mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Playing ability and player evaluation ability aren't necessarily correlated. No one demonstrated this better than Isiah Thomas.
This is like assuming the oldest person in the room knows the most about health and medicine

are you expressing some doubt on the validity of pierce's evaluation of carmelo anthinay? and if so what is it about his comments that you take issue with?

Melo takes way too many low percentage shots to qualify as one of the five hardest players to guard. There are many players who will make great decisions even if you guard them tightly.

cool. i agree. pierce is just talking stuff. the entire piece on melo is gamesmanship....

Yeah. Kobe was doing the same thing when he said this about Melo.

how do you like Melo as a passer? What bothers you about Melo's game? No "but's", just be honest.

dk7th wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

OAK wrote:Thoughts?

Deion Sanders has been called the best "pure cover corner" in NFL history.

While Rod Woodson ( arguably of course) has long been seen as one of the best overall cornerbacks in NFL history.

Woodson was rare for his era, he had size, he had speed, he could cover, he could defend the run, he was a smart player, his athleticism was off the charts, his fundamentals were elite.

Sanders though, could lock down half the field by himself, but if you wanted a guy to give you elite level press coverage or a sure tackler or an imposing run defender, or someone who could slide over to safety seamlessly, he probably wasn't your guy.

The point is, complimenting that you do one thing well doesn't always translate to you being the kind of player that does many of the core things that helps your team win.

I don't think anyone here discounts Melo's lethality as an isolation one vs one basketball offensive player. I don't think anyone here will argue that Melo is offensively complete from a natural standpoint. He can do it all, hit from three, take you at midrange, with his back the basket, in transition, with either hand, against size or speed, even against many double teams.

The general arguments about Melo's game here are about leadership, skill set translating to being more than just a gunner/scorer, lack of defense, lack of general BB IQ, his conditioning, his inability to handle the press well, his inability to make players around him better, his problems reading a basic defensive set ( which is not one vs one basketball) and his, at times, low efficiency play.

What is Paul Pierce saying here that most people here don't already acknowledge. Melo is an elite one vs one isolation player. In a single matchup, he's deadly.

What Paul Pierce is NOT SAYING is that trait alone means Melo is above the criticisms he receives as a player in general. From some Knicks fans and from general basketball/NBA fans.

IMHO, nothing Pierce says changes the basic narrative - That Melo is just good enough to help you be just good enough to be a treadmill team. That you need to be more than just a lethal one vs one isolation offensive juggernaut to actually win playoff ball and lead your team to championship.

great post though i have a few minor quibbles and a few not insignificant points to add or perhaps rephrase.

1) his footwork is awful-- and he has never developed it, which is stupid or shows his lack of ambition. he lacks this skill.

2) his ballhandling skills, which should work "hand and foot" with his feet, is simply lousy-- does anybody notice that he is incapable of changing direction??? he lacks this skill too.

points (1) and (2) are euphemised and glossed over-- even lauded-- as "bully ball." i call it "bvllsh!t ball"

3) he has poor court vision-- this is not a skill but a natural gift, or as some might say a "talent."

4) his decison-making (bbiq) is horrible. this last one is a bit tougher to qualify because often bbiq is a combination or outcome of properly developed skills as well as the gift or talent of court vision.

leadership and defense? laughable

With Phil Jackson making a big deal about needing full/complete control of the team and needed ALL BASKETBALL related decisions
I didn't think he would even consider bringining back CA when he opted out in the summer, not at his salary, terms, and the mess we were projected to be in with or without him....

You could even say I was quite confident to say Phil Jackson is unlikely to bring him back
With many hints, telling him to not OPT out, recruit in 2015, to take less, the clumsy statements way before he was hired, and all that stuff

Afterall, why spend 50m and the on a President when one could do what Phil did making much less than him
Also lets not forget they hired a whole firm to evaluate MSG

There are not many moves to be made after resigning him with limited ability to attract and spend with the way our future has been morgataged
that one could that has limited abilities after resigning him

I do not remember if the 2 Billion evaluation was before or after the deal for CA
Do not know if that had anything to do it regardless....

Back to CA, is that your serious evaluation of The NCAA winning Champion?
You had nothing positive to say about him, it seems you are evaluating Phil Jackson at his present state more than CA

Did CA kill your dog or something?
A couple questions, did you ever play basketball before and can you play at any time in your life?
It makes a difference if you haven't because having a actual understanding of the game as a baller and just thinking a FT is easy, not knowing how to defend, how to execute certain plays, all that puts a factor in understanding the game.....

