martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:My issue with Fields is he isn't a SG. Those rebounding stats are highly inflated be too because D'Antoni has him crashing the boards. Most coaches dont want their guards crashing the boards because the opposing teams guards will leak out and that leads to fast breaks.

We start 3 SFs. Fields shouldn't be playing SG but we don't have a better option. Ideally, an SG is more of a playmaker than Fields is. Part of the reason Felton's assists are so high is that he's the only starter who sets up other players regularly.

Huh? I think you best watch some of MDA's Mike D'Antoni show to get a better grasp of the offense.

OK, tell me who else gets more than an assist or two a game. Who else can penetrate into traffic and set up teammates? If we had an SG who was more of a playmaker, Amare would have to force the offense less and would get fewer turnovers. Here's how many assists per game the starting SG on top eastern teams gets.

Atlanta (Johnson): 5.5
Miami (Wade): 4.3
Orlando (Arenas): 4.2; Carter at 2.9 before recent trades
Boston (Allen): 3.4
NY (Fields): 1.9
Chicago (Bogans): 1.3

You can get by with Fields at SG but if you think he's truly an SG, you haven't watched much.

I have not idea why you would attach Bogans to this discussion.

GodSaveTheKnicks wrote:Where the F is this thread going? Landry Fields makes $473,000 this season. He is outperforming everyone's expectations and is certainly giving us GREAT value.

What is all this about again? His rebounding numbers are inflated? He's not a "playmaking SG". Good lord...

WHO?

Bonn1997 wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TheGame wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:My issue with Fields is he isn't a SG. Those rebounding stats are highly inflated be too because D'Antoni has him crashing the boards. Most coaches dont want their guards crashing the boards because the opposing teams guards will leak out and that leads to fast breaks.

We start 3 SFs. Fields shouldn't be playing SG but we don't have a better option. Ideally, an SG is more of a playmaker than Fields is. Part of the reason Felton's assists are so high is that he's the only starter who sets up other players regularly.

Huh? I think you best watch some of MDA's Mike D'Antoni show to get a better grasp of the offense.

OK, tell me who else gets more than an assist or two a game. Who else can penetrate into traffic and set up teammates? If we had an SG who was more of a playmaker, Amare would have to force the offense less and would get fewer turnovers. Here's how many assists per game the starting SG on top eastern teams gets.

Atlanta (Johnson): 5.5
Miami (Wade): 4.3
Orlando (Arenas): 4.2; Carter at 2.9 before recent trades
Boston (Allen): 3.4
NY (Fields): 1.9
Chicago (Bogans): 1.3

You can get by with Fields at SG but if you think he's truly an SG, you haven't watched much.

I've watched all the Knicks games this year except for the CLE debacle, how about yourself?

In MDA's offense, guys like Fields are an outlet not a playmakers. And you just compared a second round rookie to 3 HOFs (Wade and Johnson are SG playmakers for their respective teams) and a former All-Star PG. I have not idea why you would attach Bogans to this discussion.

Yeah, Fields handles the ball far less than Johnson, Wade, or Arenas. Two assists a game for a rookie SG is a solid number.

My only points are that the playmaking skills of our starting 2 guard are well below those of our eastern conference competitors' starting 2 guards and I think you'd see a significant reduction in Amare's turnovers if we had another playmaker. The fact that he's a rookie has no bearing on whether he currently has the playmaking abilities of top teams' starting SGs. I guarantee you if we had a real SG on this team, Fields would see far more minutes at SF and fewer at SG.

I wouldn't nescessarily agree with you. I agree we could use another PG, but when you have Gallo and Chandler becoming solid (Or improving) scorers, then you don't need Landry taking on that load. If you have watched him throughout the entire season, you would see that he has SKILLS. He's a very very solid passer and can make good moves from anywhere on the court. We simply haven't needed to consistently ulilize those skills yet. He has a completely different role and he's doing great at it.

I agree with almost all of that. (Also, I didn't say Fields has to score more.) Tell me, if we had a playmaking SG like any of the guys I listed above, do you think Amare would be forcing things less and his turnovers would go down

Not nescessarily. Maybe slightly. You have to realize though, that Amar'e is the second best scorer in the league. I want him to have the ball in his hands. Yet his one offensive weakness is his court awareness when he's driving to the basket. This is when he gets his turnovers. At the same time, it means he's being aggresive and getting to the line and getting opponents in foul trouble, and also opening up things for our shooters, when he's driving. This is one of the critical components to our offense.

