Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:If the coach says we play positionless ball, and who ever gets the ball goes, why are we hung up on this PG thing all the time? If the smallest guy is not elite shooting the 3 there are problems.
Burke is with a new coach and new system and is being given a chance. That’s it. he might be the best “Pure PG” because of his size and quickness but do we know that’s what we are looking for? In the new era one need not penetrate to break down defense, if you have snipers then its kicked out.

I would also encourage knick fans to see Gleague games in person. There is very little cohesion as roster changes are frequent. These guys are good and some just need the right slot on the right team to get that contract and fill a role. Some are really close to making it but they won’t. I saw Burke play up close in Gleague and he was great, but that “great” is not “NBA” great. He is 26 and knew his spots.
Perhaps he can can have a good career.

Because that type of offense is for pushing the ball. But you cant always push the ball. Sometimes you're forced to play half court offense. Dont see KP, Robinson, Kanter, setting up teammates the way Burke, Frank, Baker can. They're better at driving and dishing.

Cant play true positionless ball until everyone can set up teammates like a PG. In today's NBA you need a player who can either get past defenders, get to the rim and finish, or dish. True positionless basketball to me are players with similar skill sets which make them interchangeable.

When all our backcourt players fit that description, then we will have something closer to positionless basketball.

Right now we only have one player who can attack the rim, and finish, or dish, and that's Burke. Which is why he should play the PG role, until Frank, Mudiay, Baker, Trier etc are better able to do the same.

LOL< you don't see the bigs setting things up like the guards?
Thank you for the clarity.
I thought most of us had read the Fiz quote...........

Thought you could respond like an adult, this isnt even close.

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:If the coach says we play positionless ball, and who ever gets the ball goes, why are we hung up on this PG thing all the time? If the smallest guy is not elite shooting the 3 there are problems.
Burke is with a new coach and new system and is being given a chance. That’s it. he might be the best “Pure PG” because of his size and quickness but do we know that’s what we are looking for? In the new era one need not penetrate to break down defense, if you have snipers then its kicked out.

I would also encourage knick fans to see Gleague games in person. There is very little cohesion as roster changes are frequent. These guys are good and some just need the right slot on the right team to get that contract and fill a role. Some are really close to making it but they won’t. I saw Burke play up close in Gleague and he was great, but that “great” is not “NBA” great. He is 26 and knew his spots.
Perhaps he can can have a good career.

Because that type of offense is for pushing the ball. But you cant always push the ball. Sometimes you're forced to play half court offense. Dont see KP, Robinson, Kanter, setting up teammates the way Burke, Frank, Baker can. They're better at driving and dishing.

Cant play true positionless ball until everyone can set up teammates like a PG. In today's NBA you need a player who can either get past defenders, get to the rim and finish, or dish. True positionless basketball to me are players with similar skill sets which make them interchangeable.

When all our backcourt players fit that description, then we will have something closer to positionless basketball.

Right now we only have one player who can attack the rim, and finish, or dish, and that's Burke. Which is why he should play the PG role, until Frank, Mudiay, Baker, Trier etc are better able to do the same.

LOL< you don't see the bigs setting things up like the guards?
Thank you for the clarity.
I thought most of us had read the Fiz quote...........

Thought you could respond like an adult, this isnt even close.

By your definition no team will ever play positionless basketball. There's only a handful of guys like LeBron, Giannis etc. that can be playmakers and effectively play all 5 positions. I think the definition and our target are both more modest. On offense a player should be able to play at least two and preferably three positions. Not everyone has to be able to run the offense especially in half court settings, but every player should be able to execute pick and rolls with every other player. Fluent passing skills along with off the ball movement are important. The opposite is true on defense, all players should be able to reasonably defend PNR and not get lot on screens. Being able to communicate and defend fast breaks will also be essential. The absolute must have'sfor positionless basketball IMO:

1. Versatility
2. Speed/agility
2. High IQ
3. Hard nosed defense
4. Unselfish play

Things detrimental to it

Chuckers
Poor defenders
Tunnel vision - Score first types
Low IQ players

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:If the coach says we play positionless ball, and who ever gets the ball goes, why are we hung up on this PG thing all the time? If the smallest guy is not elite shooting the 3 there are problems.
Burke is with a new coach and new system and is being given a chance. That’s it. he might be the best “Pure PG” because of his size and quickness but do we know that’s what we are looking for? In the new era one need not penetrate to break down defense, if you have snipers then its kicked out.

I would also encourage knick fans to see Gleague games in person. There is very little cohesion as roster changes are frequent. These guys are good and some just need the right slot on the right team to get that contract and fill a role. Some are really close to making it but they won’t. I saw Burke play up close in Gleague and he was great, but that “great” is not “NBA” great. He is 26 and knew his spots.
Perhaps he can can have a good career.

Because that type of offense is for pushing the ball. But you cant always push the ball. Sometimes you're forced to play half court offense. Dont see KP, Robinson, Kanter, setting up teammates the way Burke, Frank, Baker can. They're better at driving and dishing.

Cant play true positionless ball until everyone can set up teammates like a PG. In today's NBA you need a player who can either get past defenders, get to the rim and finish, or dish. True positionless basketball to me are players with similar skill sets which make them interchangeable.

When all our backcourt players fit that description, then we will have something closer to positionless basketball.

Right now we only have one player who can attack the rim, and finish, or dish, and that's Burke. Which is why he should play the PG role, until Frank, Mudiay, Baker, Trier etc are better able to do the same.

LOL< you don't see the bigs setting things up like the guards?
Thank you for the clarity.
I thought most of us had read the Fiz quote...........

Thought you could respond like an adult, this isnt even close.

By your definition no team will ever play positionless basketball. There's only a handful of guys like LeBron, Giannis etc. that can be playmakers and effectively play all 5 positions. I think the definition and our target are both more modest. On offense a player should be able to play at least two and preferably three positions. Not everyone has to be able to run the offense especially in half court settings, but every player should be able to execute pick and rolls with every other player. Fluent passing skills along with off the ball movement are important. The opposite is true on defense, all players should be able to reasonably defend PNR and not get lot on screens. Being able to communicate and defend fast breaks will also be essential. The absolute must have'sfor positionless basketball IMO:

1. Versatility
2. Speed/agility
2. High IQ
3. Hard nosed defense
4. Unselfish play

Things detrimental to it

Chuckers
Poor defenders
Tunnel vision - Score first types
Low IQ players

If a big is fast enough to play PG, he can probably play all 5 positions. There are even more players than you named if you include those who not long ago were considered tall enough to play center. Its not out of the realm of possibility. Not sure why it was treated that way.

My point was that we dont have that kind of versatility across the board, and we dont have that versatility in the backcourt either. I believe that the player who brings up the ball in a half court set should more often than not be the one who is best at getting by the perimeter defenders, and who has the best court vision.

Thats who should have the ball at the top of the key, not someone who has trouble getting by defenders. Or who cant finish, or pass. Burke right now is the closest player to that description. Havent seen anything so far to suggest otherwise.

The more I read this train of thought the more it feels like a selective view of basketball to fit Trey Burke. Who brings the ball up the court is not and should not be the primary consideration in positionless basketball. The idea is not to have 5 interchangeable players, not at all.The idea is to have players who can switch in and out of different positions (not all 5 positions). Trey is fast, but has yet to show good decision making or creating offense through ball movement, creating passing lanes and cutting etc. The type of isolation drive and dish guard play you are advocating is possibly the exact opposite of positionless basketball.

Here's one definition http://positionlessbasketball.com/ See any mention of being able to get past the defense by yourself?

