Uptown wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

Uptown wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:$100 million all star starter..a bench player, gimme me break, not to mention 3rd in MVP votes..

Bench, starting line-up, these are superficial matters. What is superficial? It's surface, unrelated to function.

What's the difference between starting and coming off the bench if you are playing 34 minutes per game and on the floor when the buzzer sounds in the fourth?

If its so superficial, why didn't coach Spo just bring Lebron off the bench? Starting is Status! Always has been. You dont pay someone close to 100mil to come off the bench. Remember the big stink Sprewell made when he was coming off the bench?

And status is superficial, it's an abstraction, an idea.

LeBron isn't coming off the bench because he serves the team best by starting. Amar'e is not even near LeBron's level, in skills nor in talent. If it would serve the team better to have Amar'e come off the bench and still get his 30, 35 minute, I don't see a problem. But I do understand why Amar'e might see it as a problem.

When did you come to the conslusion that Amare best serves this team by coming off the bench? And who replaces him? Jorts? If its Jorts, did you believe he would best serve this team as a starter when you watched him look like a deer in headlights against the Lakers?

I never came to this conclusion. I said if Amar'e can help us as 6th man, then it should be done.

This is the question of the thread: would Amar'e as 6th man make the team 'deeper'? But the dialogue fell from the top of the Christmas tree, the question most are discussing is: would Amar'e as 6th man hurt his feelings
?

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

Uptown wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

Uptown wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:$100 million all star starter..a bench player, gimme me break, not to mention 3rd in MVP votes..

Bench, starting line-up, these are superficial matters. What is superficial? It's surface, unrelated to function.

What's the difference between starting and coming off the bench if you are playing 34 minutes per game and on the floor when the buzzer sounds in the fourth?

If its so superficial, why didn't coach Spo just bring Lebron off the bench? Starting is Status! Always has been. You dont pay someone close to 100mil to come off the bench. Remember the big stink Sprewell made when he was coming off the bench?

And status is superficial, it's an abstraction, an idea.

LeBron isn't coming off the bench because he serves the team best by starting. Amar'e is not even near LeBron's level, in skills nor in talent. If it would serve the team better to have Amar'e come off the bench and still get his 30, 35 minute, I don't see a problem. But I do understand why Amar'e might see it as a problem.

When did you come to the conslusion that Amare best serves this team by coming off the bench? And who replaces him? Jorts? If its Jorts, did you believe he would best serve this team as a starter when you watched him look like a deer in headlights against the Lakers?

I never came to this conclusion. I said if Amar'e can help us as 6th man, then it should be done.

This is the question of the thread: would Amar'e as 6th man make the team 'deeper'? But the dialogue fell from the top of the Christmas tree, the question most are discussing is: would Amar'e as 6th man hurt his feelings
?

Backpedal of the year so far.

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

babyKnicks wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

Uptown wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

Uptown wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:$100 million all star starter..a bench player, gimme me break, not to mention 3rd in MVP votes..

Bench, starting line-up, these are superficial matters. What is superficial? It's surface, unrelated to function.

What's the difference between starting and coming off the bench if you are playing 34 minutes per game and on the floor when the buzzer sounds in the fourth?

If its so superficial, why didn't coach Spo just bring Lebron off the bench? Starting is Status! Always has been. You dont pay someone close to 100mil to come off the bench. Remember the big stink Sprewell made when he was coming off the bench?

And status is superficial, it's an abstraction, an idea.

LeBron isn't coming off the bench because he serves the team best by starting. Amar'e is not even near LeBron's level, in skills nor in talent. If it would serve the team better to have Amar'e come off the bench and still get his 30, 35 minute, I don't see a problem. But I do understand why Amar'e might see it as a problem.

When did you come to the conslusion that Amare best serves this team by coming off the bench? And who replaces him? Jorts? If its Jorts, did you believe he would best serve this team as a starter when you watched him look like a deer in headlights against the Lakers?

I never came to this conclusion. I said if Amar'e can help us as 6th man, then it should be done.

This is the question of the thread: would Amar'e as 6th man make the team 'deeper'? But the dialogue fell from the top of the Christmas tree, the question most are discussing is: would Amar'e as 6th man hurt his feelings
?

Backpedal of the year so far.

Show me the backpedal.

Two posts up: "If it would serve the team better to have Amar'e come off the bench and still get his 30, 35 minute, I don't see a problem."

that was the intent of the thread...some chose to take it somewhere else. what can I say, Knicks fans just love to hate

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

babyKnicks wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

Uptown wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

Uptown wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:$100 million all star starter..a bench player, gimme me break, not to mention 3rd in MVP votes..

Bench, starting line-up, these are superficial matters. What is superficial? It's surface, unrelated to function.

What's the difference between starting and coming off the bench if you are playing 34 minutes per game and on the floor when the buzzer sounds in the fourth?

If its so superficial, why didn't coach Spo just bring Lebron off the bench? Starting is Status! Always has been. You dont pay someone close to 100mil to come off the bench. Remember the big stink Sprewell made when he was coming off the bench?

And status is superficial, it's an abstraction, an idea.

LeBron isn't coming off the bench because he serves the team best by starting. Amar'e is not even near LeBron's level, in skills nor in talent. If it would serve the team better to have Amar'e come off the bench and still get his 30, 35 minute, I don't see a problem. But I do understand why Amar'e might see it as a problem.

