dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

dk7th wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

tkf wrote:

when I say Pg is a problem, I mean it is not a position that has contender worthy play... remember this is a veteran team. we are not a young team, the goal is championship and we are lacking.... I just see too many holes and Pg being one of them..

Our PG players are adequate- that's all you need. Look at the PGs on a lot of championship teams- they aren't great!

Yup. Mario Chalmers, past his prime JKidd, Derek Fisher, Rookie Rondo. Only exception is Tony P.

Not a Point Guard era anymore like the 80s and 90s.

if melo was a decent playmaker then you would only need a so-so point guard, but he isn't so we need a better than so-so point guard.

How many play makers do the Bulls have besides Rose? Stop the BS about such nonsense that you come up with just because its the Knicks!!! What about the Thunder? You can't just focus flaws and not pay more attention to how the team actually functions overall. This team is going to be a nightmare for other teams. This team has great depth and a solid talent level. Also tho this team isn't full of 2 way players they can defend.

We can't get crazy about the flaws of our top players and ignore the fact that despite those flaws they can and have played some great BB.

there is bs and nonsense and then there are facts:

1) joakim noah is an elite passer among centers at 4 assists per game. an astonishing 17.2%USG and 17.6%AST which is point guard territory

2) deng averages 3 assists per game on 21.5%USG and 13.2%AST for a ratio 1.62:1 which is shooting guard territory

3) hinrich as a shooting guard is also a terrific playmaker from that position

the bulls have superior coaching, putting defense above all else, followed by ball movement. without rose, however, they were exhausted, just like the celtics without rondo. but as with all great teams they exceeded expectations in the playoffs, they overachieved. they played good basketball even without rose.

the knicks? not so much.

I stand corrected on that point. Those are all great points and yet despite all of that the Bulls ended up 23rd in offensive efficiency minus Rose, so what did it get them? Showing how many assists a particular player gets doesn't really get to the overall issue of how effective the offense actually is.

I failed to make a good point by going after the term "play maker" and not elaborating on my point any further, but I brought up Rose to highlight the point that it's mostly his presence that makes the difference offensively. With Rose they were ranked #5 in the league in offensive efficiency rather than 23rd without him. So it's not just the willingness to pass the ball, but something more elusive in terms of scoring ability and creating better shots. Having Rose be such an important factor is a plus and a minus. If a team can shut Rose down to any extent it seriously hurts that team.

What I think is more important for the Knicks is to make sure that they balance the ratio of Team Offense to ISO offense. When they get more Team Offense it's proven that they are a very potent team. They still can make good use of the ISO, but it can't rise to the high % that it did in the playoffs. That is unhealthy. Now they really don't have any reason to have that problem, since the team is deeper with more scorers and play makers. Melo has shown that he can be a play maker and I think with more players around him that he trusts that will help him to be more ready to pass the ball to his teammates. If you played with Kidd bricking shot after shot it would make you go ISO too.

ChuckBuck wrote:

dk7th wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

dk7th wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

tkf wrote:

when I say Pg is a problem, I mean it is not a position that has contender worthy play... remember this is a veteran team. we are not a young team, the goal is championship and we are lacking.... I just see too many holes and Pg being one of them..

Our PG players are adequate- that's all you need. Look at the PGs on a lot of championship teams- they aren't great!

Yup. Mario Chalmers, past his prime JKidd, Derek Fisher, Rookie Rondo. Only exception is Tony P.

Not a Point Guard era anymore like the 80s and 90s.

if melo was a decent playmaker then you would only need a so-so point guard, but he isn't so we need a better than so-so point guard.

I forget was Dirk Nowitzki a decent playmaker in 2011? Every stat I looked at says he sucked ass in distributing.

dirk kept the ball moving and he clearly was coached well to anticipate converging doubles in order for the ball to beat the rotators to the open spot. when melo is critiqued for allowing the ball to "stick" you should be thinking about dirk as a point of contrast.

and then there's that nagging efficiency/TS% issue-- dirk that year was an elite 61%TS.

so yes a case can be made for dirk being a playmaker.