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:If the coach says we play positionless ball, and who ever gets the ball goes, why are we hung up on this PG thing all the time? If the smallest guy is not elite shooting the 3 there are problems.
Burke is with a new coach and new system and is being given a chance. That’s it. he might be the best “Pure PG” because of his size and quickness but do we know that’s what we are looking for? In the new era one need not penetrate to break down defense, if you have snipers then its kicked out.

I would also encourage knick fans to see Gleague games in person. There is very little cohesion as roster changes are frequent. These guys are good and some just need the right slot on the right team to get that contract and fill a role. Some are really close to making it but they won’t. I saw Burke play up close in Gleague and he was great, but that “great” is not “NBA” great. He is 26 and knew his spots.
Perhaps he can can have a good career.

Because that type of offense is for pushing the ball. But you cant always push the ball. Sometimes you're forced to play half court offense. Dont see KP, Robinson, Kanter, setting up teammates the way Burke, Frank, Baker can. They're better at driving and dishing.

Cant play true positionless ball until everyone can set up teammates like a PG. In today's NBA you need a player who can either get past defenders, get to the rim and finish, or dish. True positionless basketball to me are players with similar skill sets which make them interchangeable.

When all our backcourt players fit that description, then we will have something closer to positionless basketball.

Right now we only have one player who can attack the rim, and finish, or dish, and that's Burke. Which is why he should play the PG role, until Frank, Mudiay, Baker, Trier etc are better able to do the same.

LOL< you don't see the bigs setting things up like the guards?
Thank you for the clarity.
I thought most of us had read the Fiz quote...........

Thought you could respond like an adult, this isnt even close.

By your definition no team will ever play positionless basketball. There's only a handful of guys like LeBron, Giannis etc. that can be playmakers and effectively play all 5 positions. I think the definition and our target are both more modest. On offense a player should be able to play at least two and preferably three positions. Not everyone has to be able to run the offense especially in half court settings, but every player should be able to execute pick and rolls with every other player. Fluent passing skills along with off the ball movement are important. The opposite is true on defense, all players should be able to reasonably defend PNR and not get lot on screens. Being able to communicate and defend fast breaks will also be essential. The absolute must have'sfor positionless basketball IMO:

1. Versatility
2. Speed/agility
2. High IQ
3. Hard nosed defense
4. Unselfish play

Things detrimental to it

Chuckers
Poor defenders
Tunnel vision - Score first types
Low IQ players

If a big is fast enough to play PG, he can probably play all 5 positions. There are even more players than you named if you include those who not long ago were considered tall enough to play center. Its not out of the realm of possibility. Not sure why it was treated that way.

My point was that we dont have that kind of versatility across the board, and we dont have that versatility in the backcourt either. I believe that the player who brings up the ball in a half court set should more often than not be the one who is best at getting by the perimeter defenders, and who has the best court vision.

Thats who should have the ball at the top of the key, not someone who has trouble getting by defenders. Or who cant finish, or pass. Burke right now is the closest player to that description. Havent seen anything so far to suggest otherwise.

The more I read this train of thought the more it feels like a selective view of basketball to fit Trey Burke. Who brings the ball up the court is not and should not be the primary consideration in positionless basketball. The idea is not to have 5 interchangeable players, not at all.The idea is to have players who can switch in and out of different positions (not all 5 positions). Trey is fast, but has yet to show good decision making or creating offense through ball movement, creating passing lanes and cutting etc. The type of isolation drive and dish guard play you are advocating is possibly the exact opposite of positionless basketball.

Here's one definition http://positionlessbasketball.com/ See any mention of being able to get past the defense by yourself?

I disagree with your assessment of Trey Burke. He was top notch the limited time he did play towards the end of the season. If he sustains that level of play, he'll be an all star. Trey did everything right and so little wrong.

Last 11 Games of the Season:

MIN:42 FGM-FGA:7-16 FG%:.438 3PM-3PA:3-7 3P%:.429 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:5 AST:9 BLK:0 STL:3 PF:2 TO:2 PTS:19
MIN:34 FGM-FGA:5-11 FG%:.455 3PM-3PA:1-5 3P%:.200 FTM-FTA:1-2 FT%:.500 REB:0 AST:8 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:0 TO:3 PTS:12
MIN:31 FGM-FGA:3-13 FG%:.231 3PM-3PA:0-2 3P%:.000 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:4 AST:8 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:1 TO:2 PTS:8
MIN:30 FGM-FGA:6-12 FG%:.500 3PM-3PA:1-4 3P%:.250 FTM-FTA:4-7 FT%:.571 REB:3 AST:4 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:2 TO:2 PTS:17
MIN:32 FGM-FGA:7-13 FG%:.538 3PM-3PA:1-4 3P%:.250 FTM-FTA:0-0 FT%:.000 REB:1 AST:4 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:2 TO:0 PTS:15
MIN:38 FGM-FGA:7-17 FG%:.412 3PM-3PA:2-5 3P%:.400 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:5 AST:15 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:5 TO:1 PTS:18
MIN:28 FGM-FGA:7-15 FG%:.467 3PM-3PA:2-5 3P%:.400 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:2 AST:6 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:0 TO:3 PTS:18
MIN:41 FGM-FGA:19-31 FG%:.613 3PM-3PA:3-9 3P%:.333 FTM-FTA:1-1 FT%:1.000 REB:1 AST:12 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:1 TO:2 PTS:42
MIN:27 FGM-FGA:8-15 FG%:.533 3PM-3PA:0-2 3P%:.000 FTM-FTA:3-4 FT%:.750 REB:2 AST:3 BLK:0 STL:3 PF:4 TO:2 PTS:19
MIN:31 FGM-FGA:6-11 FG%:.545 3PM-3PA:1-2 3P%:.500 FTM-FTA:2-4 FT%:.500 REB:2 AST:9 BLK:0 STL:2 PF:3 TO:3 PTS:15
MIN:26 FGM-FGA:6-11 FG%:.545 3PM-3PA:4-7 3P%:.571 FTM-FTA:0-0 FT%:.000 REB:7 AST:2 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:1 TO:3 PTS:16

knicks1248 wrote:

Bizzy211 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:If the coach says we play positionless ball, and who ever gets the ball goes, why are we hung up on this PG thing all the time? If the smallest guy is not elite shooting the 3 there are problems.
Burke is with a new coach and new system and is being given a chance. That’s it. he might be the best “Pure PG” because of his size and quickness but do we know that’s what we are looking for? In the new era one need not penetrate to break down defense, if you have snipers then its kicked out.

I would also encourage knick fans to see Gleague games in person. There is very little cohesion as roster changes are frequent. These guys are good and some just need the right slot on the right team to get that contract and fill a role. Some are really close to making it but they won’t. I saw Burke play up close in Gleague and he was great, but that “great” is not “NBA” great. He is 26 and knew his spots.
Perhaps he can can have a good career.

Because that type of offense is for pushing the ball. But you cant always push the ball. Sometimes you're forced to play half court offense. Dont see KP, Robinson, Kanter, setting up teammates the way Burke, Frank, Baker can. They're better at driving and dishing.

Cant play true positionless ball until everyone can set up teammates like a PG. In today's NBA you need a player who can either get past defenders, get to the rim and finish, or dish. True positionless basketball to me are players with similar skill sets which make them interchangeable.

When all our backcourt players fit that description, then we will have something closer to positionless basketball.

Right now we only have one player who can attack the rim, and finish, or dish, and that's Burke. Which is why he should play the PG role, until Frank, Mudiay, Baker, Trier etc are better able to do the same.

LOL< you don't see the bigs setting things up like the guards?
Thank you for the clarity.
I thought most of us had read the Fiz quote...........

Thought you could respond like an adult, this isnt even close.

