Knixkik wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

Mray20 wrote:Allan Houston hands down, he wasn't a high volume or streak shooter like Sprewell or even Starks for that matter, He could come of screens or create his own shot , he would be perfect inside out with Amare or Melo, he wasn't a great defender but he defiantly tried hard.

and he did Nothing else. We don't need another Novak, but we could use another ALL around guard like Spree who could facilitate, defend and was a decent re bounder.

Comparing Houston to Novak is like comparing apples to brocolli. They are two completely different players.

How so. They both do NOTHING but shoot. Neither were good at Anything else. What else was Houston good at? He wasn't a good passer or rebounder (spree was better at both)

Did you ever see Allan Houston play? He was more than a spot up 3pt shooter. He would score from anywhere on the floor. He would score on anyone. You don't see that looking at rebound and assists stats

Yeah he must have never watched Houston play. Houston was deadly in the high post, facing the basket or with his back to the basket. He could score many different ways, and was very smooth. He was average in all other areas. Only major issue i ever had with Houston was he had a tendency to disappear during games. But as far as pure shooters go, he was one of the most complete players in the league.

Exactly. Allan Houston was the epitome of what a shooting guard should be. No one will ever say Houston was a great all-around player, but not sure there is a team in the league that would not love to have a player like him as their starting shooting guard. Comparing him to Novak really is absurd. Novak is a role player; Houston was a top-tier shooting guard and a two-time All-Star.

knicks1248 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:Still would pick Starks over Houston and Spree. Houston was one dimensional and would get toasted repeatedly by the Wades, Kobe's, Gordon's, Thornton's etc of the league. Spree was exciting, but he had his greatest success with the Knicks playing the small forward spot out of position. That wouldn't work against the Lebrons and Durants of the world, and Spree was mostly effective in ISO, so can't use him at the 2. Starks was Lin when Jeremy Lin was in diapers. From bagging groceries in Oklahoma to being undrafted, to cut by Golden State, to the CBA, to making every minute count for his chance with the Knicks for an entire season. Fans may know Starks by "The Dunk" or his 3 point chucking, but not many fans knew he averaged over 5 assists a game for 3 straight seasons with the Knicks during his prime. Not only that, but he averaged a steal a game for his entire career. Another thing to point out, was Starks thrived in a 6th man role(6th man of the year 1997), so you can start or bring him off the bench, either way. Besides the dubious 2-18 Game 7 against the Rockets in the '94 Finals, Starks bled Blue and Orange for 8 years, and thrived in his role as Patrick Ewing's sidekick. Their team in '93 is the only Knicks team in recent memory to get the #1 seed in the Eastern conference. For as thrilling and improbable Houston's and Spree's Knicks were, especially in '99, nothing tops the Ewing/Starks/Oakley/Mason/Harper Knicks. Starks and that unit were battle tested and brought us oh so close to that elusive Championship.

The only reason starks avg 5ast was because he dump the ball into Ewing..

The knicks had more options on offense when Allan played, EWING, LJ, SPREE,KT..
allan toasted kobe for 50 points (which was the last time the knicks actually won in LA)

And his abilty to shoot over anybody from anywhere on the court, gives him more of an edge over starks

Exactly, Starks could execute a Pick and Roll, something Houston lacked skill wise.

Allan Houston had some big games during the end of his Knick tenure. Too bad the 53 point game vs the Lakers came when the Knicks were terrible and finished 6th in the Atlantic Division (37-45).

Mray20 wrote:I loved Starks but Allan Houston was a much better player and it's not even close, His size and mid range game outside game made him a threat from anywhere on the court, if Ewing and Allan Houton were in their primes at the same time on the Knicks that would be alot better than when it was Starks and Ewing.

yeah, and no. Houston didn't step up and assert himself enough to become the man until he was like 3years into his contract. His first season was not impressive but, by the second you got an idea of how special he could be. By year 3, he truly became H2O.

The season he had those two 50pt games he was imo the 2nd best shooting guard in the league behind only Kobe. That was his last healthy year and likely contributed to much of the angst fans felt in the following seasons.

DurzoBlint wrote:I' ve been watching the KNicks longer than many of you have been alive. And your taking my posts out of context which, is no surprise here. I said Houston does nothing other than shoot, is a poor defender and as such is not the best fit. I mentioned Novak because like Houston all he does is shoot, the only difference is Houston could get create his own shot. No surprise at the lack of reading comprehension here.

That's the only difference between Novak and Houston? You aren't being taken out of context, you are saying Novak and Houston are similar and that is very far from the truth. I am just taking your comparison of Houston and Novak with the exception of Houston's shot-creating ability and saying you are very far off.

DurzoBlint wrote:

Allanfan20 wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:

Mray20 wrote:Allan Houston hands down, he wasn't a high volume or streak shooter like Sprewell or even Starks for that matter, He could come of screens or create his own shot , he would be perfect inside out with Amare or Melo, he wasn't a great defender but he defiantly tried hard.

and he did Nothing else. We don't need another Novak, but we could use another ALL around guard like Spree who could facilitate, defend and was a decent re bounder.

Comparing Houston to Novak is like comparing apples to brocolli. They are two completely different players.

How so. They both do NOTHING but shoot. Neither were good at Anything else. What else was Houston good at? He wasn't a good passer or rebounder (spree was better at both)

Solid passer (Despite the low assist numbers, he was pretty good), piss poor rebounder, ehh ok ball handler, outstanding moving without the ball, outstanding moving in the open floor, outstanding shooter from anywhere on the court, didn't turn the ball over much, decent on the man defender (Could have been worse, could have been better.) poor off the ball defender, could shoot off the dribble, took the ball to the rim when he needed, but he could have done it more.

Substance over style player.

Allanfan20 wrote:

DurzoBlint wrote:I have been watching likely longer than you have been alive....I said that already. Also, Novak camps out on the 3 but, he's not just a 3 point shooter, its just how we utilized him. He has a mid-range jump shot. The only real difference is that Houston can get his own shot off. He wasn't a slasher or anything like that so, as I said, you still haven't answered my question unless your saying the difference is that Houston took a lot more midrange jump shots. He was never really that big about moving without the ball, you must be confusing him with Miller. Yeah, that's a huge difference.

With this post, I'm not argueing with you anymore because you're obviously trolling. Either that, or you come up with things very deep from the abyss of your arshole. I did answer your question and you obviously haven't been watching the Knicks much. In fact, you obviously don't watch the Knicks now. There has not been one time in Novaks pro career where he was utilized as a mid range player. If he had a midrange game, believe me, he would have been used because in this era, finding a mid range player is almost like hitting the lotto. There just aren't anymore of those players who are efficient like how Allan, Ray, Rip Hamilton, and Miller were.

Durzo, there are a lot of old Knicks games on Youtube now. If you don't want to trust my word that Allan didn't move without the ball then feel free to check out some of those games. You're point has already been proven wrong but now you'll be able to actually watch it.

Enjoy the boards and hopefully you can start making posts a lot better than what you have. This wasn't your best showing.

Just because we disagree or can't come to a common ground does not make me a troll...it makes me an individual! Sometimes people need to learn to agree to disagree and respect each others opinion. I don't have a problem with you seeing things differently.