Jmpasq wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:This obsession people have with "SCORING" is unreal. We are getting very good play at PG. On our team their role is setting up the offense and its NOT scoring. But somehow that's all people care to look at...scoring, scoring, scoring. Can we please stop salivating over score first PGs that never win anything?

None of this is happening in this thread.

The thread is about getting a PG that can score.

Its not just about scoring frank cant dribble

Rose did both, how'd that work out?

Does it have to be one extreme or the other? A PG who does nothing but drive or a PG who does nothing but pass? You know how many PGs have gone through here who were allergic to the rim? Too many.

You seem to have this view that having a dribble being able to get to the rim, is something out of And1 or the Harlem Globetrotters. Its an essential part of a good PG's game. You're discounting the importance of getting to the line, putting their defenders, amd the team in foul trouble as well.

I will bet you that our PGs are at the bottom of the league in that dept. If Frank is to be the PG of the future for the Knicks, cant leave out an essential ingredient in a point guard's game.

It was the number 1 reason I was skeptical about him. I knew he could be a wing defender but I wasn't sure if he had the offensive game to be a PG in the NBA

Kid is 19 and the offense has been very good with Frank at the helm, and the stats all back this up. He's playing his role perfectly right now. I am pretty sure we will continue to see growth in all these areas based on age and work ethic.

fishmike wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:This obsession people have with "SCORING" is unreal. We are getting very good play at PG. On our team their role is setting up the offense and its NOT scoring. But somehow that's all people care to look at...scoring, scoring, scoring. Can we please stop salivating over score first PGs that never win anything?

None of this is happening in this thread.

The thread is about getting a PG that can score.

Its not just about scoring frank cant dribble

Rose did both, how'd that work out?

Does it have to be one extreme or the other? A PG who does nothing but drive or a PG who does nothing but pass? You know how many PGs have gone through here who were allergic to the rim? Too many.

You seem to have this view that having a dribble being able to get to the rim, is something out of And1 or the Harlem Globetrotters. Its an essential part of a good PG's game. You're discounting the importance of getting to the line, putting their defenders, amd the team in foul trouble as well.

I will bet you that our PGs are at the bottom of the league in that dept. If Frank is to be the PG of the future for the Knicks, cant leave out an essential ingredient in a point guard's game.

It was the number 1 reason I was skeptical about him. I knew he could be a wing defender but I wasn't sure if he had the offensive game to be a PG in the NBA

Yet when he is in the game the Knicks offense is better, their FG% is better, their PPP is better and their PP100 is better. Is driving the lane the only way you can envision a player being good on offense? Frank is also taller and longer than most players who guard him and we have already seen good passing because of this.

Kid is 19 and the offense has been very good with Frank at the helm, and the stats all back this up. He's playing his role perfectly right now. I am pretty sure we will continue to see growth in all these areas based on age and work ethic.

I know you're talking about Frank here specifically, but overall re: Jack and Frank -- I just don't see anything sustainable. Hey, maybe (hopefully!) Frank develops properly and we have an impact player in a few years (and he hasn't been dreadful to be fair--he's been OK & has had a few nice moments), but as of right now, we just don't have anything above average going at that position. It's our achilles heel BY FAR, short term and possibly long-term as well depending on Frank's progress and how you feel about his overall talent level and potential (I happen to hold a guarded view here).. I'd say the rest of our positions are above average or better; the PG spot is not and lacks certain key elements. To me, if we're serious about really doing something this year (i.e. playoffs), we see the writing on the wall now & look to address this situation sooner than later. I want to see them enhance the PG situation somehow and increase overall firepower (and why not look at inexpensive/low risk solutions first before dealing away assets like Willy, Dotson, etc..?). Cat Barber's a perfect fit, addresses both issues AND he's really no skin off our back at all -- for the nominal amount of money we'd have to commit to him, take a shot. If he didn't work out, cut him loose. BUT if he DID work out, we might very well uncover a VERY GOOD player here, a guy that addresses obvious deficiencies and enhances our attack that much further. That's worth considering imo.