Still don't see any stats to support your argument. Who doesn't pass out of a double team? Just pure bias as usual.

eye test is not bias. they kept the ball moving ahead of the heat, and kept their turnovers to a minimum. do you disagree with these assertions?

nowadays teams are starting to keep track of hockey assists, which is overdue. as recently as 2-3 years ago it was likely not a common practice. now i believe the heat and the spurs keep track of this, maybe most teams do, maybe even the knicks.

and i did not say "pass out of a double team." i use a very different phrase representing a different dynamic. i said "he clearly was coached well to anticipate converging doubles in order for the ball to beat the rotators to the open spot."

nixluva wrote:

dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

dk7th wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

tkf wrote:

when I say Pg is a problem, I mean it is not a position that has contender worthy play... remember this is a veteran team. we are not a young team, the goal is championship and we are lacking.... I just see too many holes and Pg being one of them..

Our PG players are adequate- that's all you need. Look at the PGs on a lot of championship teams- they aren't great!

Yup. Mario Chalmers, past his prime JKidd, Derek Fisher, Rookie Rondo. Only exception is Tony P.

Not a Point Guard era anymore like the 80s and 90s.

if melo was a decent playmaker then you would only need a so-so point guard, but he isn't so we need a better than so-so point guard.

How many play makers do the Bulls have besides Rose? Stop the BS about such nonsense that you come up with just because its the Knicks!!! What about the Thunder? You can't just focus flaws and not pay more attention to how the team actually functions overall. This team is going to be a nightmare for other teams. This team has great depth and a solid talent level. Also tho this team isn't full of 2 way players they can defend.

We can't get crazy about the flaws of our top players and ignore the fact that despite those flaws they can and have played some great BB.

there is bs and nonsense and then there are facts:

1) joakim noah is an elite passer among centers at 4 assists per game. an astonishing 17.2%USG and 17.6%AST which is point guard territory

2) deng averages 3 assists per game on 21.5%USG and 13.2%AST for a ratio 1.62:1 which is shooting guard territory

3) hinrich as a shooting guard is also a terrific playmaker from that position

the bulls have superior coaching, putting defense above all else, followed by ball movement. without rose, however, they were exhausted, just like the celtics without rondo. but as with all great teams they exceeded expectations in the playoffs, they overachieved. they played good basketball even without rose.

the knicks? not so much.

I stand corrected on that point. Those are all great points and yet despite all of that the Bulls ended up 23rd in offensive efficiency minus Rose, so what did it get them? Showing how many assists a particular player gets doesn't really get to the overall issue of how effective the offense actually is.

I failed to make a good point by going after the term "play maker" and not elaborating on my point any further, but I brought up Rose to highlight the point that it's mostly his presence that makes the difference offensively. With Rose they were ranked #5 in the league in offensive efficiency rather than 23rd without him. So it's not just the willingness to pass the ball, but something more elusive in terms of scoring ability and creating better shots. Having Rose be such an important factor is a plus and a minus. If a team can shut Rose down to any extent it seriously hurts that team.

What I think is more important for the Knicks is to make sure that they balance the ratio of Team Offense to ISO offense. When they get more Team Offense it's proven that they are a very potent team. They still can make good use of the ISO, but it can't rise to the high % that it did in the playoffs. That is unhealthy. Now they really don't have any reason to have that problem, since the team is deeper with more scorers and play makers. Melo has shown that he can be a play maker and I think with more players around him that he trusts that will help him to be more ready to pass the ball to his teammates. If you played with Kidd bricking shot after shot it would make you go ISO too.

you know what this a very very good post, very thought-provoking. i will simply offer that what tkf said a few posts ago still holds true: you smother rose as james has done and then the bulls will definitely struggle. but during the regular season rose will likely abuse most opponents.

but lets take what you say about the bulls with and without rose: without an elite defender in his face he has proven to be very tough to stop on drives, but defenses have learned that you can force him into taking lower percentage shots at the rim because he often commits to the air and loses the ability to create off the dribble with pocket passes and the like. it just so happens that he was so effective at getting to the rim more of the time than not that you could almost look past his sketchy orchestrating skills.

the bulls offense is a little odd to me. lots of willing passers but collectively they do not shoot well, and rose's presence or absence does not really affect this... they shoot about the same with or without him.

so i wonder what it really means that a team has better "offensive efficiency." can you post the formula you use?

dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

dk7th wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

tkf wrote:

when I say Pg is a problem, I mean it is not a position that has contender worthy play... remember this is a veteran team. we are not a young team, the goal is championship and we are lacking.... I just see too many holes and Pg being one of them..