By your definition no team will ever play positionless basketball. There's only a handful of guys like LeBron, Giannis etc. that can be playmakers and effectively play all 5 positions. I think the definition and our target are both more modest. On offense a player should be able to play at least two and preferably three positions. Not everyone has to be able to run the offense especially in half court settings, but every player should be able to execute pick and rolls with every other player. Fluent passing skills along with off the ball movement are important. The opposite is true on defense, all players should be able to reasonably defend PNR and not get lot on screens. Being able to communicate and defend fast breaks will also be essential. The absolute must have'sfor positionless basketball IMO:

1. Versatility
2. Speed/agility
2. High IQ
3. Hard nosed defense
4. Unselfish play

Things detrimental to it

Chuckers
Poor defenders
Tunnel vision - Score first types
Low IQ players

If a big is fast enough to play PG, he can probably play all 5 positions. There are even more players than you named if you include those who not long ago were considered tall enough to play center. Its not out of the realm of possibility. Not sure why it was treated that way.

My point was that we dont have that kind of versatility across the board, and we dont have that versatility in the backcourt either. I believe that the player who brings up the ball in a half court set should more often than not be the one who is best at getting by the perimeter defenders, and who has the best court vision.

Thats who should have the ball at the top of the key, not someone who has trouble getting by defenders. Or who cant finish, or pass. Burke right now is the closest player to that description. Havent seen anything so far to suggest otherwise.

The more I read this train of thought the more it feels like a selective view of basketball to fit Trey Burke. Who brings the ball up the court is not and should not be the primary consideration in positionless basketball. The idea is not to have 5 interchangeable players, not at all.The idea is to have players who can switch in and out of different positions (not all 5 positions). Trey is fast, but has yet to show good decision making or creating offense through ball movement, creating passing lanes and cutting etc. The type of isolation drive and dish guard play you are advocating is possibly the exact opposite of positionless basketball.

Here's one definition http://positionlessbasketball.com/ See any mention of being able to get past the defense by yourself?

I disagree with your assessment of Trey Burke. He was top notch the limited time he did play towards the end of the season. If he sustains that level of play, he'll be an all star. Trey did everything right and so little wrong.

Last 11 Games of the Season:

MIN:42 FGM-FGA:7-16 FG%:.438 3PM-3PA:3-7 3P%:.429 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:5 AST:9 BLK:0 STL:3 PF:2 TO:2 PTS:19
MIN:34 FGM-FGA:5-11 FG%:.455 3PM-3PA:1-5 3P%:.200 FTM-FTA:1-2 FT%:.500 REB:0 AST:8 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:0 TO:3 PTS:12
MIN:31 FGM-FGA:3-13 FG%:.231 3PM-3PA:0-2 3P%:.000 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:4 AST:8 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:1 TO:2 PTS:8
MIN:30 FGM-FGA:6-12 FG%:.500 3PM-3PA:1-4 3P%:.250 FTM-FTA:4-7 FT%:.571 REB:3 AST:4 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:2 TO:2 PTS:17
MIN:32 FGM-FGA:7-13 FG%:.538 3PM-3PA:1-4 3P%:.250 FTM-FTA:0-0 FT%:.000 REB:1 AST:4 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:2 TO:0 PTS:15
MIN:38 FGM-FGA:7-17 FG%:.412 3PM-3PA:2-5 3P%:.400 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:5 AST:15 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:5 TO:1 PTS:18
MIN:28 FGM-FGA:7-15 FG%:.467 3PM-3PA:2-5 3P%:.400 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:2 AST:6 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:0 TO:3 PTS:18
MIN:41 FGM-FGA:19-31 FG%:.613 3PM-3PA:3-9 3P%:.333 FTM-FTA:1-1 FT%:1.000 REB:1 AST:12 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:1 TO:2 PTS:42
MIN:27 FGM-FGA:8-15 FG%:.533 3PM-3PA:0-2 3P%:.000 FTM-FTA:3-4 FT%:.750 REB:2 AST:3 BLK:0 STL:3 PF:4 TO:2 PTS:19
MIN:31 FGM-FGA:6-11 FG%:.545 3PM-3PA:1-2 3P%:.500 FTM-FTA:2-4 FT%:.500 REB:2 AST:9 BLK:0 STL:2 PF:3 TO:3 PTS:15
MIN:26 FGM-FGA:6-11 FG%:.545 3PM-3PA:4-7 3P%:.571 FTM-FTA:0-0 FT%:.000 REB:7 AST:2 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:1 TO:3 PTS:16

His success get so little attention. The kid put up above average numbers in an efficient manner, while getting very inconsistent minutes in JH (scratching your head) rotations.

But people want frank to start..

knicks1248 wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bizzy211 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:If the coach says we play positionless ball, and who ever gets the ball goes, why are we hung up on this PG thing all the time? If the smallest guy is not elite shooting the 3 there are problems.
Burke is with a new coach and new system and is being given a chance. That’s it. he might be the best “Pure PG” because of his size and quickness but do we know that’s what we are looking for? In the new era one need not penetrate to break down defense, if you have snipers then its kicked out.

I would also encourage knick fans to see Gleague games in person. There is very little cohesion as roster changes are frequent. These guys are good and some just need the right slot on the right team to get that contract and fill a role. Some are really close to making it but they won’t. I saw Burke play up close in Gleague and he was great, but that “great” is not “NBA” great. He is 26 and knew his spots.
Perhaps he can can have a good career.

Because that type of offense is for pushing the ball. But you cant always push the ball. Sometimes you're forced to play half court offense. Dont see KP, Robinson, Kanter, setting up teammates the way Burke, Frank, Baker can. They're better at driving and dishing.

Cant play true positionless ball until everyone can set up teammates like a PG. In today's NBA you need a player who can either get past defenders, get to the rim and finish, or dish. True positionless basketball to me are players with similar skill sets which make them interchangeable.

When all our backcourt players fit that description, then we will have something closer to positionless basketball.

Right now we only have one player who can attack the rim, and finish, or dish, and that's Burke. Which is why he should play the PG role, until Frank, Mudiay, Baker, Trier etc are better able to do the same.

LOL< you don't see the bigs setting things up like the guards?
Thank you for the clarity.
I thought most of us had read the Fiz quote...........

Thought you could respond like an adult, this isnt even close.

By your definition no team will ever play positionless basketball. There's only a handful of guys like LeBron, Giannis etc. that can be playmakers and effectively play all 5 positions. I think the definition and our target are both more modest. On offense a player should be able to play at least two and preferably three positions. Not everyone has to be able to run the offense especially in half court settings, but every player should be able to execute pick and rolls with every other player. Fluent passing skills along with off the ball movement are important. The opposite is true on defense, all players should be able to reasonably defend PNR and not get lot on screens. Being able to communicate and defend fast breaks will also be essential. The absolute must have'sfor positionless basketball IMO:

1. Versatility
2. Speed/agility
2. High IQ
3. Hard nosed defense
4. Unselfish play

Things detrimental to it

Chuckers
Poor defenders
Tunnel vision - Score first types
Low IQ players

If a big is fast enough to play PG, he can probably play all 5 positions. There are even more players than you named if you include those who not long ago were considered tall enough to play center. Its not out of the realm of possibility. Not sure why it was treated that way.

My point was that we dont have that kind of versatility across the board, and we dont have that versatility in the backcourt either. I believe that the player who brings up the ball in a half court set should more often than not be the one who is best at getting by the perimeter defenders, and who has the best court vision.

Thats who should have the ball at the top of the key, not someone who has trouble getting by defenders. Or who cant finish, or pass. Burke right now is the closest player to that description. Havent seen anything so far to suggest otherwise.

The more I read this train of thought the more it feels like a selective view of basketball to fit Trey Burke. Who brings the ball up the court is not and should not be the primary consideration in positionless basketball. The idea is not to have 5 interchangeable players, not at all.The idea is to have players who can switch in and out of different positions (not all 5 positions). Trey is fast, but has yet to show good decision making or creating offense through ball movement, creating passing lanes and cutting etc. The type of isolation drive and dish guard play you are advocating is possibly the exact opposite of positionless basketball.