IF so, did you play half court, full court, in a league, how serious, how long, what position, and what was your game like with position/comparision
2nd, are you better than CA because boy, you do not want to hear what people have to say about your game despite getting payed

$.00 for X amount of years

x amount of hours
x amount of days
x amount of decades, etc....

You seriously make him sound like he is Chris Smith or something....

1- While he has trouble doing some things, he does have a pretty good spin move

2- I think he has a decent handle, he doesn't have great speed, quickness, and is usually thinking about only SCORING majority of the times

Also,
Handle is HANDLE, FOOTWORK is FOOTWORK

3- I think he has more of a one track mind/only thinking about scoring, lacks trusts in team mates, likes playing HERO BALL, and maybe some poor court vision or selective vision
maybe all of the above

4- Cannot argue with decision making but it goes back to his one tract mind

5- Yeah, I agree, he is also not a MAX player especially for his current contract

about the Bully Ball, I do think he is strong, and it can be effective at times with some *depending on matchups and defense*, if he can mix that up with moving the ball it could be one of his better skills

Seriously DK, take it from someone that actually doesn't like CA's game and feel he is very over rated
I think he always has been selfish and is a STAT WHORE, premadonna, and a lot of other things, but he isn't nearly as bad as you make him sound at times

While I agree with some of the things you say, I think you have a very strong hate for him and his game
I do not know why but you do not stop, the ones that agree with you already, especially after this season

The ones that do not agree with you will never agree with you after this season and will look to argue with you again if we ever rebound and CA is still on the roster

I do not like his game and I also do not like certain characteristics of him as well, however, I do not have the hatred you have on him
It is like you get a rise out of hating him

And that BS fight with Nate Robinson and JJ the first time, CA/JR Smith
That did it for me already, as I thought he thought he was greatness, before he even entered the league

It was arkward when JR Smith/CA were Knicks and faced Nate Robinson the first time, then even more ARKWARD when Nate was in Denver....

Anyway, continue to do you, however, I think everyone feels it just isn't needed and the hate shows strongly

gunsnewing wrote:

STATMELO wrote:LeBron torches him the most though...

Pierce hates Lebron. Loves to discredit him every chance he gets. One way is by pumping up Kobe & Melo

I agree with that. That's what Paul pierce does

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Playing ability and player evaluation ability aren't necessarily correlated. No one demonstrated this better than Isiah Thomas.
This is like assuming the oldest person in the room knows the most about health and medicine

are you expressing some doubt on the validity of pierce's evaluation of carmelo anthinay? and if so what is it about his comments that you take issue with?

Melo takes way too many low percentage shots to qualify as one of the five hardest players to guard. There are many players who will make great decisions even if you guard them tightly.

cool. i agree. pierce is just talking stuff. the entire piece on melo is gamesmanship....

Yeah. Kobe was doing the same thing when he said this about Melo.

how do you like Melo as a passer? What bothers you about Melo's game? No "but's", just be honest.

I loved Melo at Cuse. I hated Melo after the fight. I didn't like the trade. I think Melo is a pretty good passer but when he goes 1 on 3 and he has Galloway unguarded and in his sights and he goes Amare It frustrates me. My biggest thing on ths board with Melo is I can't stand the hate directed at the guy. The wild roster moves credited to him, the ridiculous criticism of his training and parts of his game have turned me into a defender. The biggest critics of Melo on this board have either been kicked off here previously or from some other forum. The banned band is annoying and far from objective.

You seem to be taking a 95% glass empty attitude. There's so few posters who meet that description.

CrushAlot wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

dk7th wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Playing ability and player evaluation ability aren't necessarily correlated. No one demonstrated this better than Isiah Thomas.
This is like assuming the oldest person in the room knows the most about health and medicine

are you expressing some doubt on the validity of pierce's evaluation of carmelo anthinay? and if so what is it about his comments that you take issue with?

Melo takes way too many low percentage shots to qualify as one of the five hardest players to guard. There are many players who will make great decisions even if you guard them tightly.

cool. i agree. pierce is just talking stuff. the entire piece on melo is gamesmanship....

Yeah. Kobe was doing the same thing when he said this about Melo.

how do you like Melo as a passer? What bothers you about Melo's game? No "but's", just be honest.