Our PG players are adequate- that's all you need. Look at the PGs on a lot of championship teams- they aren't great!

Yup. Mario Chalmers, past his prime JKidd, Derek Fisher, Rookie Rondo. Only exception is Tony P.

Not a Point Guard era anymore like the 80s and 90s.

if melo was a decent playmaker then you would only need a so-so point guard, but he isn't so we need a better than so-so point guard.

How many play makers do the Bulls have besides Rose? Stop the BS about such nonsense that you come up with just because its the Knicks!!! What about the Thunder? You can't just focus flaws and not pay more attention to how the team actually functions overall. This team is going to be a nightmare for other teams. This team has great depth and a solid talent level. Also tho this team isn't full of 2 way players they can defend.

We can't get crazy about the flaws of our top players and ignore the fact that despite those flaws they can and have played some great BB.

there is bs and nonsense and then there are facts:

1) joakim noah is an elite passer among centers at 4 assists per game. an astonishing 17.2%USG and 17.6%AST which is point guard territory

2) deng averages 3 assists per game on 21.5%USG and 13.2%AST for a ratio 1.62:1 which is shooting guard territory

3) hinrich as a shooting guard is also a terrific playmaker from that position

the bulls have superior coaching, putting defense above all else, followed by ball movement. without rose, however, they were exhausted, just like the celtics without rondo. but as with all great teams they exceeded expectations in the playoffs, they overachieved. they played good basketball even without rose.

the knicks? not so much.

I stand corrected on that point. Those are all great points and yet despite all of that the Bulls ended up 23rd in offensive efficiency minus Rose, so what did it get them? Showing how many assists a particular player gets doesn't really get to the overall issue of how effective the offense actually is.

I failed to make a good point by going after the term "play maker" and not elaborating on my point any further, but I brought up Rose to highlight the point that it's mostly his presence that makes the difference offensively. With Rose they were ranked #5 in the league in offensive efficiency rather than 23rd without him. So it's not just the willingness to pass the ball, but something more elusive in terms of scoring ability and creating better shots. Having Rose be such an important factor is a plus and a minus. If a team can shut Rose down to any extent it seriously hurts that team.

What I think is more important for the Knicks is to make sure that they balance the ratio of Team Offense to ISO offense. When they get more Team Offense it's proven that they are a very potent team. They still can make good use of the ISO, but it can't rise to the high % that it did in the playoffs. That is unhealthy. Now they really don't have any reason to have that problem, since the team is deeper with more scorers and play makers. Melo has shown that he can be a play maker and I think with more players around him that he trusts that will help him to be more ready to pass the ball to his teammates. If you played with Kidd bricking shot after shot it would make you go ISO too.

you know what this a very very good post, very thought-provoking. i will simply offer that what tkf said a few posts ago still holds true: you smother rose as james has done and then the bulls will definitely struggle. but during the regular season rose will likely abuse most opponents.

but lets take what you say about the bulls with and without rose: without an elite defender in his face he has proven to be very tough to stop on drives, but defenses have learned that you can force him into taking lower percentage shots at the rim because he often commits to the air and loses the ability to create off the dribble with pocket passes and the like. it just so happens that he was so effective at getting to the rim more of the time than not that you could almost look past his sketchy orchestrating skills.

the bulls offense is a little odd to me. lots of willing passers but collectively they do not shoot well, and rose's presence or absence does not really affect this... they shoot about the same with or without him.

so i wonder what it really means that a team has better "offensive efficiency." can you post the formula you use?