Here's one definition http://positionlessbasketball.com/ See any mention of being able to get past the defense by yourself?

I disagree with your assessment of Trey Burke. He was top notch the limited time he did play towards the end of the season. If he sustains that level of play, he'll be an all star. Trey did everything right and so little wrong.

Last 11 Games of the Season:

MIN:42 FGM-FGA:7-16 FG%:.438 3PM-3PA:3-7 3P%:.429 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:5 AST:9 BLK:0 STL:3 PF:2 TO:2 PTS:19
MIN:34 FGM-FGA:5-11 FG%:.455 3PM-3PA:1-5 3P%:.200 FTM-FTA:1-2 FT%:.500 REB:0 AST:8 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:0 TO:3 PTS:12
MIN:31 FGM-FGA:3-13 FG%:.231 3PM-3PA:0-2 3P%:.000 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:4 AST:8 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:1 TO:2 PTS:8
MIN:30 FGM-FGA:6-12 FG%:.500 3PM-3PA:1-4 3P%:.250 FTM-FTA:4-7 FT%:.571 REB:3 AST:4 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:2 TO:2 PTS:17
MIN:32 FGM-FGA:7-13 FG%:.538 3PM-3PA:1-4 3P%:.250 FTM-FTA:0-0 FT%:.000 REB:1 AST:4 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:2 TO:0 PTS:15
MIN:38 FGM-FGA:7-17 FG%:.412 3PM-3PA:2-5 3P%:.400 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:5 AST:15 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:5 TO:1 PTS:18
MIN:28 FGM-FGA:7-15 FG%:.467 3PM-3PA:2-5 3P%:.400 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:2 AST:6 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:0 TO:3 PTS:18
MIN:41 FGM-FGA:19-31 FG%:.613 3PM-3PA:3-9 3P%:.333 FTM-FTA:1-1 FT%:1.000 REB:1 AST:12 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:1 TO:2 PTS:42
MIN:27 FGM-FGA:8-15 FG%:.533 3PM-3PA:0-2 3P%:.000 FTM-FTA:3-4 FT%:.750 REB:2 AST:3 BLK:0 STL:3 PF:4 TO:2 PTS:19
MIN:31 FGM-FGA:6-11 FG%:.545 3PM-3PA:1-2 3P%:.500 FTM-FTA:2-4 FT%:.500 REB:2 AST:9 BLK:0 STL:2 PF:3 TO:3 PTS:15
MIN:26 FGM-FGA:6-11 FG%:.545 3PM-3PA:4-7 3P%:.571 FTM-FTA:0-0 FT%:.000 REB:7 AST:2 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:1 TO:3 PTS:16

His success get so little attention. The kid put up above average numbers in an efficient manner, while getting very inconsistent minutes in JH (scratching your head) rotations.

But people want frank to start..

Like I mentioned before its not as important who starts its who finishrs and Frank will always be in there to finish games because of his defense alone. He has shown more aggressiveness in the Summer League and so far in the first preseason game.

Neither one are 2 way players, so i guess it should always come down to what the team needs at the end of the game. If were on a 8 minute scoring drought your not calling frank to the rescue , and if you need some defense your not calling on burke like his Gary payton.

Fiz rotation is going to be interesting, i just hope he's not playing 10 to 12 guys a night

StarksEwing1 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bizzy211 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:If the coach says we play positionless ball, and who ever gets the ball goes, why are we hung up on this PG thing all the time? If the smallest guy is not elite shooting the 3 there are problems.
Burke is with a new coach and new system and is being given a chance. That’s it. he might be the best “Pure PG” because of his size and quickness but do we know that’s what we are looking for? In the new era one need not penetrate to break down defense, if you have snipers then its kicked out.

I would also encourage knick fans to see Gleague games in person. There is very little cohesion as roster changes are frequent. These guys are good and some just need the right slot on the right team to get that contract and fill a role. Some are really close to making it but they won’t. I saw Burke play up close in Gleague and he was great, but that “great” is not “NBA” great. He is 26 and knew his spots.
Perhaps he can can have a good career.

Because that type of offense is for pushing the ball. But you cant always push the ball. Sometimes you're forced to play half court offense. Dont see KP, Robinson, Kanter, setting up teammates the way Burke, Frank, Baker can. They're better at driving and dishing.

Cant play true positionless ball until everyone can set up teammates like a PG. In today's NBA you need a player who can either get past defenders, get to the rim and finish, or dish. True positionless basketball to me are players with similar skill sets which make them interchangeable.

When all our backcourt players fit that description, then we will have something closer to positionless basketball.

Right now we only have one player who can attack the rim, and finish, or dish, and that's Burke. Which is why he should play the PG role, until Frank, Mudiay, Baker, Trier etc are better able to do the same.

LOL< you don't see the bigs setting things up like the guards?
Thank you for the clarity.
I thought most of us had read the Fiz quote...........

Thought you could respond like an adult, this isnt even close.

By your definition no team will ever play positionless basketball. There's only a handful of guys like LeBron, Giannis etc. that can be playmakers and effectively play all 5 positions. I think the definition and our target are both more modest. On offense a player should be able to play at least two and preferably three positions. Not everyone has to be able to run the offense especially in half court settings, but every player should be able to execute pick and rolls with every other player. Fluent passing skills along with off the ball movement are important. The opposite is true on defense, all players should be able to reasonably defend PNR and not get lot on screens. Being able to communicate and defend fast breaks will also be essential. The absolute must have'sfor positionless basketball IMO:

1. Versatility
2. Speed/agility
2. High IQ
3. Hard nosed defense
4. Unselfish play

Things detrimental to it

Chuckers
Poor defenders
Tunnel vision - Score first types
Low IQ players

If a big is fast enough to play PG, he can probably play all 5 positions. There are even more players than you named if you include those who not long ago were considered tall enough to play center. Its not out of the realm of possibility. Not sure why it was treated that way.

My point was that we dont have that kind of versatility across the board, and we dont have that versatility in the backcourt either. I believe that the player who brings up the ball in a half court set should more often than not be the one who is best at getting by the perimeter defenders, and who has the best court vision.

Thats who should have the ball at the top of the key, not someone who has trouble getting by defenders. Or who cant finish, or pass. Burke right now is the closest player to that description. Havent seen anything so far to suggest otherwise.

The more I read this train of thought the more it feels like a selective view of basketball to fit Trey Burke. Who brings the ball up the court is not and should not be the primary consideration in positionless basketball. The idea is not to have 5 interchangeable players, not at all.The idea is to have players who can switch in and out of different positions (not all 5 positions). Trey is fast, but has yet to show good decision making or creating offense through ball movement, creating passing lanes and cutting etc. The type of isolation drive and dish guard play you are advocating is possibly the exact opposite of positionless basketball.

Here's one definition http://positionlessbasketball.com/ See any mention of being able to get past the defense by yourself?

I disagree with your assessment of Trey Burke. He was top notch the limited time he did play towards the end of the season. If he sustains that level of play, he'll be an all star. Trey did everything right and so little wrong.