Look at the Cavs game again for a sec. and the semi-meltdown we had the other night against Toronto: both games, we're up big but against CLEV, we had nothing left in the tank offensively at the end to keep pace--that's why we lost that game and pissed away a big lead imo. Yeah, the Cavs ran amok with the 3-ball and LeBron suddenly woke up but even if we lost the last quarter by 10 points, we still would've kept pace enough to prevail. But we didn't. We didn't keep pace. Couldn't score at the end... We lost that game because we never re-established Kanter who was having an impact game, we didn't cover the 3-pt line well AND we had nothing left offensively at the end to keep pace. We have a guy like Cat Barber out there at the end of that game providing offense, I think we win that game and don't come close to pissing away the Toronto game the way we almost did (when the Raptors got that lead down to like 6 or 4 or whatever, tell me you all weren't like 'holy ****, he we go again.' Hey man, I get it too -- I know more than half the people on here are like 'who the F is Cat Barber'? What he is is an ultra low risk option that addresses our biggest issues. I think we should start here with him if we're even considering an upgrade, then go from there. And to me, Cat Barber > Trey Burke btw.

I also feel that Perry has earned enough clout now with the Melo trade (if he didn't hit a HR with that trade, he definitely hit a loud triple -- one of if not THE best moves a GM's made for us around here going back years), that I feel he could go to the owner and say something like, 'look, we've tried to move Sessions to no avail--there's no takers--so I want to release him, keep Jack to mentor/fill in when needed and sign Cat Barber to a minimum deal--that kid's talented, he's available and he can help us, all I need is the money and your OK to make that all happen.' I feel Perry's earned enough with the Melo trade alone to go to Dolan and get him to eat a little money and go for a move like this.

meloshouldgo wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

nykshaknbake wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:This obsession people have with "SCORING" is unreal. We are getting very good play at PG. On our team their role is setting up the offense and its NOT scoring. But somehow that's all people care to look at...scoring, scoring, scoring. Can we please stop salivating over score first PGs that never win anything?

None of this is happening in this thread.

The thread is about getting a PG that can score.

Its not just about scoring frank cant dribble

Rose did both, how'd that work out?

Stupid example. Steph Curry can do both how's it working out in GS? Scoring and driving aren't negatives. And no people weren't just talking about scoring. You just wanted to rant.

Finestrg wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I'm fine with giving it more time but I agree with the premise of the thread. It won't be easy to keep winning (especially when the schedule gets harder) with our 3 PGs shooting 35, 37, and 41%.

There ya go. That's it in a nutshell.

There are 2 good Barber college videos I wanna put up and discuss at some length later when I have time..

Love the idea of bringing in Barber to fight for a roster spot. We know he can score, if he can defend his way onto the roster we might really have something. Sessions/Jack are short term and stop gap. I am not a fan of Baker much at all. That leaves Frank at PG and thats a spot you need depth. Barber could also be a nice 6th man. He's a player worth a look.

Bonn1997 wrote:I'm fine with giving it more time but I agree with the premise of the thread. It won't be easy to keep winning (especially when the schedule gets harder) with our 3 PGs shooting 35, 37, and 41%.

on the list of things the Knicks' PG need to do to help the team winning and (more importantly) growing as a team/players, FG% is like 1 of 10 things that contribute to that and probably the least important.

How can you not look at what Rose did last year - at a healthy 47% FG% - and think that was a good thing over what Jack and Frank are bringing?

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I'm fine with giving it more time but I agree with the premise of the thread. It won't be easy to keep winning (especially when the schedule gets harder) with our 3 PGs shooting 35, 37, and 41%.

on the list of things the Knicks' PG need to do to help the team winning and (more importantly) growing as a team/players, FG% is like 1 of 10 things that contribute to that and probably the least important.

How can you not look at what Rose did last year - at a healthy 47% FG% - and think that was a good thing over what Jack and Frank are bringing?

FG% is a simple, lazy way of addressing the more important issue of offensive efficiency. None of those players (this year or Rose last year) were efficient on offense. Average production is about 106 points per 100 possessions this year. Right now we have 85 per 100 (Frank), 99 (Sessions), and 101 (Jack). Rose had OK but not good offensive efficiency (right at last year's league average of 108) and had many other problems to his game. He played bad defense and took a lot of shots away from more efficient players.
It's easy to downplay a weakness now (who needs efficient production from the PG?) since the team is winning. If this continues when the team starts playing road games, then that's great.

But it's not only that the team is winning, but the team as a whole is very efficient despite what you are trying to point out at the PG position.