I loved Melo at Cuse. I hated Melo after the fight. I didn't like the trade. I think Melo is a pretty good passer but when he goes 1 on 3 and he has Galloway unguarded and in his sights and he goes Amare It frustrates me. My biggest thing on ths board with Melo is I can't stand the hate directed at the guy. The wild roster moves credited to him, the ridiculous criticism of his training and parts of his game have turned me into a defender. The biggest critics of Melo on this board have either been kicked off here previously or from some other forum. The banned band is annoying and far from objective.

You seem to be taking a 95% glass empty attitude. There's so few posters who meet that description.

They are a pretty prolific bunch.

Who one guy? I don't even think he was banned from realgm and neither was TKF if I remember correctly

RonRon wrote:

dk7th wrote:

TripleThreat wrote:

OAK wrote:Thoughts?

Deion Sanders has been called the best "pure cover corner" in NFL history.

While Rod Woodson ( arguably of course) has long been seen as one of the best overall cornerbacks in NFL history.

Woodson was rare for his era, he had size, he had speed, he could cover, he could defend the run, he was a smart player, his athleticism was off the charts, his fundamentals were elite.

Sanders though, could lock down half the field by himself, but if you wanted a guy to give you elite level press coverage or a sure tackler or an imposing run defender, or someone who could slide over to safety seamlessly, he probably wasn't your guy.

The point is, complimenting that you do one thing well doesn't always translate to you being the kind of player that does many of the core things that helps your team win.

I don't think anyone here discounts Melo's lethality as an isolation one vs one basketball offensive player. I don't think anyone here will argue that Melo is offensively complete from a natural standpoint. He can do it all, hit from three, take you at midrange, with his back the basket, in transition, with either hand, against size or speed, even against many double teams.

The general arguments about Melo's game here are about leadership, skill set translating to being more than just a gunner/scorer, lack of defense, lack of general BB IQ, his conditioning, his inability to handle the press well, his inability to make players around him better, his problems reading a basic defensive set ( which is not one vs one basketball) and his, at times, low efficiency play.

What is Paul Pierce saying here that most people here don't already acknowledge. Melo is an elite one vs one isolation player. In a single matchup, he's deadly.

What Paul Pierce is NOT SAYING is that trait alone means Melo is above the criticisms he receives as a player in general. From some Knicks fans and from general basketball/NBA fans.

IMHO, nothing Pierce says changes the basic narrative - That Melo is just good enough to help you be just good enough to be a treadmill team. That you need to be more than just a lethal one vs one isolation offensive juggernaut to actually win playoff ball and lead your team to championship.

great post though i have a few minor quibbles and a few not insignificant points to add or perhaps rephrase.

1) his footwork is awful-- and he has never developed it, which is stupid or shows his lack of ambition. he lacks this skill.

2) his ballhandling skills, which should work "hand and foot" with his feet, is simply lousy-- does anybody notice that he is incapable of changing direction??? he lacks this skill too.

points (1) and (2) are euphemised and glossed over-- even lauded-- as "bully ball." i call it "bvllsh!t ball"

3) he has poor court vision-- this is not a skill but a natural gift, or as some might say a "talent."

4) his decison-making (bbiq) is horrible. this last one is a bit tougher to qualify because often bbiq is a combination or outcome of properly developed skills as well as the gift or talent of court vision.

leadership and defense? laughable

With Phil Jackson making a big deal about needing full/complete control of the team and needed ALL BASKETBALL related decisions
I didn't think he would even consider bringining back CA when he opted out in the summer, not at his salary, terms, and the mess we were projected to be in with or without him....

You could even say I was quite confident to say Phil Jackson is unlikely to bring him back
With many hints, telling him to not OPT out, recruit in 2015, to take less, the clumsy statements way before he was hired, and all that stuff

Afterall, why spend 50m and the on a President when one could do what Phil did making much less than him
Also lets not forget they hired a whole firm to evaluate MSG

There are not many moves to be made after resigning him with limited ability to attract and spend with the way our future has been morgataged
that one could that has limited abilities after resigning him

I do not remember if the 2 Billion evaluation was before or after the deal for CA
Do not know if that had anything to do it regardless....

Back to CA, is that your serious evaluation of The NCAA winning Champion?
You had nothing positive to say about him, it seems you are evaluating Phil Jackson at his present state more than CA

Did CA kill your dog or something?
A couple questions, did you ever play basketball before and can you play at any time in your life?
It makes a difference if you haven't because having a actual understanding of the game as a baller and just thinking a FT is easy, not knowing how to defend, how to execute certain plays, all that puts a factor in understanding the game.....