Last 11 Games of the Season:

MIN:42 FGM-FGA:7-16 FG%:.438 3PM-3PA:3-7 3P%:.429 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:5 AST:9 BLK:0 STL:3 PF:2 TO:2 PTS:19
MIN:34 FGM-FGA:5-11 FG%:.455 3PM-3PA:1-5 3P%:.200 FTM-FTA:1-2 FT%:.500 REB:0 AST:8 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:0 TO:3 PTS:12
MIN:31 FGM-FGA:3-13 FG%:.231 3PM-3PA:0-2 3P%:.000 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:4 AST:8 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:1 TO:2 PTS:8
MIN:30 FGM-FGA:6-12 FG%:.500 3PM-3PA:1-4 3P%:.250 FTM-FTA:4-7 FT%:.571 REB:3 AST:4 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:2 TO:2 PTS:17
MIN:32 FGM-FGA:7-13 FG%:.538 3PM-3PA:1-4 3P%:.250 FTM-FTA:0-0 FT%:.000 REB:1 AST:4 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:2 TO:0 PTS:15
MIN:38 FGM-FGA:7-17 FG%:.412 3PM-3PA:2-5 3P%:.400 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:5 AST:15 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:5 TO:1 PTS:18
MIN:28 FGM-FGA:7-15 FG%:.467 3PM-3PA:2-5 3P%:.400 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:2 AST:6 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:0 TO:3 PTS:18
MIN:41 FGM-FGA:19-31 FG%:.613 3PM-3PA:3-9 3P%:.333 FTM-FTA:1-1 FT%:1.000 REB:1 AST:12 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:1 TO:2 PTS:42
MIN:27 FGM-FGA:8-15 FG%:.533 3PM-3PA:0-2 3P%:.000 FTM-FTA:3-4 FT%:.750 REB:2 AST:3 BLK:0 STL:3 PF:4 TO:2 PTS:19
MIN:31 FGM-FGA:6-11 FG%:.545 3PM-3PA:1-2 3P%:.500 FTM-FTA:2-4 FT%:.500 REB:2 AST:9 BLK:0 STL:2 PF:3 TO:3 PTS:15
MIN:26 FGM-FGA:6-11 FG%:.545 3PM-3PA:4-7 3P%:.571 FTM-FTA:0-0 FT%:.000 REB:7 AST:2 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:1 TO:3 PTS:16

His success get so little attention. The kid put up above average numbers in an efficient manner, while getting very inconsistent minutes in JH (scratching your head) rotations.

But people want frank to start..

Like I mentioned before its not as important who starts its who finishrs and Frank will always be in there to finish games because of his defense alone. He has shown more aggressiveness in the Summer League and so far in the first preseason game.

Neither one are 2 way players, so i guess it should always come down to what the team needs at the end of the game. If were on a 8 minute scoring drought your not calling frank to the rescue , and if you need some defense your not calling on burke like his Gary payton.

Fiz rotation is going to be interesting, i just hope he's not playing 10 to 12 guys a night

he already said a lot guys are gonna play because of the up tempo style they are gonna play. Also he is gonna use diferente rotations. Thats why you shouldnt put too much stock in who starts. For example Fiz said he was really impressed with the group that started the 3rd quarter that i believe went on a 11-0 run which was franks group

no team in the league plays more than 10 guys, most play 9. You saw Fisher try to that and it was a utter mess. You will hardly every get consistency play if minutes are inconsistent. Burke was an such exception last season, that to me earned him the starting nod

knicks1248 wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bizzy211 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:If the coach says we play positionless ball, and who ever gets the ball goes, why are we hung up on this PG thing all the time? If the smallest guy is not elite shooting the 3 there are problems.
Burke is with a new coach and new system and is being given a chance. That’s it. he might be the best “Pure PG” because of his size and quickness but do we know that’s what we are looking for? In the new era one need not penetrate to break down defense, if you have snipers then its kicked out.

I would also encourage knick fans to see Gleague games in person. There is very little cohesion as roster changes are frequent. These guys are good and some just need the right slot on the right team to get that contract and fill a role. Some are really close to making it but they won’t. I saw Burke play up close in Gleague and he was great, but that “great” is not “NBA” great. He is 26 and knew his spots.
Perhaps he can can have a good career.

Because that type of offense is for pushing the ball. But you cant always push the ball. Sometimes you're forced to play half court offense. Dont see KP, Robinson, Kanter, setting up teammates the way Burke, Frank, Baker can. They're better at driving and dishing.

Cant play true positionless ball until everyone can set up teammates like a PG. In today's NBA you need a player who can either get past defenders, get to the rim and finish, or dish. True positionless basketball to me are players with similar skill sets which make them interchangeable.

When all our backcourt players fit that description, then we will have something closer to positionless basketball.

Right now we only have one player who can attack the rim, and finish, or dish, and that's Burke. Which is why he should play the PG role, until Frank, Mudiay, Baker, Trier etc are better able to do the same.

LOL< you don't see the bigs setting things up like the guards?
Thank you for the clarity.
I thought most of us had read the Fiz quote...........

Thought you could respond like an adult, this isnt even close.

By your definition no team will ever play positionless basketball. There's only a handful of guys like LeBron, Giannis etc. that can be playmakers and effectively play all 5 positions. I think the definition and our target are both more modest. On offense a player should be able to play at least two and preferably three positions. Not everyone has to be able to run the offense especially in half court settings, but every player should be able to execute pick and rolls with every other player. Fluent passing skills along with off the ball movement are important. The opposite is true on defense, all players should be able to reasonably defend PNR and not get lot on screens. Being able to communicate and defend fast breaks will also be essential. The absolute must have'sfor positionless basketball IMO:

1. Versatility
2. Speed/agility
2. High IQ
3. Hard nosed defense
4. Unselfish play

Things detrimental to it

Chuckers
Poor defenders
Tunnel vision - Score first types
Low IQ players

If a big is fast enough to play PG, he can probably play all 5 positions. There are even more players than you named if you include those who not long ago were considered tall enough to play center. Its not out of the realm of possibility. Not sure why it was treated that way.

My point was that we dont have that kind of versatility across the board, and we dont have that versatility in the backcourt either. I believe that the player who brings up the ball in a half court set should more often than not be the one who is best at getting by the perimeter defenders, and who has the best court vision.

Thats who should have the ball at the top of the key, not someone who has trouble getting by defenders. Or who cant finish, or pass. Burke right now is the closest player to that description. Havent seen anything so far to suggest otherwise.

The more I read this train of thought the more it feels like a selective view of basketball to fit Trey Burke. Who brings the ball up the court is not and should not be the primary consideration in positionless basketball. The idea is not to have 5 interchangeable players, not at all.The idea is to have players who can switch in and out of different positions (not all 5 positions). Trey is fast, but has yet to show good decision making or creating offense through ball movement, creating passing lanes and cutting etc. The type of isolation drive and dish guard play you are advocating is possibly the exact opposite of positionless basketball.

Here's one definition http://positionlessbasketball.com/ See any mention of being able to get past the defense by yourself?

I disagree with your assessment of Trey Burke. He was top notch the limited time he did play towards the end of the season. If he sustains that level of play, he'll be an all star. Trey did everything right and so little wrong.