And just remember, Landry can actually improve. He's improved every year at Stanford, so he can in the NBA. His playmaking skills will show up. Where he'll be is a different question. Hopefully he'll be a Knicks for a very long time.

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote: Tell me, if we had a playmaking SG like any of the guys I listed above, do you think Amare would be forcing things less and his turnovers would go down

Where would any team be with an all star SG and Amare be though? I will say this, the coach should start trying to get Landry more involved as a playmaker, moreso because he has good passing skills and pretty damn good vision. I would agree that having a guy like Mayo on this team would be deadly for his play making ability. But I really think Fields has the talent and IQ to do more with the ball. We really should run some penetration and kick plays for him.

Landry has shown to be a good finisher and with Amare to dish it to if someone bigger covers him then he has the sense to give it to Amare. A lot of what I'm saying regarding Landry is what Gallo has shown us before. But I think the problem is that this offense is predicated more off ball movement than off penetrations (outside of Felton). But the more I think of it, using Fields and or Gallo in this way just helps open things up for us.

He DOES seem to get some turnovers when passing while driving. I even think that's what the majority of his TOs are from. He also has to continue working on his jumper. The instant these two improve, you'll see more plays ran for Landry. I promise you and everyone on this board that.

Allanfan20 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TheGame wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:My issue with Fields is he isn't a SG. Those rebounding stats are highly inflated be too because D'Antoni has him crashing the boards. Most coaches dont want their guards crashing the boards because the opposing teams guards will leak out and that leads to fast breaks.

We start 3 SFs. Fields shouldn't be playing SG but we don't have a better option. Ideally, an SG is more of a playmaker than Fields is. Part of the reason Felton's assists are so high is that he's the only starter who sets up other players regularly.

Huh? I think you best watch some of MDA's Mike D'Antoni show to get a better grasp of the offense.

OK, tell me who else gets more than an assist or two a game. Who else can penetrate into traffic and set up teammates? If we had an SG who was more of a playmaker, Amare would have to force the offense less and would get fewer turnovers. Here's how many assists per game the starting SG on top eastern teams gets.

Atlanta (Johnson): 5.5
Miami (Wade): 4.3
Orlando (Arenas): 4.2; Carter at 2.9 before recent trades
Boston (Allen): 3.4
NY (Fields): 1.9
Chicago (Bogans): 1.3

You can get by with Fields at SG but if you think he's truly an SG, you haven't watched much.

I've watched all the Knicks games this year except for the CLE debacle, how about yourself?

In MDA's offense, guys like Fields are an outlet not a playmakers. And you just compared a second round rookie to 3 HOFs (Wade and Johnson are SG playmakers for their respective teams) and a former All-Star PG. I have not idea why you would attach Bogans to this discussion.

Yeah, Fields handles the ball far less than Johnson, Wade, or Arenas. Two assists a game for a rookie SG is a solid number.

My only points are that the playmaking skills of our starting 2 guard are well below those of our eastern conference competitors' starting 2 guards and I think you'd see a significant reduction in Amare's turnovers if we had another playmaker. The fact that he's a rookie has no bearing on whether he currently has the playmaking abilities of top teams' starting SGs. I guarantee you if we had a real SG on this team, Fields would see far more minutes at SF and fewer at SG.

I wouldn't nescessarily agree with you. I agree we could use another PG, but when you have Gallo and Chandler becoming solid (Or improving) scorers, then you don't need Landry taking on that load. If you have watched him throughout the entire season, you would see that he has SKILLS. He's a very very solid passer and can make good moves from anywhere on the court. We simply haven't needed to consistently ulilize those skills yet. He has a completely different role and he's doing great at it.

I agree with almost all of that. (Also, I didn't say Fields has to score more.) Tell me, if we had a playmaking SG like any of the guys I listed above, do you think Amare would be forcing things less and his turnovers would go down

Not nescessarily. Maybe slightly. You have to realize though, that Amar'e is the second best scorer in the league. I want him to have the ball in his hands. Yet his one offensive weakness is his court awareness when he's driving to the basket. This is when he gets his turnovers. At the same time, it means he's being aggresive and getting to the line and getting opponents in foul trouble, and also opening up things for our shooters, when he's driving. This is one of the critical components to our offense.