From my above:

All games, top 11 in league: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

With Jack starting, top 6: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&LastNGames=14

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I'm fine with giving it more time but I agree with the premise of the thread. It won't be easy to keep winning (especially when the schedule gets harder) with our 3 PGs shooting 35, 37, and 41%.

on the list of things the Knicks' PG need to do to help the team winning and (more importantly) growing as a team/players, FG% is like 1 of 10 things that contribute to that and probably the least important.

How can you not look at what Rose did last year - at a healthy 47% FG% - and think that was a good thing over what Jack and Frank are bringing?

FG% is a simple, lazy way of addressing the more important issue of offensive efficiency. None of those players (this year or Rose last year) were efficient on offense. Average production is about 106 points per 100 possessions this year. Right now we have 85 per 100 (Frank), 99 (Sessions), and 101 (Jack). Rose had OK but not good offensive efficiency (right at last year's league average of 108) and had many other problems to his game. He played bad defense and took a lot of shots away from more efficient players.
It's easy to downplay a weakness now (who needs efficient production from the PG?) since the team is winning. If this continues when the team starts playing road games, then that's great.

But it's not only that the team is winning, but the team as a whole is very efficient despite what you are trying to point out at the PG position.

From my above:

All games, top 11 in league: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

With Jack starting, top 6: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&LastNGames=14

And if this continues once we start playing road games, I'll be really happy. Right now we're 9-3 at home and 1-4 on the road. Also, I've focused on offense, but Jack has a pretty bad defensive rating.
I think the point of the thread is that the team is not a finished product. It clearly needs upgrading if we want to achieve anything special. So the natural question is where to upgrade. And the area where we're the weakest now is definitely PG. That doesn't mean a change needs to happen now. I'd rather see what happens as more games are played unless a team gives us an amazing offer.

Read the OP again, it's all NBA2018 up there, just switch some players in and out now.

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I'm fine with giving it more time but I agree with the premise of the thread. It won't be easy to keep winning (especially when the schedule gets harder) with our 3 PGs shooting 35, 37, and 41%.

on the list of things the Knicks' PG need to do to help the team winning and (more importantly) growing as a team/players, FG% is like 1 of 10 things that contribute to that and probably the least important.

How can you not look at what Rose did last year - at a healthy 47% FG% - and think that was a good thing over what Jack and Frank are bringing?

FG% is a simple, lazy way of addressing the more important issue of offensive efficiency. None of those players (this year or Rose last year) were efficient on offense. Average production is about 106 points per 100 possessions this year. Right now we have 85 per 100 (Frank), 99 (Sessions), and 101 (Jack). Rose had OK but not good offensive efficiency (right at last year's league average of 108) and had many other problems to his game. He played bad defense and took a lot of shots away from more efficient players.
It's easy to downplay a weakness now (who needs efficient production from the PG?) since the team is winning. If this continues when the team starts playing road games, then that's great.

But it's not only that the team is winning, but the team as a whole is very efficient despite what you are trying to point out at the PG position.

From my above:

All games, top 11 in league: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

With Jack starting, top 6: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&LastNGames=14

And if this continues once we start playing road games, I'll be really happy. Right now we're 9-3 at home and 1-4 on the road. Also, I've focused on offense, but Jack has a pretty bad defensive rating.
I think the point of the thread is that the team is not a finished product. It clearly needs upgrading if we want to achieve anything special. So the natural question is where to upgrade. And the area where we're the weakest now is definitely PG. That doesn't mean a change needs to happen now. I'd rather see what happens as more games are played unless a team gives us an amazing offer.

Bingo. Only I'd take it a tiny step further -- I'd like to see a small adjustment made now. Why wait for the need to arise and manifest itself further?? What we're doing right now clearly IS NOT sustainable.. To me, there's a young player out there in Cat Barber who adds every element to the PG spot that we're lacking, namely overall speed (in transition and a lightning quick step in the half court), breakdown ability and offensive punch, better than anything Sessions, Jack or Frank are capable of supplying. Also an able ball-handler, capable passer and he's at least adequate defensively. And here's the thing -- he's a phone call away and would cost a bag of marbles in the grand scheme of things to add. Why the hell not? Why not give Jeff another weapon to use at his discretion? Go get this guy while he's still available. I think this player could help us and we wouldn't have to surrender a single asset to get him, only jettison the superfluous Ramon Sessions IF we couldn't find a taker for him (and again, for me Sessions and Jack have been redundant since the day we decided to add both). Jack is at the end of the line and is DEAD at the end of games and Frank, for all that he does do well, isn't ready to have a bigger impact. I'd like to see a little more scoring out of that position. Can't possibly keep playing 4-5 offensively with Jack/Frank and expect to sustain winning. Absolute no brainer to try out a minimum risk player to see if he can help us based on his strengths and what is lacking from the position..