IF so, did you play half court, full court, in a league, how serious, how long, what position, and what was your game like with position/comparision
2nd, are you better than CA because boy, you do not want to hear what people have to say about your game despite getting payed

$.00 for X amount of years

x amount of hours
x amount of days
x amount of decades, etc....

You seriously make him sound like he is Chris Smith or something....

1- While he has trouble doing some things, he does have a pretty good spin move

2- I think he has a decent handle, he doesn't have great speed, quickness, and is usually thinking about only SCORING majority of the times

Also,
Handle is HANDLE, FOOTWORK is FOOTWORK

3- I think he has more of a one track mind/only thinking about scoring, lacks trusts in team mates, likes playing HERO BALL, and maybe some poor court vision or selective vision
maybe all of the above

4- Cannot argue with decision making but it goes back to his one tract mind

5- Yeah, I agree, he is also not a MAX player especially for his current contract

about the Bully Ball, I do think he is strong, and it can be effective at times with some *depending on matchups and defense*, if he can mix that up with moving the ball it could be one of his better skills

Seriously DK, take it from someone that actually doesn't like CA's game and feel he is very over rated
I think he always has been selfish and is a STAT WHORE, premadonna, and a lot of other things, but he isn't nearly as bad as you make him sound at times

While I agree with some of the things you say, I think you have a very strong hate for him and his game
I do not know why but you do not stop, the ones that agree with you already, especially after this season

The ones that do not agree with you will never agree with you after this season and will look to argue with you again if we ever rebound and CA is still on the roster

I do not like his game and I also do not like certain characteristics of him as well, however, I do not have the hatred you have on him
It is like you get a rise out of hating him

And that BS fight with Nate Robinson and JJ the first time, CA/JR Smith
That did it for me already, as I thought he thought he was greatness, before he even entered the league

It was arkward when JR Smith/CA were Knicks and faced Nate Robinson the first time, then even more ARKWARD when Nate was in Denver....

Anyway, continue to do you, however, I think everyone feels it just isn't needed and the hate shows strongly

to answer your question i had played basketball most of my adult life until my body broke down. my first exposure to the game was the 73 knicks championship team. my father was an early proponent of cable-- msg had its own station on teleprompter, and we enjoyed watching that greatest knick team's home games. my values and understanding of the game were further instilled in me by my high school coach, who played professional ball. so you might say my love of basketball fundamentals is due to playing for an old-school coach who went straight into coaching after his career ended. i was a swing man-- i excelled at shooting, the pick and roll game, passing, rebounding, defending. i never developed a good enough handle, although, ironically, i had an excellent spin move going to the left baseline. i liked playing half-court okay, but full court was more my thing.

my favorite teams were the barry-led warriors, the late-70s blazers, dennis johnson's sonics, the 80s celtics, and the duncan era spurs. loved olajuwon but did not think much of his teams. had a grudging admiration for the jordan teams with pippen and harper. but i think you can detect a pattern in which teams i esteemed most and derive my values from there.

lastly, walt frazier's book the game within the game and bill russell's red and me have had a later-in-life impact on my understanding and values, more or less solidifying what i understood. highly recommended reading!

so when you ask me if i have any genuine understanding of the game, and in particular carmelo anthinay, i answer "yes."

RonRon wrote:It is pretty safe to say that you have been influenced on by the OLD SCHOOL game, basically the game that is built around generations during and before Walt Clyde Frazier's years

1- Fundamentals
2- TEAM WORK
3- DEFENSE/REBOUNDING/TOUGHNESS

We are in a different generation of basketball and you could say that CA is the complete opposite of what the old generation of basketball should be played
While many players today still mix it in too their daily routine, CA seems to only know how to play 1 way, his way of generating STAT's, a reason why liked Woodson's system as he enabled all the poor decision making of CA while not correcting any of his bad habits

It is what it is, CA is a flawed player, whether posters want to admit or not, however, he is still very skilled and he can shoot *while it comes at the cost of MOVING the ball many times*
He isn't the greatest fundamental player but he does have abilities that not many possess in the league
He is not a leader, he is not a player that can create well for his team mates, and one could easily argue that he is not a franchise player
By your standards, you are comparing him to what you think should be a franchise talent, and he is the complete opposite of what has influenced you by your experiences