And just remember, Landry can actually improve. He's improved every year at Stanford, so he can in the NBA. His playmaking skills will show up. Where he'll be is a different question. Hopefully he'll be a Knicks for a very long time.

Allanfan20 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote: Tell me, if we had a playmaking SG like any of the guys I listed above, do you think Amare would be forcing things less and his turnovers would go down

Where would any team be with an all star SG and Amare be though? I will say this, the coach should start trying to get Landry more involved as a playmaker, moreso because he has good passing skills and pretty damn good vision. I would agree that having a guy like Mayo on this team would be deadly for his play making ability. But I really think Fields has the talent and IQ to do more with the ball. We really should run some penetration and kick plays for him.

Landry has shown to be a good finisher and with Amare to dish it to if someone bigger covers him then he has the sense to give it to Amare. A lot of what I'm saying regarding Landry is what Gallo has shown us before. But I think the problem is that this offense is predicated more off ball movement than off penetrations (outside of Felton). But the more I think of it, using Fields and or Gallo in this way just helps open things up for us.

He DOES seem to get some turnovers when passing while driving. I even think that's what the majority of his TOs are from. He also has to continue working on his jumper. The instant these two improve, you'll see more plays ran for Landry. I promise you and everyone on this board that.

I agree that he does. I even remember him looking a bit lost when driving and not having anyone to dish to (he turned it over). That said, he is averaging only 1.4 turnovers a game, has a fair handle and as I mentioned is a good finisher. It would be nice for him to have a midrange game, but that seems to come later, if at all, for most NBA players. I do get the feeling that the coach is going to run some plays for him eventually, mostly because the coach really trusts him. In particular, he seems to understand the P&R and some PGs don't even get that. So, being that the P&R is a big part of our offense and since Fields has some IQ, I think we may see more of that from him.

Bonn1997 wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TheGame wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:My issue with Fields is he isn't a SG. Those rebounding stats are highly inflated be too because D'Antoni has him crashing the boards. Most coaches dont want their guards crashing the boards because the opposing teams guards will leak out and that leads to fast breaks.

We start 3 SFs. Fields shouldn't be playing SG but we don't have a better option. Ideally, an SG is more of a playmaker than Fields is. Part of the reason Felton's assists are so high is that he's the only starter who sets up other players regularly.

Huh? I think you best watch some of MDA's Mike D'Antoni show to get a better grasp of the offense.

OK, tell me who else gets more than an assist or two a game. Who else can penetrate into traffic and set up teammates? If we had an SG who was more of a playmaker, Amare would have to force the offense less and would get fewer turnovers. Here's how many assists per game the starting SG on top eastern teams gets.

Atlanta (Johnson): 5.5
Miami (Wade): 4.3
Orlando (Arenas): 4.2; Carter at 2.9 before recent trades
Boston (Allen): 3.4
NY (Fields): 1.9
Chicago (Bogans): 1.3

You can get by with Fields at SG but if you think he's truly an SG, you haven't watched much.

I've watched all the Knicks games this year except for the CLE debacle, how about yourself?

In MDA's offense, guys like Fields are an outlet not a playmakers. And you just compared a second round rookie to 3 HOFs (Wade and Johnson are SG playmakers for their respective teams) and a former All-Star PG. I have not idea why you would attach Bogans to this discussion.

Yeah, Fields handles the ball far less than Johnson, Wade, or Arenas. Two assists a game for a rookie SG is a solid number.

My only points are that the playmaking skills of our starting 2 guard are well below those of our eastern conference competitors' starting 2 guards and I think you'd see a significant reduction in Amare's turnovers if we had another playmaker. The fact that he's a rookie has no bearing on whether he currently has the playmaking abilities of top teams' starting SGs. I guarantee you if we had a real SG on this team, Fields would see far more minutes at SF and fewer at SG.

I wouldn't nescessarily agree with you. I agree we could use another PG, but when you have Gallo and Chandler becoming solid (Or improving) scorers, then you don't need Landry taking on that load. If you have watched him throughout the entire season, you would see that he has SKILLS. He's a very very solid passer and can make good moves from anywhere on the court. We simply haven't needed to consistently ulilize those skills yet. He has a completely different role and he's doing great at it.