The Bulls are weird and so are the Knicks. To go back to the beginning, what Woody learned is what I always knew about MDA's offense. His offense in PHX was basically all the high efficiency parts of the NBA game. His teams took 3's, got tons of 50% plus shots at the rim off PnR. The Knicks under Woodson have pretty much tried to follow those same principles tho at a much slower pace. The Suns would run off makes which the Knicks don't do. This is more of a half court offense.

Comparing the Bulls and Knicks, the Knicks either took open 3's and shot at 37% or got PnR shots at the rim. They also used ISO which because we have Melo and JR who can score that way was also somewhat effective. When this team was at it's best they didn't over rely on ISO but rather teams oriented sets that lead to high % shots from 3pt range or at the rim.

Chicago was down around 35% from 3 but while NY was at 28.9 3pt shot attempts which was the top of the league, Chicago was 2nd to last with only 15.4 3pt attempts. So that means that a larger % of their shots were low % mid range shots. Both teams took pretty much the exact same number of shots at about 82 shots per game. Pretty much the same number of FT attempts too. But the Bulls lack of ability to shoot the 3 kills them. This is why they haven't been that efficient. Rose would increase the number of shots at the rim a lot and probably the number of 3pt'ers and FT attempts too.

tkf wrote:

nixluva wrote:

dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

dk7th wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

tkf wrote:

when I say Pg is a problem, I mean it is not a position that has contender worthy play... remember this is a veteran team. we are not a young team, the goal is championship and we are lacking.... I just see too many holes and Pg being one of them..

Our PG players are adequate- that's all you need. Look at the PGs on a lot of championship teams- they aren't great!

Yup. Mario Chalmers, past his prime JKidd, Derek Fisher, Rookie Rondo. Only exception is Tony P.

Not a Point Guard era anymore like the 80s and 90s.

if melo was a decent playmaker then you would only need a so-so point guard, but he isn't so we need a better than so-so point guard.

How many play makers do the Bulls have besides Rose? Stop the BS about such nonsense that you come up with just because its the Knicks!!! What about the Thunder? You can't just focus flaws and not pay more attention to how the team actually functions overall. This team is going to be a nightmare for other teams. This team has great depth and a solid talent level. Also tho this team isn't full of 2 way players they can defend.

We can't get crazy about the flaws of our top players and ignore the fact that despite those flaws they can and have played some great BB.

there is bs and nonsense and then there are facts:

1) joakim noah is an elite passer among centers at 4 assists per game. an astonishing 17.2%USG and 17.6%AST which is point guard territory

2) deng averages 3 assists per game on 21.5%USG and 13.2%AST for a ratio 1.62:1 which is shooting guard territory

3) hinrich as a shooting guard is also a terrific playmaker from that position

the bulls have superior coaching, putting defense above all else, followed by ball movement. without rose, however, they were exhausted, just like the celtics without rondo. but as with all great teams they exceeded expectations in the playoffs, they overachieved. they played good basketball even without rose.

the knicks? not so much.

I stand corrected on that point. Those are all great points and yet despite all of that the Bulls ended up 23rd in offensive efficiency minus Rose, so what did it get them? Showing how many assists a particular player gets doesn't really get to the overall issue of how effective the offense actually is.

I failed to make a good point by going after the term "play maker" and not elaborating on my point any further, but I brought up Rose to highlight the point that it's mostly his presence that makes the difference offensively. With Rose they were ranked #5 in the league in offensive efficiency rather than 23rd without him. So it's not just the willingness to pass the ball, but something more elusive in terms of scoring ability and creating better shots. Having Rose be such an important factor is a plus and a minus. If a team can shut Rose down to any extent it seriously hurts that team.

