Jorts not only brings good defense down low, but the guy has great range, especially from three, and is active.

Knicksfan wrote:In terms of missing someone, its funny that you guys mention Zack and David when we already may have a better option on the team: Jorts.

Jorts not only brings good defense down low, but the guy has great range, especially from three, and is active.

Zack is and has always been a black hole on offense. He is exactly what we don't need in this system, especially with Lin taking the charge. We already have to deal with Melo's isos. The guy will rebound, and thats it. If you have a guy that brings you that quality already, why bring the bad side of his play.

Lee is a great rebounder but as bad defensively as Amar'e and even Zack. He will score you those garbage points that are nice, but that's about it.

Now, you have a young guy that plays defense better than those three, can score those garbage points, rebounds and shoots the three. What is there to hate? He isn't this good because we drafter him, so that takes your silly argument away, but because hehas already proved it with playing time. Did you miss his games?

The point is, no need to look in past failures when you have a viable option already in the roster.

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knicksfan wrote:In terms of missing someone, its funny that you guys mention Zack and David when we already may have a better option on the team: Jorts.

Jorts not only brings good defense down low, but the guy has great range, especially from three, and is active.

This is an example of posters just falling in love with anyone we draft. If the salaries were the same, there's no way an objective fan takes Jorts over Lee or Zach.

and your post in a prime example of over extrapolation. Jorts doesn't make the same as Lee or Zach, so it's a silly comparison. And why is it an example of falling in love with anyone we draft? Jorts has looked good; he's no Balkman.

Knicksfan wrote:True on Lee, but by saying garbage points, I say it in terms of the many times he scored on putbacks and offensive rebounds, but in no way is related to their value. He also developed a nice jumper at the end of his stay here, so he was a nice offensive option.

His J was MONEY by the end of his Knicks days. You could count on it like you can count on the oceans and the lands.

EnySpree wrote:Its nice to have your power fwd sticking jumpshots....what about rebounding? A'mare getting 4 rebounds should be front page news. That's a failure from the power fwd spot.

It makes you wonder if the staff is afraid to challenge A'mare or tell him he needs to rebound. Knicks lost that nets Game cuz of rebounding. Knicks lost the Miami game because A'mare failed to lead the charge on the physical attack inside on both ends. This is suppose to be our leader. You can't tell guys to work if you constantly get 4 rebounds in important games.

markvmc wrote:He's averaging 17.5 ppg, shooting 44.8% and getting 8 rebounds per game. Is that so bad?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3607

For 100$m, yes , it IS SO BAD.

markvmc wrote:He's averaging 17.5 ppg, shooting 44.8% and getting 8 rebounds per game. Is that so bad?

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/players/3607

Its bad when he gets 5 rebounds against Miami and 4 against the nets. He's got to walk in the gym at least 10 boards with skill level. there is no excuse

MarburyAnd1Crossover wrote:

franco12 wrote:For those saying Zach wouldn't fit in this system, he was part of the last squad that, albeit small sample size, was over 500.

Fits it better than some of the guys we have now.

Zach, you remember, was dropping the trey bucket, he was playing well with Jamal, we were 6-4. That was the first taste of MDA ball, and it was so good.

I thought we were 6 & 5 when they got traded - but I do remember them playing well together.

I said at the time that Zach was a skilled passer for a big man, unlike Eddy Curry who is unable to pass the ball.