I agree with almost all of that. (Also, I didn't say Fields has to score more.) Tell me, if we had a playmaking SG like any of the guys I listed above, do you think Amare would be forcing things less and his turnovers would go down

Not nescessarily. Maybe slightly. You have to realize though, that Amar'e is the second best scorer in the league. I want him to have the ball in his hands. Yet his one offensive weakness is his court awareness when he's driving to the basket. This is when he gets his turnovers. At the same time, it means he's being aggresive and getting to the line and getting opponents in foul trouble, and also opening up things for our shooters, when he's driving. This is one of the critical components to our offense.

And just remember, Landry can actually improve. He's improved every year at Stanford, so he can in the NBA. His playmaking skills will show up. Where he'll be is a different question. Hopefully he'll be a Knicks for a very long time.

Amare had two other years with about the same # of PPG as this year. In both of those seasons his turnovers were barely half what they are this year (2.2 and 2.4 vs. 4.1 this year). The difference is that those Phoenix teams always hade several play-makers besides Amare and the starting PG (Depending on the year, Penny Hardaway, Joe Johnson, Barbosa, Grant Hill, Diaw).

I agree with you and looked at those numbers as wel, but that's not my point. He probably had much less possesions per game during those Phoenix years for various reasons. It was really quite a different offense and evolved a lot over the years. Yet Amar'e still never had nearly as many possesions as he does now, or so it seems at least. Not with Steve Nash handling the ball all the time.

Here, he is THE go to guy. The offense runs through him. Not Steve Nash, not Raymond Felton. Nobody but Amar'e. Therefore, with the weakness he has, he's going to be exposed and his TOs. And like I said, I like the offense the way it is..... for the most part. There's a couple of gliches that need to be worked on.

I agree. I would rephrase, though: The reason Amare has to be such a focal point of our offense is that we have very few playmakers. Usually your SG is a good playmaker but if he isn't, then usually your SF or PF or C would be. If we think long-term (maybe 5 years from now) and if we have a well-balanced lineup, I wouldn't expect Fields to be the starting 2 guard. It's not impossible but it would surprise me. He might be the starting SF or a 6th man who gets min at SG and SF, though. Or you could put it this way: What does a well-rounded SG do that he doesn't do? I'd say set-up teammates and penetrate in the half-court offense. Now, what does a well-rounded SF do that he doesn't do? Nothing.

I disagree..I think fields is going to be as good as ginobili..And im not sure how you don't consider him a play maker, he consistantly makes the right decision if his lane closes up, some nice passes to amare, or hitting the open man on for a baseline 3.

knicks1248 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

TheGame wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:My issue with Fields is he isn't a SG. Those rebounding stats are highly inflated be too because D'Antoni has him crashing the boards. Most coaches dont want their guards crashing the boards because the opposing teams guards will leak out and that leads to fast breaks.

We start 3 SFs. Fields shouldn't be playing SG but we don't have a better option. Ideally, an SG is more of a playmaker than Fields is. Part of the reason Felton's assists are so high is that he's the only starter who sets up other players regularly.

Huh? I think you best watch some of MDA's Mike D'Antoni show to get a better grasp of the offense.

OK, tell me who else gets more than an assist or two a game. Who else can penetrate into traffic and set up teammates? If we had an SG who was more of a playmaker, Amare would have to force the offense less and would get fewer turnovers. Here's how many assists per game the starting SG on top eastern teams gets.

Atlanta (Johnson): 5.5
Miami (Wade): 4.3
Orlando (Arenas): 4.2; Carter at 2.9 before recent trades
Boston (Allen): 3.4
NY (Fields): 1.9
Chicago (Bogans): 1.3

You can get by with Fields at SG but if you think he's truly an SG, you haven't watched much.

I've watched all the Knicks games this year except for the CLE debacle, how about yourself?

In MDA's offense, guys like Fields are an outlet not a playmakers. And you just compared a second round rookie to 3 HOFs (Wade and Johnson are SG playmakers for their respective teams) and a former All-Star PG. I have not idea why you would attach Bogans to this discussion.

Yeah, Fields handles the ball far less than Johnson, Wade, or Arenas. Two assists a game for a rookie SG is a solid number.