What I think is more important for the Knicks is to make sure that they balance the ratio of Team Offense to ISO offense. When they get more Team Offense it's proven that they are a very potent team. They still can make good use of the ISO, but it can't rise to the high % that it did in the playoffs. That is unhealthy. Now they really don't have any reason to have that problem, since the team is deeper with more scorers and play makers. Melo has shown that he can be a play maker and I think with more players around him that he trusts that will help him to be more ready to pass the ball to his teammates. If you played with Kidd bricking shot after shot it would make you go ISO too.

you know what this a very very good post, very thought-provoking. i will simply offer that what tkf said a few posts ago still holds true: you smother rose as james has done and then the bulls will definitely struggle. but during the regular season rose will likely abuse most opponents.

but lets take what you say about the bulls with and without rose: without an elite defender in his face he has proven to be very tough to stop on drives, but defenses have learned that you can force him into taking lower percentage shots at the rim because he often commits to the air and loses the ability to create off the dribble with pocket passes and the like. it just so happens that he was so effective at getting to the rim more of the time than not that you could almost look past his sketchy orchestrating skills.

the bulls offense is a little odd to me. lots of willing passers but collectively they do not shoot well, and rose's presence or absence does not really affect this... they shoot about the same with or without him.

so i wonder what it really means that a team has better "offensive efficiency." can you post the formula you use?

The Bulls are weird and so are the Knicks. To go back to the beginning, what Woody learned is what I always knew about MDA's offense. His offense in PHX was basically all the high efficiency parts of the NBA game. His teams took 3's, got tons of 50% plus shots at the rim off PnR. The Knicks under Woodson have pretty much tried to follow those same principles tho at a much slower pace. The Suns would run off makes which the Knicks don't do. This is more of a half court offense.

Comparing the Bulls and Knicks, the Knicks either took open 3's and shot at 37% or got PnR shots at the rim. They also used ISO which because we have Melo and JR who can score that way was also somewhat effective. When this team was at it's best they didn't over rely on ISO but rather teams oriented sets that lead to high % shots from 3pt range or at the rim.

Chicago was down around 35% from 3 but while NY was at 28.9 3pt shot attempts which was the top of the league, Chicago was 2nd to last with only 15.4 3pt attempts. So that means that a larger % of their shots were low % mid range shots. Both teams took pretty much the exact same number of shots at about 82 shots per game. Pretty much the same number of FT attempts too. But the Bulls lack of ability to shoot the 3 kills them. This is why they haven't been that efficient. Rose would increase the number of shots at the rim a lot and probably the number of 3pt'ers and FT attempts too.

BUT What hurts the knicks the most is that we do not score points in the paint and we don't rebound... 34ppg in the paint is just horrible... that means you are taking too many lower percentage shots, or most likely you are.... the bulls are a bigger team, that passes well, defends and rebounds pretty well.. very well actually..

now you make look at the heat and say well they were last in rebounding.. well true, but they have a dynamic we or many teams don't.... lebron and wade, and honestly, rebounding is their weakness and has left them vulnerable, hence them losing to the mavs a couple of years ago and almost losing to the spurs last year.... the problem is, we are not good enough to exploit that weakness because we are weak there ourselves..

Cant recall where i posted it, but the Spurs Heat and that ship mavs team were so elite on offense there is just less statistical boards to get...kinda like the 08 Celtics.

But these teams get boards they need...we've seen it.

The Knicks definitely need to score more in the paint, and it would be nice if the makeup was to crash the boards on misses like the Bulls and Pacers do..they make up for bad offense with a influx of second chance points.

But ultimately it's a dangerous game the Knicks are trying to play...they essentially are going to try to bury their opponent early with offense.

Wouldnt be my method of attack, but time will tell how it works.

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

nixluva wrote:

dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

dk7th wrote:

nixluva wrote:

dk7th wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

tkf wrote:

when I say Pg is a problem, I mean it is not a position that has contender worthy play... remember this is a veteran team. we are not a young team, the goal is championship and we are lacking.... I just see too many holes and Pg being one of them..

Our PG players are adequate- that's all you need. Look at the PGs on a lot of championship teams- they aren't great!

Yup. Mario Chalmers, past his prime JKidd, Derek Fisher, Rookie Rondo. Only exception is Tony P.

Not a Point Guard era anymore like the 80s and 90s.

if melo was a decent playmaker then you would only need a so-so point guard, but he isn't so we need a better than so-so point guard.