Last 11 Games of the Season:

MIN:42 FGM-FGA:7-16 FG%:.438 3PM-3PA:3-7 3P%:.429 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:5 AST:9 BLK:0 STL:3 PF:2 TO:2 PTS:19
MIN:34 FGM-FGA:5-11 FG%:.455 3PM-3PA:1-5 3P%:.200 FTM-FTA:1-2 FT%:.500 REB:0 AST:8 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:0 TO:3 PTS:12
MIN:31 FGM-FGA:3-13 FG%:.231 3PM-3PA:0-2 3P%:.000 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:4 AST:8 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:1 TO:2 PTS:8
MIN:30 FGM-FGA:6-12 FG%:.500 3PM-3PA:1-4 3P%:.250 FTM-FTA:4-7 FT%:.571 REB:3 AST:4 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:2 TO:2 PTS:17
MIN:32 FGM-FGA:7-13 FG%:.538 3PM-3PA:1-4 3P%:.250 FTM-FTA:0-0 FT%:.000 REB:1 AST:4 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:2 TO:0 PTS:15
MIN:38 FGM-FGA:7-17 FG%:.412 3PM-3PA:2-5 3P%:.400 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:5 AST:15 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:5 TO:1 PTS:18
MIN:28 FGM-FGA:7-15 FG%:.467 3PM-3PA:2-5 3P%:.400 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:2 AST:6 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:0 TO:3 PTS:18
MIN:41 FGM-FGA:19-31 FG%:.613 3PM-3PA:3-9 3P%:.333 FTM-FTA:1-1 FT%:1.000 REB:1 AST:12 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:1 TO:2 PTS:42
MIN:27 FGM-FGA:8-15 FG%:.533 3PM-3PA:0-2 3P%:.000 FTM-FTA:3-4 FT%:.750 REB:2 AST:3 BLK:0 STL:3 PF:4 TO:2 PTS:19
MIN:31 FGM-FGA:6-11 FG%:.545 3PM-3PA:1-2 3P%:.500 FTM-FTA:2-4 FT%:.500 REB:2 AST:9 BLK:0 STL:2 PF:3 TO:3 PTS:15
MIN:26 FGM-FGA:6-11 FG%:.545 3PM-3PA:4-7 3P%:.571 FTM-FTA:0-0 FT%:.000 REB:7 AST:2 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:1 TO:3 PTS:16

His success get so little attention. The kid put up above average numbers in an efficient manner, while getting very inconsistent minutes in JH (scratching your head) rotations.

But people want frank to start..

Like I mentioned before its not as important who starts its who finishrs and Frank will always be in there to finish games because of his defense alone. He has shown more aggressiveness in the Summer League and so far in the first preseason game.

Neither one are 2 way players, so i guess it should always come down to what the team needs at the end of the game. If were on a 8 minute scoring drought your not calling frank to the rescue , and if you need some defense your not calling on burke like his Gary payton.

Fiz rotation is going to be interesting, i just hope he's not playing 10 to 12 guys a night

he already said a lot guys are gonna play because of the up tempo style they are gonna play. Also he is gonna use diferente rotations. Thats why you shouldnt put too much stock in who starts. For example Fiz said he was really impressed with the group that started the 3rd quarter that i believe went on a 11-0 run which was franks group

no team in the league plays more than 10 guys, most play 9. You saw Fisher try to that and it was a utter mess. You will hardly every get consistency play if minutes are inconsistent. Burke was an such exception last season, that to me earned him the starting nod

Nalod wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

StarksEwing1 wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

Bizzy211 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:If the coach says we play positionless ball, and who ever gets the ball goes, why are we hung up on this PG thing all the time? If the smallest guy is not elite shooting the 3 there are problems.
Burke is with a new coach and new system and is being given a chance. That’s it. he might be the best “Pure PG” because of his size and quickness but do we know that’s what we are looking for? In the new era one need not penetrate to break down defense, if you have snipers then its kicked out.

I would also encourage knick fans to see Gleague games in person. There is very little cohesion as roster changes are frequent. These guys are good and some just need the right slot on the right team to get that contract and fill a role. Some are really close to making it but they won’t. I saw Burke play up close in Gleague and he was great, but that “great” is not “NBA” great. He is 26 and knew his spots.
Perhaps he can can have a good career.

Because that type of offense is for pushing the ball. But you cant always push the ball. Sometimes you're forced to play half court offense. Dont see KP, Robinson, Kanter, setting up teammates the way Burke, Frank, Baker can. They're better at driving and dishing.

Cant play true positionless ball until everyone can set up teammates like a PG. In today's NBA you need a player who can either get past defenders, get to the rim and finish, or dish. True positionless basketball to me are players with similar skill sets which make them interchangeable.

When all our backcourt players fit that description, then we will have something closer to positionless basketball.

Right now we only have one player who can attack the rim, and finish, or dish, and that's Burke. Which is why he should play the PG role, until Frank, Mudiay, Baker, Trier etc are better able to do the same.

LOL< you don't see the bigs setting things up like the guards?
Thank you for the clarity.
I thought most of us had read the Fiz quote...........

Thought you could respond like an adult, this isnt even close.

By your definition no team will ever play positionless basketball. There's only a handful of guys like LeBron, Giannis etc. that can be playmakers and effectively play all 5 positions. I think the definition and our target are both more modest. On offense a player should be able to play at least two and preferably three positions. Not everyone has to be able to run the offense especially in half court settings, but every player should be able to execute pick and rolls with every other player. Fluent passing skills along with off the ball movement are important. The opposite is true on defense, all players should be able to reasonably defend PNR and not get lot on screens. Being able to communicate and defend fast breaks will also be essential. The absolute must have'sfor positionless basketball IMO:

1. Versatility
2. Speed/agility
2. High IQ
3. Hard nosed defense
4. Unselfish play

Things detrimental to it

Chuckers
Poor defenders
Tunnel vision - Score first types
Low IQ players

If a big is fast enough to play PG, he can probably play all 5 positions. There are even more players than you named if you include those who not long ago were considered tall enough to play center. Its not out of the realm of possibility. Not sure why it was treated that way.

My point was that we dont have that kind of versatility across the board, and we dont have that versatility in the backcourt either. I believe that the player who brings up the ball in a half court set should more often than not be the one who is best at getting by the perimeter defenders, and who has the best court vision.

Thats who should have the ball at the top of the key, not someone who has trouble getting by defenders. Or who cant finish, or pass. Burke right now is the closest player to that description. Havent seen anything so far to suggest otherwise.

The more I read this train of thought the more it feels like a selective view of basketball to fit Trey Burke. Who brings the ball up the court is not and should not be the primary consideration in positionless basketball. The idea is not to have 5 interchangeable players, not at all.The idea is to have players who can switch in and out of different positions (not all 5 positions). Trey is fast, but has yet to show good decision making or creating offense through ball movement, creating passing lanes and cutting etc. The type of isolation drive and dish guard play you are advocating is possibly the exact opposite of positionless basketball.

Here's one definition http://positionlessbasketball.com/ See any mention of being able to get past the defense by yourself?

I disagree with your assessment of Trey Burke. He was top notch the limited time he did play towards the end of the season. If he sustains that level of play, he'll be an all star. Trey did everything right and so little wrong.

Last 11 Games of the Season:

MIN:42 FGM-FGA:7-16 FG%:.438 3PM-3PA:3-7 3P%:.429 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:5 AST:9 BLK:0 STL:3 PF:2 TO:2 PTS:19
MIN:34 FGM-FGA:5-11 FG%:.455 3PM-3PA:1-5 3P%:.200 FTM-FTA:1-2 FT%:.500 REB:0 AST:8 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:0 TO:3 PTS:12
MIN:31 FGM-FGA:3-13 FG%:.231 3PM-3PA:0-2 3P%:.000 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:4 AST:8 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:1 TO:2 PTS:8
MIN:30 FGM-FGA:6-12 FG%:.500 3PM-3PA:1-4 3P%:.250 FTM-FTA:4-7 FT%:.571 REB:3 AST:4 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:2 TO:2 PTS:17
MIN:32 FGM-FGA:7-13 FG%:.538 3PM-3PA:1-4 3P%:.250 FTM-FTA:0-0 FT%:.000 REB:1 AST:4 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:2 TO:0 PTS:15
MIN:38 FGM-FGA:7-17 FG%:.412 3PM-3PA:2-5 3P%:.400 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:5 AST:15 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:5 TO:1 PTS:18
MIN:28 FGM-FGA:7-15 FG%:.467 3PM-3PA:2-5 3P%:.400 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:2 AST:6 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:0 TO:3 PTS:18
MIN:41 FGM-FGA:19-31 FG%:.613 3PM-3PA:3-9 3P%:.333 FTM-FTA:1-1 FT%:1.000 REB:1 AST:12 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:1 TO:2 PTS:42
MIN:27 FGM-FGA:8-15 FG%:.533 3PM-3PA:0-2 3P%:.000 FTM-FTA:3-4 FT%:.750 REB:2 AST:3 BLK:0 STL:3 PF:4 TO:2 PTS:19
MIN:31 FGM-FGA:6-11 FG%:.545 3PM-3PA:1-2 3P%:.500 FTM-FTA:2-4 FT%:.500 REB:2 AST:9 BLK:0 STL:2 PF:3 TO:3 PTS:15
MIN:26 FGM-FGA:6-11 FG%:.545 3PM-3PA:4-7 3P%:.571 FTM-FTA:0-0 FT%:.000 REB:7 AST:2 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:1 TO:3 PTS:16

His success get so little attention. The kid put up above average numbers in an efficient manner, while getting very inconsistent minutes in JH (scratching your head) rotations.

