BigSm00th wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:No, actually, allow me to jog your memory on this chuck master:

11 game under D'Antoni does not make a career.

A career 41% FG percentage makes a career. A career of absolutely awful defense makes a career. A career of absolutely awful shot selection and all around low basketball IQ plays makes a career.

Jamal Crawford is 32 years old and provides nothing to this team that we don't already have, except he'll make it worse with his defense. Toney Douglas provides more to this team than Crawford would and that's saying something.

i agree with this 100%.

how is he a good fit? STAT & MELO are volume scorers....and so is crawford. i loved crawford as a player. at the time we had nobody who could create their own shot, and he hit several game winning shots. i just don't see how he fits in on this team. he does not run or initiate offense, he dribbles and shoots.

two people i can think of who would be thoroughly opposed to this move are stoudemire and melo. less shots for them, less touches for them. i can see melo looking over to MDA after a typical crawford possession of fancing dribbling, an out of control drive, and a turnover, and melo being like "dude get this guy out of here. i'm all the offense we need."

what NEED does crawford fill? the fact that he can moonlight at point for a few minutes?

i would MUCH rather have douglas. guy can hit the open 3 (lead the league in 3s post-AS break last year), is a gritty and tough player, plays excellent D on opposing guards (crawford is a terrible defender), and will NOT need the ball to score (unlike crawford, who is about the farthest thing from a catch and shoot PG).

BigSm00th wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

nychamp wrote:I like bringing Craw back as a 2. Especially if it's for Balk, Walker and TD. He can play some point at times, but mostly he is a proven outside threat who can get real hot at times. In addition, he has become a smarter player since leaving the Knicks. I wouldnt expect the same flaws we saw years back. He can defend as well. Bibby and Iman would need to cover the point, which is risky, but overall the move gives us more scoring and defense, and would let Landry develop as a bench player at the 2 and the 3 spots, with significant minutes. Getting Craw would require getting Bibby though.
I like TD, but he is not a PG, and he's small for a two. Jamal is a far superior player overall.

Who plays point then? Bibby? A rookie?

I'm not opposed to JC, but he'd HAVE to play point with that "rumored" trade. And I'd rather have TD run the point than Craw

exactly. bibby freaking stinks! who watched the eastern conference finals in may. calling him a "point guard" is a disgrace to point guard. and crawford is NOT a point guard. the guy is a 2 who looks for his own shot first, second, and third. carmelo & stat would HATE playing with this guy, LOL.

Absolutely. Can you imagine what Melo and Amar'e's faces will look like when Jamal dribble the clock odwn from 15 to two and does his patented dribble-dribble-fadeaway-chuck move? The postgame interviews would get 3.8 million YouTube hits in the matter of hours

ATrain wrote:

BigSm00th wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:No, actually, allow me to jog your memory on this chuck master:

11 game under D'Antoni does not make a career.

A career 41% FG percentage makes a career. A career of absolutely awful defense makes a career. A career of absolutely awful shot selection and all around low basketball IQ plays makes a career.

Jamal Crawford is 32 years old and provides nothing to this team that we don't already have, except he'll make it worse with his defense. Toney Douglas provides more to this team than Crawford would and that's saying something.

i agree with this 100%.

how is he a good fit? STAT & MELO are volume scorers....and so is crawford. i loved crawford as a player. at the time we had nobody who could create their own shot, and he hit several game winning shots. i just don't see how he fits in on this team. he does not run or initiate offense, he dribbles and shoots.

two people i can think of who would be thoroughly opposed to this move are stoudemire and melo. less shots for them, less touches for them. i can see melo looking over to MDA after a typical crawford possession of fancing dribbling, an out of control drive, and a turnover, and melo being like "dude get this guy out of here. i'm all the offense we need."

what NEED does crawford fill? the fact that he can moonlight at point for a few minutes?

i would MUCH rather have douglas. guy can hit the open 3 (lead the league in 3s post-AS break last year), is a gritty and tough player, plays excellent D on opposing guards (crawford is a terrible defender), and will NOT need the ball to score (unlike crawford, who is about the farthest thing from a catch and shoot PG).

