Clean wrote:martin wrote:Clean wrote:martin wrote:Clean wrote:unstopaball12 wrote:I still agree with IQ not starting. He is doing well in his role, whu change it? Thibs has stuck with the hot hand to end the game. If we start him and we go on a losing streak and demote him, it might demoralise him. He knows what his current role is and he knows if he performs he can get minutes.Agree though with the addition of rose, Payton has got to go. Hoping we trade him for a pick and use that pick to trade for a solid 3 and d man.
I never got this logic of being OK with Quick not starting because he is playing well. How do you know if he will not do better in a starting role? Even if IQ's numbers go down because teams are doubling him maybe this will also make things easier for RJ and Randle. Instead of the paint being packed they get to go 1 on 1 because teams are doubling IQ.
The logic isn't so much that IQ is not starting because he is playing well. He is playing well. Is he playing well enough to start? Is he absolutely dominating the second line? What's better for the team? What PG is better for each unit? Has he figured out enough to warrant starting (besides the obvious of shooting better than Payton)? What's his usage on the second line? Cause it seems high and then would take away from RJ and Randle.
IQ has many many PG flaws that would get UBER exposed going against starters in the NBA. Miami just trapped him to death and other teams would catch on and he would make the starting lineup look foolish... and then what? You demote him again?
Thibs needs to be in a position to start IQ when IQ is ready to start for the whole year. As a PG, as a defender, as a distributor, as a shooter.
I see what you mean about his flaws might be exposed and I agree he does have some. The way I see it, I would rather us see what those flaws are now so we have enough time to work on them before the playoffs(I am going to speak it into existence). We also get to see how he handles adversity which is important. If it turns out to be a disaster we now know exactly what he needs to work on. However, if it turns out he thrives in his new role it would be amazing for our franchise to finally have the PG we been looking for.
You keep saying We, and by that you mean We Fans. Thibs is like, I see his flaws during practice and against second liners during games and in the 4th quarter and when I watch and then re-watch film and then again in the next day when I watch film with the players and I don't want to see them at the beginning of the game.
You want to see the entertainment value of it for you. Where's the development of a player come in?
I actually meant the Knicks when I say we. I don't think it's uncommon for fans of teams to say we or us when talking about them. It does not matter if fans see his weakness because we have no power to do anything but talk about it on forums or social media.
Like I said before IQ has his own flaws, but I believe he has clearly outplayed Payton for the starting job in less time with a shorter leash. Payton has more glaringly bad flaws for this team. In a league where you need shooters to be good we have a team devoid of them. Common sense says that if you have players who slash(RJ) or Post(Randle) you want to surround them with shooters to give them space to work. We gave them Payton who no one defends and just instead they throw zones at us. Payton is probably a better player for a team full of shooters. Sadly that is not the Knicks so he is doing us more harm than good.
I always say you can learn a lot about a team by what strategies their opponents use against them. When Payton is on the floor teams pack the paint, play zone and ignore him because any shot he takes is a win for the defense. When Quick plays he is now getting double teams or the teams best defender.
Seems like you've taken the position that you know more about who should start then Thibs and Bryant and company? I'm taking the stance that those guys know what they are doing and trying to figure out the Why's of their decision-making
2 different perspectives