But people want frank to start..

Like I mentioned before its not as important who starts its who finishrs and Frank will always be in there to finish games because of his defense alone. He has shown more aggressiveness in the Summer League and so far in the first preseason game.

Neither one are 2 way players, so i guess it should always come down to what the team needs at the end of the game. If were on a 8 minute scoring drought your not calling frank to the rescue , and if you need some defense your not calling on burke like his Gary payton.

Fiz rotation is going to be interesting, i just hope he's not playing 10 to 12 guys a night

he already said a lot guys are gonna play because of the up tempo style they are gonna play. Also he is gonna use diferente rotations. Thats why you shouldnt put too much stock in who starts. For example Fiz said he was really impressed with the group that started the 3rd quarter that i believe went on a 11-0 run which was franks group

no team in the league plays more than 10 guys, most play 9. You saw Fisher try to that and it was a utter mess. You will hardly every get consistency play if minutes are inconsistent. Burke was an such exception last season, that to me earned him the starting nod

I’m more excited about frank. Already a lockdown defender and I like how he is more aggressive and taking those open shots. i can’t want to see him Knox KP and Mitch together both offense belt and especially defensively

My take on frank's evolution I hope is on par with Olidipo who needed a few years to develop. Thus, I doubt he blows us away over the course of one summer. When he is on the floor good things happen. He deflects passes, disrupts the passing lane, and other small things that add up. He is still growing and I suspect we'll see a better frank, but its not gonna blow our minds.
That's starphuchedly good and fun, but rare!

Bizzy211 wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:If the coach says we play positionless ball, and who ever gets the ball goes, why are we hung up on this PG thing all the time? If the smallest guy is not elite shooting the 3 there are problems.
Burke is with a new coach and new system and is being given a chance. That’s it. he might be the best “Pure PG” because of his size and quickness but do we know that’s what we are looking for? In the new era one need not penetrate to break down defense, if you have snipers then its kicked out.

I would also encourage knick fans to see Gleague games in person. There is very little cohesion as roster changes are frequent. These guys are good and some just need the right slot on the right team to get that contract and fill a role. Some are really close to making it but they won’t. I saw Burke play up close in Gleague and he was great, but that “great” is not “NBA” great. He is 26 and knew his spots.
Perhaps he can can have a good career.

Because that type of offense is for pushing the ball. But you cant always push the ball. Sometimes you're forced to play half court offense. Dont see KP, Robinson, Kanter, setting up teammates the way Burke, Frank, Baker can. They're better at driving and dishing.

Cant play true positionless ball until everyone can set up teammates like a PG. In today's NBA you need a player who can either get past defenders, get to the rim and finish, or dish. True positionless basketball to me are players with similar skill sets which make them interchangeable.

When all our backcourt players fit that description, then we will have something closer to positionless basketball.

Right now we only have one player who can attack the rim, and finish, or dish, and that's Burke. Which is why he should play the PG role, until Frank, Mudiay, Baker, Trier etc are better able to do the same.

LOL< you don't see the bigs setting things up like the guards?
Thank you for the clarity.
I thought most of us had read the Fiz quote...........

Thought you could respond like an adult, this isnt even close.

By your definition no team will ever play positionless basketball. There's only a handful of guys like LeBron, Giannis etc. that can be playmakers and effectively play all 5 positions. I think the definition and our target are both more modest. On offense a player should be able to play at least two and preferably three positions. Not everyone has to be able to run the offense especially in half court settings, but every player should be able to execute pick and rolls with every other player. Fluent passing skills along with off the ball movement are important. The opposite is true on defense, all players should be able to reasonably defend PNR and not get lot on screens. Being able to communicate and defend fast breaks will also be essential. The absolute must have'sfor positionless basketball IMO:

1. Versatility
2. Speed/agility
2. High IQ
3. Hard nosed defense
4. Unselfish play

Things detrimental to it

Chuckers
Poor defenders
Tunnel vision - Score first types
Low IQ players

If a big is fast enough to play PG, he can probably play all 5 positions. There are even more players than you named if you include those who not long ago were considered tall enough to play center. Its not out of the realm of possibility. Not sure why it was treated that way.

My point was that we dont have that kind of versatility across the board, and we dont have that versatility in the backcourt either. I believe that the player who brings up the ball in a half court set should more often than not be the one who is best at getting by the perimeter defenders, and who has the best court vision.

Thats who should have the ball at the top of the key, not someone who has trouble getting by defenders. Or who cant finish, or pass. Burke right now is the closest player to that description. Havent seen anything so far to suggest otherwise.

The more I read this train of thought the more it feels like a selective view of basketball to fit Trey Burke. Who brings the ball up the court is not and should not be the primary consideration in positionless basketball. The idea is not to have 5 interchangeable players, not at all.The idea is to have players who can switch in and out of different positions (not all 5 positions). Trey is fast, but has yet to show good decision making or creating offense through ball movement, creating passing lanes and cutting etc. The type of isolation drive and dish guard play you are advocating is possibly the exact opposite of positionless basketball.

Here's one definition http://positionlessbasketball.com/ See any mention of being able to get past the defense by yourself?

I disagree with your assessment of Trey Burke. He was top notch the limited time he did play towards the end of the season. If he sustains that level of play, he'll be an all star. Trey did everything right and so little wrong.

Last 11 Games of the Season:

MIN:42 FGM-FGA:7-16 FG%:.438 3PM-3PA:3-7 3P%:.429 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:5 AST:9 BLK:0 STL:3 PF:2 TO:2 PTS:19
MIN:34 FGM-FGA:5-11 FG%:.455 3PM-3PA:1-5 3P%:.200 FTM-FTA:1-2 FT%:.500 REB:0 AST:8 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:0 TO:3 PTS:12
MIN:31 FGM-FGA:3-13 FG%:.231 3PM-3PA:0-2 3P%:.000 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:4 AST:8 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:1 TO:2 PTS:8
MIN:30 FGM-FGA:6-12 FG%:.500 3PM-3PA:1-4 3P%:.250 FTM-FTA:4-7 FT%:.571 REB:3 AST:4 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:2 TO:2 PTS:17
MIN:32 FGM-FGA:7-13 FG%:.538 3PM-3PA:1-4 3P%:.250 FTM-FTA:0-0 FT%:.000 REB:1 AST:4 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:2 TO:0 PTS:15
MIN:38 FGM-FGA:7-17 FG%:.412 3PM-3PA:2-5 3P%:.400 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:5 AST:15 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:5 TO:1 PTS:18
MIN:28 FGM-FGA:7-15 FG%:.467 3PM-3PA:2-5 3P%:.400 FTM-FTA:2-2 FT%:1.000 REB:2 AST:6 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:0 TO:3 PTS:18
MIN:41 FGM-FGA:19-31 FG%:.613 3PM-3PA:3-9 3P%:.333 FTM-FTA:1-1 FT%:1.000 REB:1 AST:12 BLK:0 STL:1 PF:1 TO:2 PTS:42
MIN:27 FGM-FGA:8-15 FG%:.533 3PM-3PA:0-2 3P%:.000 FTM-FTA:3-4 FT%:.750 REB:2 AST:3 BLK:0 STL:3 PF:4 TO:2 PTS:19
MIN:31 FGM-FGA:6-11 FG%:.545 3PM-3PA:1-2 3P%:.500 FTM-FTA:2-4 FT%:.500 REB:2 AST:9 BLK:0 STL:2 PF:3 TO:3 PTS:15
MIN:26 FGM-FGA:6-11 FG%:.545 3PM-3PA:4-7 3P%:.571 FTM-FTA:0-0 FT%:.000 REB:7 AST:2 BLK:0 STL:0 PF:1 TO:3 PTS:16

Well - players are judged on advanced stats now and those aren't that good for him over the same sample of games.

