoenix? just because i make this statement doesn't mean i have someone pre-ordained in mind... & you might do better to at least offer something more than throwing insults my way to counter what i'm saying.

There are many ways a player can be featured doesn't mean they are THE FEATURE. I already explained to you in the second post. If Gallo hits a few more 3s, or Mason provides more of a spark, or heck if Amar'e stops turning the ball over we very well could be 3-0. If you look at the breakdown statistically with all this being said we would have done this with Chandler being a #2 option(a feature).

Not sure what was so complicated here.

The other point I made about Pre-Ordained....Obviously we know Amar'e was going to be a #1 option fans from early season projection have us winning about 37-42gms on average. That means someone outside of Amar'e had to step up and be a feature guy or #2 option. So if it wasn't Chandler who the coach said would have to be a breakout player for us.... then who else would it be since apparently he's not or was not the ideal in your mind from your comments?

You know what don't bother answering the question because the only realistic option left pts you in a very specific direction....hence Pre-Ordained.

did you bother to read my original statement or were you too busy trying to be a jackass to notice? i said we're not going to win many games this year if Wilson Chandler is our featured player in the offense... exactly how many games have we won so far & how many games do you think we can win if Wilson is our go to guy in the offense? if you honestly think this team can win a lot of games as presently constructed, i think you might wanna reconsider who & what you call assinine.

dude, you really need to downgrade your posts by calling everyone who responds to you jackass and idiots? Simmer down and please stop posting that way. Thanks.

wow, someone calls my opinion assinine & you object when i call them a jackass in response... a little hypocritical, don't you think? i try to show respect to everyone here, but when they start throwing insults my way how do you come down on me for responding in kind? stop playing favorites.

Juice wrote:I'll further add statements like this are so asinine. Just think many comments have been made that if other players would step up just a tad(Gallo included in this group) we could be 3-0. Well if this is the case Chandler by the numbers after 3gms would still be a #2 option.....lol

TMS wrote:

martin wrote:

TMS wrote:

Juice wrote:

TMS wrote:

Juice wrote:

TMS wrote:we're not going to win many games this year if Wilson Chandler is our featured player in the offense.

ditto with Amar'e being the #1 option. I really don't understand statements like this because obviously there must have been a clear #2 you had in mind. As in Pre-Ordained

care to explain what's so assinine about saying we're not likely going to be a good team if Wilson is our featured offensive weapon? do you consider him to a star that can carry a team at this point? & how about offering some evidence that proves that Amare can't be a #1 option on a winning franchise that goes against what he's shown over his entire NBA career in Phoenix? just because i make this statement doesn't mean i have someone pre-ordained in mind... & you might do better to at least offer something more than throwing insults my way to counter what i'm saying.

There are many ways a player can be featured doesn't mean they are THE FEATURE. I already explained to you in the second post. If Gallo hits a few more 3s, or Mason provides more of a spark, or heck if Amar'e stops turning the ball over we very well could be 3-0. If you look at the breakdown statistically with all this being said we would have done this with Chandler being a #2 option(a feature).

Not sure what was so complicated here.

The other point I made about Pre-Ordained....Obviously we know Amar'e was going to be a #1 option fans from early season projection have us winning about 37-42gms on average. That means someone outside of Amar'e had to step up and be a feature guy or #2 option. So if it wasn't Chandler who the coach said would have to be a breakout player for us.... then who else would it be since apparently he's not or was not the ideal in your mind from your comments?

You know what don't bother answering the question because the only realistic option left pts you in a very specific direction....hence Pre-Ordained.

did you bother to read my original statement or were you too busy trying to be a jackass to notice? i said we're not going to win many games this year if Wilson Chandler is our featured player in the offense... exactly how many games have we won so far & how many games do you think we can win if Wilson is our go to guy in the offense? if you honestly think this team can win a lot of games as presently constructed, i think you might wanna reconsider who & what you call assinine.

dude, you really need to downgrade your posts by calling everyone who responds to you jackass and idiots? Simmer down and please stop posting that way. Thanks.

wow, someone calls my opinion assinine & you object when i call them a jackass in response... a little hypocritical, don't you think? i try to show respect to everyone here, but when they start throwing insults my way how do you come down on me for responding in kind? stop playing favorites.