The reason why I want Draymond Green is because he is a player that is the COMPLETE opposite of what CA is and these are the type of talents and HIGH IQ players that we need to surround CA with to make up for his weakness's to his game
Without watching the games, Briggs evaluates the talents of the impact of what Green brings to the team
The reason why GS, Atlanta, Spur's, and many teams will now follow is because they play as a team
They use the strengths of their team and weakness's and hide their weakness's and fully utilize their strenghts to the best of their abilities
So playing as a team, players all must sacrifice for the better of the team, and Green does that

Is it fair to say that Kawaii was once a ROLE player?
Well, he probably was, but he worked hard on his game, and he was deservingly the MVP of that team last year in the play offs and finals
In order for us to play as a team, we need multiple players that understand how to play as a team, and have the versatility/abilities to do mulitple things, including DEFENSE
When you have HIGH IQ, players willing to sacrifice and have the abilities to crteate for others, it builds a style of play that can be very infections with talent and smarts

Roles are defined from within a system and all players have different roles, but when you have a team that has 5 players that can do EVERYTHING, a team full of intelligence, a team that sacrifices their own abilities as a team for the bettter of the entire roster, you have a team with a high chemistry
Kerr fully understood this as a player and now knows how to get the most of EVERYONE on his roster down to his 15 man roster
CA is a scorer, however, he is overpayed, just because he is overpayed, does not make him a leader, it does not make him a good defender, it does not make him a facilitator....
With more money does come more responsiblity though and he will have to find a way to get the most of all his entire locker room

Kyle Korver, Kawaii, even Butler, were all once role players, but their games have evolved and they are playing their roles but can do much more than they show, especially with the box score
Draymond Green in the other hand, was a role player PRIOR to this year, however, he is actually the 3rd best player on the roster in GS roster

Green can be a triple double threat EVERYDAY if the offense was run through him, although you will need some players to play the same style with him on both OFFENSE and DEF
However, on DEFENSE, Green actually knows how to defend with fundaments, he knows to defend as our a Guard should defend, how to defend as a SF and a PF
At his age, that is very impressive, because these are the players that can not only provide much on the court but also teach them to players on the team
With us going with some YOUTH movement, the ability to get Green could elevate these young players and as a team effort as a whole

We want to emulate how GS, Atlanta, and The Spur's play
Well they play with their physical talents and with BB IQ, with chemistry/fundamentals, with GREAT DEFENSE with both 1v1 defenders and TEAM DEFENSES
These are the talents that cannot be drafted, they must be learned from the start and executed as a whole with a team
For that reason Draymond Green is a franchise talent and CA is a scorer that must learn to sacrifice his shot's, contribute in other ways, and be able to hold his own/hide his weakness's from within the team

For instance,
Some poeople want to always draft the player with the HIGHEST potential

Well, if Rudy Gay entered the draft with Kawaii, *assuming both were the same age* Gay would be the higher potential player..
Whether Kawaii was a role player or not doesn't make a difference
Because his impact of the game will be much greater than Rudy Gay's with the entire team, yet Rudy Gay would likely be drafted higher by most GM's

ronron we may be in a different era of basketball but the principles of winning remain the same. that's why i so resent what stern has done to the nba: you can distract people with

baubles like jerseys, hats
gaudy stats
loud pa systems, dance cams, kiss cams
smoke and mirrors
gatorade, nike commercials
nba cares promos
all star voting ballots

and so on ad nauseam....

also at the end of the day, the skills required to excel as an individual within the team concept in a meaningful way must be developed whether as a four-year player or as a one-and-done neophyte. so if all a player does is work on what he is already good at and doesn't work on other skills, then he will become a hindrance. what gets you to the pros is not necessarily going to translate to success.

posters don't like when i criticize melo and ewing but neither developed their games properly in ways that would translate to greater success. and the fallback position for their apologists is always whining and lamenting that "they didn't have enough help." guess what: if patrick and carmelo actually develop footwork and recognize the double team, things go differently!

this isn't baseball where you can overpay designated hitters and closers and middle inning guys. you mention "role players"-- this requires an entire discussion all its own. lets start with: "kawaii leonard" was once a role player and if a gm had a choice between gay and leonard they would choose gay.

why?

and so we come back to your astute observations about how to build successful teams. the knicks made a huge mistake and now have an impossible task ahead of them.