When did you come to the conslusion that Amare best serves this team by coming off the bench? And who replaces him? Jorts? If its Jorts, did you believe he would best serve this team as a starter when you watched him look like a deer in headlights against the Lakers?

I never came to this conclusion. I said if Amar'e can help us as 6th man, then it should be done.

This is the question of the thread: would Amar'e as 6th man make the team 'deeper'? But the dialogue fell from the top of the Christmas tree, the question most are discussing is: would Amar'e as 6th man hurt his feelings
?

Backpedal of the year so far.

Show me the backpedal.

Two posts up: "If it would serve the team better to have Amar'e come off the bench and still get his 30, 35 minute, I don't see a problem."

Lebron is better then Amare...is that like Adrian Peterson is better then Brady

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

Rookie wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

babyKnicks wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

Uptown wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

Uptown wrote:

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:$100 million all star starter..a bench player, gimme me break, not to mention 3rd in MVP votes..

Bench, starting line-up, these are superficial matters. What is superficial? It's surface, unrelated to function.

What's the difference between starting and coming off the bench if you are playing 34 minutes per game and on the floor when the buzzer sounds in the fourth?

If its so superficial, why didn't coach Spo just bring Lebron off the bench? Starting is Status! Always has been. You dont pay someone close to 100mil to come off the bench. Remember the big stink Sprewell made when he was coming off the bench?

And status is superficial, it's an abstraction, an idea.

LeBron isn't coming off the bench because he serves the team best by starting. Amar'e is not even near LeBron's level, in skills nor in talent. If it would serve the team better to have Amar'e come off the bench and still get his 30, 35 minute, I don't see a problem. But I do understand why Amar'e might see it as a problem.

When did you come to the conslusion that Amare best serves this team by coming off the bench? And who replaces him? Jorts? If its Jorts, did you believe he would best serve this team as a starter when you watched him look like a deer in headlights against the Lakers?

I never came to this conclusion. I said if Amar'e can help us as 6th man, then it should be done.

This is the question of the thread: would Amar'e as 6th man make the team 'deeper'? But the dialogue fell from the top of the Christmas tree, the question most are discussing is: would Amar'e as 6th man hurt his feelings
?

Backpedal of the year so far.

Show me the backpedal.

Two posts up: "If it would serve the team better to have Amar'e come off the bench and still get his 30, 35 minute, I don't see a problem."

that was the intent of the thread...some chose to take it somewhere else. what can I say, Knicks fans just love to hate

I think the idea, initially, is a little shocking, so I understand why the question was lost.

It would be interesting if the brains on the forum would address it. What does that 5 or 6 minute offset change as far as the game on the floor?

Imagine starting a game against the Celts or Heat with STAT not in the starting line up. The last thing I would want is for our oppositions PF go off in the first 5-6 minutes of a game.

Rookie wrote:I adjust happened to watch the Christmas day game that I had DVR'd last night.The starting line up looked good in the opening quarter and the substitutions with a healthy bench were working nicely. The club played with great energy....but I need to remember that this was a Boston team w/o Pierce. Rondo pretty much provided most of their scoring in the opening quarter, but the Knicks were moving the ball decently and hitting shots. Shump provided great energy as the 6th man even if his shots were not falling.

The 2nd quarter featured Amare, Douglas, Shump, Walker (who got in foul trouble and was replaced by Balkman) and Jeffries. They had a good rhythm with Amare as the go to scorer and Shump cutting and spreading the floor. When Melo and Chandler came back in things started to stall somewhat.

The third Q was horrendous with the starters. After Melo and Chandler went to the bench Amare, Douglas, Fields/Shump and the subs did a nice job of holding it down and Boston's 8 point lead stayed the same with both clubs scoring. They basically stopped the bleeding then.....

The 4th was Melo time with Amare on the bench..... and the starters did a nice job of closing the game out.

to me, it looked like MDA rested Amare in the 1st, Melo in the second, Melo in the 3rd and Amare in the 4th with the starters to close the game. Shumpert was a huge catalyst playing off Amare nicely and letting Douglass also become a scorer. Some of this could have been due to fould troubles, but it looked to work effectively

Good summary. I think the team will definitely evolve into what you are describing, with some additions about player combos:

Melo and Chandler will play minutes together. Baron, Amare, Jorts, Jefferies will get time. Depending on fouls, Melo first to bench followed by Amare when he comes back in.

MSG3 wrote:

Rookie wrote:revisiting this discussion one year later

This is a completely different discussion now. This time around, with the health issues, different roster, different coach, etc...maybe it would make sense. MAYBE. But seeing what Woody has done I have confidence that Melo and STAT can be the "sky is the limit" duo a lot of people thought they could be. I really have a lot of faith in this teams coaching.

Same front court - Melo/Amare/Chandler. I agree that having Woodson as the coach will make a difference, but not in the way that you imply. I think the key to Amare's minutes will be not if he can score....but if he can defend and rebound. I don't think the problem is Melo/Amare. The problem is Chandler/Amare. Sheed/Amare would be a better combo. Sheed can do more then cut to the basket with PNR and alleyoop passes. You have to respect his shot out the the 3 pt. line, and he can post up. Also, when Amare isn't touching the ball he tends to just stand on the elbow. Another key to Amare's playing time will be whether or not he passes out of double and triple teams instead of forcing his shots.