How many play makers do the Bulls have besides Rose? Stop the BS about such nonsense that you come up with just because its the Knicks!!! What about the Thunder? You can't just focus flaws and not pay more attention to how the team actually functions overall. This team is going to be a nightmare for other teams. This team has great depth and a solid talent level. Also tho this team isn't full of 2 way players they can defend.

We can't get crazy about the flaws of our top players and ignore the fact that despite those flaws they can and have played some great BB.

there is bs and nonsense and then there are facts:

1) joakim noah is an elite passer among centers at 4 assists per game. an astonishing 17.2%USG and 17.6%AST which is point guard territory

2) deng averages 3 assists per game on 21.5%USG and 13.2%AST for a ratio 1.62:1 which is shooting guard territory

3) hinrich as a shooting guard is also a terrific playmaker from that position

the bulls have superior coaching, putting defense above all else, followed by ball movement. without rose, however, they were exhausted, just like the celtics without rondo. but as with all great teams they exceeded expectations in the playoffs, they overachieved. they played good basketball even without rose.

the knicks? not so much.

I stand corrected on that point. Those are all great points and yet despite all of that the Bulls ended up 23rd in offensive efficiency minus Rose, so what did it get them? Showing how many assists a particular player gets doesn't really get to the overall issue of how effective the offense actually is.

I failed to make a good point by going after the term "play maker" and not elaborating on my point any further, but I brought up Rose to highlight the point that it's mostly his presence that makes the difference offensively. With Rose they were ranked #5 in the league in offensive efficiency rather than 23rd without him. So it's not just the willingness to pass the ball, but something more elusive in terms of scoring ability and creating better shots. Having Rose be such an important factor is a plus and a minus. If a team can shut Rose down to any extent it seriously hurts that team.

What I think is more important for the Knicks is to make sure that they balance the ratio of Team Offense to ISO offense. When they get more Team Offense it's proven that they are a very potent team. They still can make good use of the ISO, but it can't rise to the high % that it did in the playoffs. That is unhealthy. Now they really don't have any reason to have that problem, since the team is deeper with more scorers and play makers. Melo has shown that he can be a play maker and I think with more players around him that he trusts that will help him to be more ready to pass the ball to his teammates. If you played with Kidd bricking shot after shot it would make you go ISO too.

you know what this a very very good post, very thought-provoking. i will simply offer that what tkf said a few posts ago still holds true: you smother rose as james has done and then the bulls will definitely struggle. but during the regular season rose will likely abuse most opponents.

but lets take what you say about the bulls with and without rose: without an elite defender in his face he has proven to be very tough to stop on drives, but defenses have learned that you can force him into taking lower percentage shots at the rim because he often commits to the air and loses the ability to create off the dribble with pocket passes and the like. it just so happens that he was so effective at getting to the rim more of the time than not that you could almost look past his sketchy orchestrating skills.

the bulls offense is a little odd to me. lots of willing passers but collectively they do not shoot well, and rose's presence or absence does not really affect this... they shoot about the same with or without him.

so i wonder what it really means that a team has better "offensive efficiency." can you post the formula you use?

The Bulls are weird and so are the Knicks. To go back to the beginning, what Woody learned is what I always knew about MDA's offense. His offense in PHX was basically all the high efficiency parts of the NBA game. His teams took 3's, got tons of 50% plus shots at the rim off PnR. The Knicks under Woodson have pretty much tried to follow those same principles tho at a much slower pace. The Suns would run off makes which the Knicks don't do. This is more of a half court offense.

Comparing the Bulls and Knicks, the Knicks either took open 3's and shot at 37% or got PnR shots at the rim. They also used ISO which because we have Melo and JR who can score that way was also somewhat effective. When this team was at it's best they didn't over rely on ISO but rather teams oriented sets that lead to high % shots from 3pt range or at the rim.