Juice wrote:I'll further add statements like this are so asinine. Just think many comments have been made that if other players would step up just a tad(Gallo included in this group) we could be 3-0. Well if this is the case Chandler by the numbers after 3gms would still be a #2 option.....lol

TMS, cut the name calling. End of story.

franco12 wrote:Aren't there other ways to break down a zone besides hoisting up threes?

MDA better start adjusting his game plan to account for his lack of three point shooters, and start working more on setting up Amare close to the basket in motion so he doesn't need to do his 'bull in china shop move' which I never saw him do in Phoenix.

You don't need to hoist threes. But it's easier than the alternative.

Every zone has seams... the problem is with Portland's length the seams are very small. You need a very very good point guard to pass through the seams for back door cuts to the hoop. This also requires coordination and team work (you can't have people cutting all at once, etc).

It's easier for individuals to step up with 3 point shooting to break the zone at this point in the season for our team.

Vmart wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:To keep Chandler long term--we may need to part with Gallo and turriaf for salary. Gallo is on the clock because Chandler is proving to be the keeper.

Problem is Gallo is decreasing his value and Chandler is basically increasing his value. Gallo has taken himself out of any Melo talk with his recent play. Looks like the Knicks if they want to or not are most likely going to get stuck with Gallo. I kind of felt that Gallo might sabotage the Knicks season all because he doesn't want to get traded. Lets hope he decides to show up and wants to resume a career in the NBA guys like that have options of going back to Europe and continue their careers there.

The best way for Gallo to have sabotaged a Melo trade during the season would have been for him to be lights out for the Knicks. But I can see why you would think that Gallo hurt his wrist on purpose and is caca.

Strangely, in GameThread, you also predict that Gallo will get 20 points in Orlando game.

Whether its because of the wrist or not he's in slump and its hurt us because he's basically our only shooter.

Also there is no reason to choose between Chandler and Gallo. Despite playing different positions both are good versatile players.

Before last season started I really thought Chandler could progress like Danny Granger and be that kind of player. I still dont see what thats not possible. For their age their #s are very similar.

Chandler has some holes in his game but he's got some bigtime strengths to build around.

So many guys around here love to say we need a player like this or that, but simply arent willing to wait the 3-4 years it took for that player to get that good. So many all star caliber players are late bloomers. Look at Billups. Look at David Lee. Gerald Wallace is a PERFECT example.

Are we going to be patient and develop all star players? Or are we going to gut a talented and YOUNG roster for a chance to get to round 2 next couple of years and win 45-48 games?

I have waited a few years. I can wait a little longer. Knick fans have been so scarred by the Isiah/Layden regimes its impossible to imagine we could have good young players on our roster that just need time to develop.

Juice wrote:

TMS wrote:

Juice wrote:

TMS wrote:

Juice wrote:

TMS wrote:we're not going to win many games this year if Wilson Chandler is our featured player in the offense.

ditto with Amar'e being the #1 option. I really don't understand statements like this because obviously there must have been a clear #2 you had in mind. As in Pre-Ordained

care to explain what's so assinine about saying we're not likely going to be a good team if Wilson is our featured offensive weapon? do you consider him to a star that can carry a team at this point? & how about offering some evidence that proves that Amare can't be a #1 option on a winning franchise that goes against what he's shown over his entire NBA career in Phoenix? just because i make this statement doesn't mean i have someone pre-ordained in mind... & you might do better to at least offer something more than throwing insults my way to counter what i'm saying.

There are many ways a player can be featured doesn't mean they are THE FEATURE. I already explained to you in the second post. If Gallo hits a few more 3s, or Mason provides more of a spark, or heck if Amar'e stops turning the ball over we very well could be 3-0. If you look at the breakdown statistically with all this being said we would have done this with Chandler being a #2 option(a feature).

Not sure what was so complicated here.

The other point I made about Pre-Ordained....Obviously we know Amar'e was going to be a #1 option fans from early season projection have us winning about 37-42gms on average. That means someone outside of Amar'e had to step up and be a feature guy or #2 option. So if it wasn't Chandler who the coach said would have to be a breakout player for us.... then who else would it be since apparently he's not or was not the ideal in your mind from your comments?