My only points are that the playmaking skills of our starting 2 guard are well below those of our eastern conference competitors' starting 2 guards and I think you'd see a significant reduction in Amare's turnovers if we had another playmaker. The fact that he's a rookie has no bearing on whether he currently has the playmaking abilities of top teams' starting SGs. I guarantee you if we had a real SG on this team, Fields would see far more minutes at SF and fewer at SG.

I wouldn't nescessarily agree with you. I agree we could use another PG, but when you have Gallo and Chandler becoming solid (Or improving) scorers, then you don't need Landry taking on that load. If you have watched him throughout the entire season, you would see that he has SKILLS. He's a very very solid passer and can make good moves from anywhere on the court. We simply haven't needed to consistently ulilize those skills yet. He has a completely different role and he's doing great at it.

I agree with almost all of that. (Also, I didn't say Fields has to score more.) Tell me, if we had a playmaking SG like any of the guys I listed above, do you think Amare would be forcing things less and his turnovers would go down

Not nescessarily. Maybe slightly. You have to realize though, that Amar'e is the second best scorer in the league. I want him to have the ball in his hands. Yet his one offensive weakness is his court awareness when he's driving to the basket. This is when he gets his turnovers. At the same time, it means he's being aggresive and getting to the line and getting opponents in foul trouble, and also opening up things for our shooters, when he's driving. This is one of the critical components to our offense.

And just remember, Landry can actually improve. He's improved every year at Stanford, so he can in the NBA. His playmaking skills will show up. Where he'll be is a different question. Hopefully he'll be a Knicks for a very long time.

Amare had two other years with about the same # of PPG as this year. In both of those seasons his turnovers were barely half what they are this year (2.2 and 2.4 vs. 4.1 this year). The difference is that those Phoenix teams always hade several play-makers besides Amare and the starting PG (Depending on the year, Penny Hardaway, Joe Johnson, Barbosa, Grant Hill, Diaw).

I agree with you and looked at those numbers as wel, but that's not my point. He probably had much less possesions per game during those Phoenix years for various reasons. It was really quite a different offense and evolved a lot over the years. Yet Amar'e still never had nearly as many possesions as he does now, or so it seems at least. Not with Steve Nash handling the ball all the time.

Here, he is THE go to guy. The offense runs through him. Not Steve Nash, not Raymond Felton. Nobody but Amar'e. Therefore, with the weakness he has, he's going to be exposed and his TOs. And like I said, I like the offense the way it is..... for the most part. There's a couple of gliches that need to be worked on.

I agree. I would rephrase, though: The reason Amare has to be such a focal point of our offense is that we have very few playmakers. Usually your SG is a good playmaker but if he isn't, then usually your SF or PF or C would be. If we think long-term (maybe 5 years from now) and if we have a well-balanced lineup, I wouldn't expect Fields to be the starting 2 guard. It's not impossible but it would surprise me. He might be the starting SF or a 6th man who gets min at SG and SF, though. Or you could put it this way: What does a well-rounded SG do that he doesn't do? I'd say set-up teammates and penetrate in the half-court offense. Now, what does a well-rounded SF do that he doesn't do? Nothing.

I disagree..I think fields is going to be as good as ginobili..And im not sure how you don't consider him a play maker, he consistantly makes the right decision if his lane closes up, some nice passes to amare, or hitting the open man on for a baseline 3.

Bonn1997 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:I disagree..I think fields is going to be as good as ginobili..And im not sure how you don't consider him a play maker, he consistantly makes the right decision if his lane closes up, some nice passes to amare, or hitting the open man on for a baseline 3.

Great play-makers don't average less than 2 assists a game. A guy who is a smart passer and keeps the ball moving, might, though. Ginobili handles the ball 1000 times better than Fields. He can weave through traffic, draw several defenders, and kick it out or finish. Ginobili showed those abilities even from day one in the league.

Bonnie, being as smart as you are, you do realize that knicks1248 (who do we ap-pre-ciate!) is comparing Fields to Ginobili and using the old ""is going to be as good as" rhetoric? Meaning, not today but perhaps some time soon?

You will also note that Fields' rookie stats are pretty much better across the line as a 22 year old versus Ginobili's stats as a 25 year old rookie.