Chicago was down around 35% from 3 but while NY was at 28.9 3pt shot attempts which was the top of the league, Chicago was 2nd to last with only 15.4 3pt attempts. So that means that a larger % of their shots were low % mid range shots. Both teams took pretty much the exact same number of shots at about 82 shots per game. Pretty much the same number of FT attempts too. But the Bulls lack of ability to shoot the 3 kills them. This is why they haven't been that efficient. Rose would increase the number of shots at the rim a lot and probably the number of 3pt'ers and FT attempts too.

BUT What hurts the knicks the most is that we do not score points in the paint and we don't rebound... 34ppg in the paint is just horrible... that means you are taking too many lower percentage shots, or most likely you are.... the bulls are a bigger team, that passes well, defends and rebounds pretty well.. very well actually..

now you make look at the heat and say well they were last in rebounding.. well true, but they have a dynamic we or many teams don't.... lebron and wade, and honestly, rebounding is their weakness and has left them vulnerable, hence them losing to the mavs a couple of years ago and almost losing to the spurs last year.... the problem is, we are not good enough to exploit that weakness because we are weak there ourselves..

Mimai imo opinion has the illusion of being a bad rebounding team, but actually arent.

Cant recall where i posted it, but the Spurs Heat and that ship mavs team were so elite on offense there is just less statistical boards to get...kinda like the 08 Celtics.

But these teams get boards they need...we've seen it.

The Knicks definitely need to score more in the paint, and it would be nice if the makeup was to crash the boards on misses like the Bulls and Pacers do..they make up for bad offense with a influx of second chance points.

But ultimately it's a dangerous game the Knicks are trying to play...they essentially are going to try to bury their opponent early with offense.

Wouldnt be my method of attack, but time will tell how it works.

you may be right about that, but I think where they are weak and have been was on that front line.. adding birdman certainly helped..

tkf wrote:

nixluva wrote:Still what killed the Knicks wasn't their rebounding. It was a lack of Ball and Player Movement that leads to poor shots and low % offense. This team also needed some kind of presence that would change the way teams were able to defend us. That's what Bargnani is all about. Having a guy that will draw bigs away from the basket is going to be an essential part of this teams effort to beat the top teams.

Watch how the Bulls look trying to defend Bargs:

This Knicks team is far superior to the Raptors. There are far more things to worry about on the Knicks and that will make it hard to really focus on Bargs or Melo, especially if bigs have to come out to guard Bargs.

I think what you fail to realize is that bargs is also a liability on the other side... those very same bigs are going to eat him alive...bargnani has been labeled a bust for a reason.. just think about it...

You might be right but then we don't know that for sure. We have to hope that Bargs will learn good TEAM defense and hold his position. We already know that he can handle man to man D just fine, but just hasn't ever been a good team defender. Bargs is good at defending perimeter shooters so that's something.

Most of your objections are based on how he played on the Raptors. You can't get too wrapped up in how he played on other teams, none of which were as good as this one. When has he ever played next to a player as good as Melo? I'm guessing his overall impact will be a net positive for this team. Sometimes players look worse on bad teams than they do on a good team.

We finally have a team that seems to have the level of talent that you'd expect a Title team to have IMO. What is going to be fun to learn is if this team has the mental toughness to beat a Bulls team or the Heat in a playoff series. I think the additions we've made give us a real shot to do that.

nixluva wrote:

tkf wrote:

nixluva wrote:Still what killed the Knicks wasn't their rebounding. It was a lack of Ball and Player Movement that leads to poor shots and low % offense. This team also needed some kind of presence that would change the way teams were able to defend us. That's what Bargnani is all about. Having a guy that will draw bigs away from the basket is going to be an essential part of this teams effort to beat the top teams.

Watch how the Bulls look trying to defend Bargs:

This Knicks team is far superior to the Raptors. There are far more things to worry about on the Knicks and that will make it hard to really focus on Bargs or Melo, especially if bigs have to come out to guard Bargs.

I think what you fail to realize is that bargs is also a liability on the other side... those very same bigs are going to eat him alive...bargnani has been labeled a bust for a reason.. just think about it...

You might be right but then we don't know that for sure. We have to hope that Bargs will learn good TEAM defense and hold his position. We already know that he can handle man to man D just fine, but just hasn't ever been a good team defender. Bargs is good at defending perimeter shooters so that's something.