NBA2018, Martin?!? Jesus man, get a clue. Wow. Not where I'm coming from at all fella. I'm talking about a smart, subtle, zero risk addition here. Maybe YOU should go back and read the OP again.

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I'm fine with giving it more time but I agree with the premise of the thread. It won't be easy to keep winning (especially when the schedule gets harder) with our 3 PGs shooting 35, 37, and 41%.

on the list of things the Knicks' PG need to do to help the team winning and (more importantly) growing as a team/players, FG% is like 1 of 10 things that contribute to that and probably the least important.

How can you not look at what Rose did last year - at a healthy 47% FG% - and think that was a good thing over what Jack and Frank are bringing?

FG% is a simple, lazy way of addressing the more important issue of offensive efficiency. None of those players (this year or Rose last year) were efficient on offense. Average production is about 106 points per 100 possessions this year. Right now we have 85 per 100 (Frank), 99 (Sessions), and 101 (Jack). Rose had OK but not good offensive efficiency (right at last year's league average of 108) and had many other problems to his game. He played bad defense and took a lot of shots away from more efficient players.
It's easy to downplay a weakness now (who needs efficient production from the PG?) since the team is winning. If this continues when the team starts playing road games, then that's great.

But it's not only that the team is winning, but the team as a whole is very efficient despite what you are trying to point out at the PG position.

From my above:

All games, top 11 in league: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

With Jack starting, top 6: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&LastNGames=14

And if this continues once we start playing road games, I'll be really happy. Right now we're 9-3 at home and 1-4 on the road. Also, I've focused on offense, but Jack has a pretty bad defensive rating.
I think the point of the thread is that the team is not a finished product. It clearly needs upgrading if we want to achieve anything special. So the natural question is where to upgrade. And the area where we're the weakest now is definitely PG. That doesn't mean a change needs to happen now. I'd rather see what happens as more games are played unless a team gives us an amazing offer.

How is PG the position we are the weakest at? Based on what exactly?

meloshouldgo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

martin wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:I'm fine with giving it more time but I agree with the premise of the thread. It won't be easy to keep winning (especially when the schedule gets harder) with our 3 PGs shooting 35, 37, and 41%.

on the list of things the Knicks' PG need to do to help the team winning and (more importantly) growing as a team/players, FG% is like 1 of 10 things that contribute to that and probably the least important.

How can you not look at what Rose did last year - at a healthy 47% FG% - and think that was a good thing over what Jack and Frank are bringing?

FG% is a simple, lazy way of addressing the more important issue of offensive efficiency. None of those players (this year or Rose last year) were efficient on offense. Average production is about 106 points per 100 possessions this year. Right now we have 85 per 100 (Frank), 99 (Sessions), and 101 (Jack). Rose had OK but not good offensive efficiency (right at last year's league average of 108) and had many other problems to his game. He played bad defense and took a lot of shots away from more efficient players.
It's easy to downplay a weakness now (who needs efficient production from the PG?) since the team is winning. If this continues when the team starts playing road games, then that's great.

But it's not only that the team is winning, but the team as a whole is very efficient despite what you are trying to point out at the PG position.

From my above:

All games, top 11 in league: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season

With Jack starting, top 6: http://stats.nba.com/teams/advanced/?sort=OFF_RATING&dir=-1&Season=2017-18&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&LastNGames=14

And if this continues once we start playing road games, I'll be really happy. Right now we're 9-3 at home and 1-4 on the road. Also, I've focused on offense, but Jack has a pretty bad defensive rating.
I think the point of the thread is that the team is not a finished product. It clearly needs upgrading if we want to achieve anything special. So the natural question is where to upgrade. And the area where we're the weakest now is definitely PG. That doesn't mean a change needs to happen now. I'd rather see what happens as more games are played unless a team gives us an amazing offer.

How is PG the position we are the weakest at? Based on what exactly?