You know what don't bother answering the question because the only realistic option left pts you in a very specific direction....hence Pre-Ordained.

did you bother to read my original statement or were you too busy trying to be a jackass to notice? i said we're not going to win many games this year if Wilson Chandler is our featured player in the offense... exactly how many games have we won so far & how many games do you think we can win if Wilson is our go to guy in the offense? if you honestly think this team can win a lot of games as presently constructed, i think you might wanna reconsider who & what you call assinine.

I know what you said I clearly understood it. What you're implying is that he isn't a #2 option type talent and you told on yourself with this statement....

do you consider him to a star that can carry a team at this point?

Amar'e would carry the team TMS and Chandler would back him up

You can't skate around the simple logic here. You don't like the idea of looking at Chandler as a #2 option and you're projecting out negative results if he is.

I showed you if other players contributed more in our last 2gms(I'm talking just a little more) we'd be 3-0 with Chandler basically being a #2 option. Being 2nd fiddle doesn't necessarily mean you're a star. Jason Terry was second fiddle in Dallas he wasn't what you call a STAR....Jamal Crawford was second fiddle last year for the Hawks he wasn't what you call a STAR....John Salmons spent back half of the season being a second fiddle for the Bucks who helped propel them in the playoffs he wasn't what you call a STAR

So once again in review Amar'e #1 option early season projections have us winning 37-42gms(which teeters on not winning many games) the only saving grace here is that this record could be good enough to taste post-season success

in order for this to change someone besides Amar'e has to step up and be a #2 option.

You say if it's Chandler we're not going to win many games. Well we already were headed in that direction with Amar'e as a #1 option hence why make such a statement?

Dougie=No but had/has small potential for 6th Man

Turiaf=Role Player

Roger=Role Player

Fields=Rookie

Mozgov=Rookie

Rautins=Rookie can't crack rotation

Bookie=Injured

Shawn Williams=GM's favor to a past pet project

Curry=Forgotten Waste

So that leaves us with these realistic 2nd options after Amar'e....

Felton=Good player but he ain't no STAR as you put it

AR=So incomplete here where do we begin

Chandler=He ain't no STAR according to your statement already made

Gallo=AHHHHHHHHHHHHH this is the Pre-Ordained 2nd Option right?

The 2nd option had to come from one of Felton/AR/Chandler/Gallo now ask yourself....

If Felton is the 2nd option will we lose a lot?....TMS says_______

If AR is the 2nd option will we lose a lot?....TMS says_______

If Chandler is the 2nd option will we lose a lot?....TMS says__Yes___

If Gallo is the 2nd option will we lose a lot?....TMS says_______

Hey there's still time for you to accept what I said earlier.... if Chandler is the second option for the year

Someone else failed at stepping up(which probably hurts the Pre-Ordained theory...lol)

or

Coach doesn't know how to develop the appropriate second option(which would hurt any apologies afforded him the past 2yrs)

the point is pretty simple... i'll clarify it for you once again since it seems you're having a problem comprehending... unless we bring in another go to scorer to complement Amare's game, then don't expect to win many games... when i say many games i'm talking in the 47-48+ above range, not .500... to me that's average, which is what i think this current roster is right now, average... Wilson, Felton, AR & Gallo are not my idea of a go to scorer.

LOL @ you calling my statement assinine & then coming at me with examples like the Mavs, Hawks & Bucks... maybe this is breaking news to you, but the Mavs have a STACKED roster... it's not only the Dirk & Jason Terry show, they got Jason Kidd, Tyson Chandler, Caron Butler, Shawn Marion, Rodrigue Beaubois, Brendan Haywood & DeSean Stevenson... sorta different than our scenario, don't ya think?

same story with the Hawks... they got Al Horford, Joe Johnson, Marvin Williams, Mike Bibby, Zaza Pachulia, Jeff Teague... you say Jamal Crawford isn't a STAR, which is true, but the Hawks DO have 2 bonafide STARS in Horford & Johnson (btw, Jamal wasn't playing #2 in Atlanta, he was a 6th man off the bench... get your facts straight)

& sorry but John Salmons was not #2 in Milwaukee, he was brought in to be their #3 guy... the Bucks were led by Bogut & Jennings... once again, get your facts straight before you call someone else out for making assinine statements... i would have no problem with Wilson as my #3 guy... if we can land ourselves another star to complement Amare's game, then having Wilson or Gallo as the #3 option would be solid... i've been pretty consistent w/that opinion for the past 3 years... not sure where you've been... maybe too busy changing screennames & getting kicked off other forums.