I thought we wanted veteran presence at the two spot? No, not any more?

when has veteran presence at 2 been a pressing need? and you acknowledge that he is a shooting guard.

a veteran in either backcourt spot would be nice, but trading the starting PG to get a SG when you already have fields is silly/illogical.

crzymdups wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:Right.

Let's throw logic and reason out the window so we can be fanboys of a guy who does crossovers and then takes contested fadeaway jumpers.

i think you mean MAKES contested fadeaway jumpers.

Nice achievement.

Tony Delk scored 53 points in a game once too.

tony delk isn't walking thru that door. we need a dynamic guard like few teams in the history of the league. you want to pay barea but not jamal?

Dynamic guard? You call an old low percentage shooting guard with no defense dynamic? If this guy's name wasn't Jamal Crawford you wouldn't care or want him on the team. But yet he is your cherished Jamal Crawford and he must return. Even if he really provides nothing to the team.

JJ Barea is more of a distributor than Jamal Crawford and a smarter player for sure. Plus he would asked to be a PG and is not known to take as many awful shots as Crawford.

Crawford needs to take 15 shots to score 15 points. No efficiency in his game at all.

SupremeCommander wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:

nychamp wrote:I like bringing Craw back as a 2. Especially if it's for Balk, Walker and TD. He can play some point at times, but mostly he is a proven outside threat who can get real hot at times. In addition, he has become a smarter player since leaving the Knicks. I wouldnt expect the same flaws we saw years back. He can defend as well. Bibby and Iman would need to cover the point, which is risky, but overall the move gives us more scoring and defense, and would let Landry develop as a bench player at the 2 and the 3 spots, with significant minutes. Getting Craw would require getting Bibby though.
I like TD, but he is not a PG, and he's small for a two. Jamal is a far superior player overall.

Who plays point then? Bibby? A rookie?

I'm not opposed to JC, but he'd HAVE to play point with that "rumored" trade. And I'd rather have TD run the point than Craw

And if the Knicks do trade for Craw to "run" the point, then Phil is definitely the next head coach of the Knicks

Agree that the rumored move for JC leaves us very weak at PG, with either Bibby or the rookie as the startung 1. While I agree that TD is the better fulltime PG than Craw, Toney is still not a good option as a starting point guard. So I think Id go with the big upgrade at the two, who is a veteran and can play some point. I think adding a legit shooter/scorer like JC as a two and improvising at the one with Bibby/Iman makes the team better overall. you then cross your fingers that by the time the playoffs roll around that someone (Iman) has gotten their rhythm at pg and the team is functioning well as a group.

crzymdups wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Childs2Dudley wrote:Right.

Let's throw logic and reason out the window so we can be fanboys of a guy who does crossovers and then takes contested fadeaway jumpers.

i think you mean MAKES contested fadeaway jumpers.

Nice achievement.

Tony Delk scored 53 points in a game once too.

tony delk isn't walking thru that door. we need a dynamic guard like few teams in the history of the league. you want to pay barea but not jamal?

thejerk wrote:I understand the need for defense but we still need guys who can score, Melo and Amare are going to account for around 50 points a game, where are the other points going to come from? TD, Landry, Williams, Shump, Bibby, Walker, yea right..I'd take Craw in an instance, especially at a discount. While TC fills a need, he doesnt put points on the board and thats where our "big three" money is slotted. Face it, Jamal can score and can be a number one scoring option at times. I would grab him in a jiff.

Really want Felton for the mle next year, he can dish, spread the floor with his shooting, play d, and take it to the hoop, perfect NY bulldog imo. We could take a pass on Craw if we had him but in the position we are in, Jamal would be a welcome addition right now.

Childs2Dudley wrote:If you mean create turnovers and terrible shots from the perimeter then Crawford can do that for you.

context is important here. what was jamal supposed to do? dump it down low to ecurry? have you seen him in atl these past few? he's good.