Most of your objections are based on how he played on the Raptors. You can't get too wrapped up in how he played on other teams, none of which were as good as this one. When has he ever played next to a player as good as Melo? I'm guessing his overall impact will be a net positive for this team. Sometimes players look worse on bad teams than they do on a good team.

BUT HOW can you say that when all of your optimism is based on how he played for the raptors as well? can't have it both ways.... it doesn't matter how good or bad the raptors were.. That didn't stop him from defending, taking bad shots or not rebounding...

Let me ask you a question. were the cavs a good team last year? was kyrie irving a bad player? NO.... so I am not sure what one has to do with another....Let me ask another question.. the spurs are obviously better than the knicks.. if we got tony Parker tomorrow, would you expect him to produce less because the knicks were not as good as the spurs? I know for sure you wouldn't! Bargnani has been a bust so far because of him. it is well documented that he doesn't work hard, doesn't like criticism and is lazy.... It is up to him to change that, and until he does, he won't get the benefit of the doubt from me...

so as long as you show videos of him with the raptors, just remember that the story plays two ways..

tkf wrote:

let me ask you this.. had the pacers, Bulls, or nets added beno, artest and Bargnani, would you honestly feel that they would be good enough to upset the Heat? I know you would not feel that way... I mean I understand being a fan and all, but seriously can you at least be somewhat objective? reasonable?

I honestly would- a bulls team with those three would be deeper.

tkf wrote:

nixluva wrote:

tkf wrote:

nixluva wrote:Still what killed the Knicks wasn't their rebounding. It was a lack of Ball and Player Movement that leads to poor shots and low % offense. This team also needed some kind of presence that would change the way teams were able to defend us. That's what Bargnani is all about. Having a guy that will draw bigs away from the basket is going to be an essential part of this teams effort to beat the top teams.

Watch how the Bulls look trying to defend Bargs:

This Knicks team is far superior to the Raptors. There are far more things to worry about on the Knicks and that will make it hard to really focus on Bargs or Melo, especially if bigs have to come out to guard Bargs.

I think what you fail to realize is that bargs is also a liability on the other side... those very same bigs are going to eat him alive...bargnani has been labeled a bust for a reason.. just think about it...

You might be right but then we don't know that for sure. We have to hope that Bargs will learn good TEAM defense and hold his position. We already know that he can handle man to man D just fine, but just hasn't ever been a good team defender. Bargs is good at defending perimeter shooters so that's something.

Most of your objections are based on how he played on the Raptors. You can't get too wrapped up in how he played on other teams, none of which were as good as this one. When has he ever played next to a player as good as Melo? I'm guessing his overall impact will be a net positive for this team. Sometimes players look worse on bad teams than they do on a good team.

BUT HOW can you say that when all of your optimism is based on how he played for the raptors as well? can't have it both ways.... it doesn't matter how good or bad the raptors were.. That didn't stop him from defending, taking bad shots or not rebounding...

Let me ask you a question. were the cavs a good team last year? was kyrie irving a bad player? NO.... so I am not sure what one has to do with another....Let me ask another question.. the spurs are obviously better than the knicks.. if we got tony Parker tomorrow, would you expect him to produce less because the knicks were not as good as the spurs? I know for sure you wouldn't! Bargnani has been a bust so far because of him. it is well documented that he doesn't work hard, doesn't like criticism and is lazy.... It is up to him to change that, and until he does, he won't get the benefit of the doubt from me...

so as long as you show videos of him with the raptors, just remember that the story plays two ways..

You actually think that it doesn't matter who you're playing with and what you're coach is asking you to do? It in fact does matter what the environment around a player is. No it's not everything but it does have an impact on players. If you put a scorer on a bad team it can sometimes work against him in that teams can focus on that scorer and take away some of his effectiveness.

Also this is not just about the team he was on, but also the guy was freakin injured the last 2 years and when he wasn't injured he was doing what he does well at a better clip. He's a flawed player but a very talented player. Him being on a good team is going to help him to be a better player and if you can understand that I can't help you.