Win-Loss record 3-8
Aggregate Net Plus-Minus for Trey Burke = -65
On those games we scored an average of 112.72 points per 100 possession and gave up 116.72 points per 100 possessions

Focusing on points scored and assists and steals just doesn't cut it when the overall impact is net negative for the team.

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:If the coach says we play positionless ball, and who ever gets the ball goes, why are we hung up on this PG thing all the time? If the smallest guy is not elite shooting the 3 there are problems.
Burke is with a new coach and new system and is being given a chance. That’s it. he might be the best “Pure PG” because of his size and quickness but do we know that’s what we are looking for? In the new era one need not penetrate to break down defense, if you have snipers then its kicked out.

I would also encourage knick fans to see Gleague games in person. There is very little cohesion as roster changes are frequent. These guys are good and some just need the right slot on the right team to get that contract and fill a role. Some are really close to making it but they won’t. I saw Burke play up close in Gleague and he was great, but that “great” is not “NBA” great. He is 26 and knew his spots.
Perhaps he can can have a good career.

Because that type of offense is for pushing the ball. But you cant always push the ball. Sometimes you're forced to play half court offense. Dont see KP, Robinson, Kanter, setting up teammates the way Burke, Frank, Baker can. They're better at driving and dishing.

Cant play true positionless ball until everyone can set up teammates like a PG. In today's NBA you need a player who can either get past defenders, get to the rim and finish, or dish. True positionless basketball to me are players with similar skill sets which make them interchangeable.

When all our backcourt players fit that description, then we will have something closer to positionless basketball.

Right now we only have one player who can attack the rim, and finish, or dish, and that's Burke. Which is why he should play the PG role, until Frank, Mudiay, Baker, Trier etc are better able to do the same.

LOL< you don't see the bigs setting things up like the guards?
Thank you for the clarity.
I thought most of us had read the Fiz quote...........

Thought you could respond like an adult, this isnt even close.

By your definition no team will ever play positionless basketball. There's only a handful of guys like LeBron, Giannis etc. that can be playmakers and effectively play all 5 positions. I think the definition and our target are both more modest. On offense a player should be able to play at least two and preferably three positions. Not everyone has to be able to run the offense especially in half court settings, but every player should be able to execute pick and rolls with every other player. Fluent passing skills along with off the ball movement are important. The opposite is true on defense, all players should be able to reasonably defend PNR and not get lot on screens. Being able to communicate and defend fast breaks will also be essential. The absolute must have'sfor positionless basketball IMO:

1. Versatility
2. Speed/agility
2. High IQ
3. Hard nosed defense
4. Unselfish play

Things detrimental to it

Chuckers
Poor defenders
Tunnel vision - Score first types
Low IQ players

If a big is fast enough to play PG, he can probably play all 5 positions. There are even more players than you named if you include those who not long ago were considered tall enough to play center. Its not out of the realm of possibility. Not sure why it was treated that way.

My point was that we dont have that kind of versatility across the board, and we dont have that versatility in the backcourt either. I believe that the player who brings up the ball in a half court set should more often than not be the one who is best at getting by the perimeter defenders, and who has the best court vision.

Thats who should have the ball at the top of the key, not someone who has trouble getting by defenders. Or who cant finish, or pass. Burke right now is the closest player to that description. Havent seen anything so far to suggest otherwise.

The more I read this train of thought the more it feels like a selective view of basketball to fit Trey Burke. Who brings the ball up the court is not and should not be the primary consideration in positionless basketball. The idea is not to have 5 interchangeable players, not at all.The idea is to have players who can switch in and out of different positions (not all 5 positions). Trey is fast, but has yet to show good decision making or creating offense through ball movement, creating passing lanes and cutting etc. The type of isolation drive and dish guard play you are advocating is possibly the exact opposite of positionless basketball.

Here's one definition http://positionlessbasketball.com/ See any mention of being able to get past the defense by yourself?

Getting the feeling that you werent paying attention to what I said. I was not talking about fast break situations. Thats really what "positionless" basketball is about. Read your own links.

Talks about getting to an "early offense". Thats just another way of saying fast break bball. As I said repeatedly, thats not what Im talking about.

Im talking about the situations (there will be plenty) when they play half court sets. Especially in the playoffs where the game slows down, for even the Warriors. In those situatations Id prefer it was someone who makes 1 through 5 on the defense have to divert some of their attention to the ball carrier. Because it also takes some of their attention off their assignment. Cant do that if they cant drive, finish, pass, shoot.

Been saying on this board for years that players are getting taller, faster, to the point where guys like Giannis, Durant, Simmons, will be much more common. Positions have less meaning.

Tried to differentiate between that, and Fizdale's system. Thats why I said upthread what my idea of positionless ball is.

Think of SSOL. You dont see D'Antoni's teams running it every time his team brings the ball up the floor.

Thats why Im saying that the PG position is still important, and the player best equipped to get past the first line of defense, to make things happen, should bring up the ball in those situations,whenever possible.

So you are focused on who should have the ball when positionless basketball grinds into a half court offense? That IMO fails to address the issue altogether. I would contend as players continue to become more versatile you will have less and less situations when this happens. The fact that it happens is failure to execute and that is the problem that needs to be addressed. Half court grind out offense is an entrenched system both among players and coaches and also clearly among fans as well. Positionless basketball won't happen overnight but the focus of teams trying to play it should not be on how best to revert back to halfcourt in playoff basketball, but rather on how to make the positionless game work in those scenarios.

BTW - players are NOT getting taller, the average height in the NBA hasn't changed over 40 years (I read this just yesterday in a article).

The problem is that they arent versatile enough to be interchangeable. Until Frank, Mudiay, Baker, can get to the rim, finish, its best IMO to have Burke as a starter because right now he is the most versatile.

Id like the player bringing the ball up to be able to create space for his teammates because he is a legit threat to get to the rim.

Thats the key to Fizdale's system right? Spacing. Burke has shown he can create space. Im not suggesting anything is permanent. Back to SSOL, D'Antoni needed certain kind of players to make things work. Didnt have the talent in NY to run it the way he really wanted. The same goes for the Triangle, have to make concessions to the talent on hand.

Ive been seeing Burke getting the ball on the inbound, bringing up the ball, and setting up the offense. I dont hear or see any complaining from Fizdale. I dont see Fizdale complaining when someone grabs a board and hands Burke the ball. The reason is sometimes the defense is pressing, filling the passing lanes, the opportunity to immediately push the ball isnt there.

Thats when you want the player with the best handle, and PG skills to have the ball. Right now thats Burke. Maybe down the road it will be someone else.

Again I disagree Burke is the most versatile. Burke didn't play good defense and that is about 50% of the required versatility. None of our guards are very versatile, but Burke isn't better than everybody.