SupremeCommander wrote:

FrenchFreak wrote:I’m intrigued by the idea of stealing the “opener” concept from MLB and applying it to basketball. The Knicks second team brings so much pace and energy and defensive effort when they come in the game, why not have them start the game and go all out for the first five minutes or so before bringing in our first team?

I wonder if tweaking the amount of time played by the first team in this scheme might be disruptive to the other team. Also, as a viewer I see the real leadership of the team right now as being Rose. If you don’t want to separate him from IQ (like me) why not have him begin the game as an opener and help set the pace?

Just a thought. I want to mix things up and this would be one way to do it. I’ve been struggling to come up with other ideas I like to fix our crappy starting five.

that's where I'm at too...

I think the simplest solution might just be to start the bench for a game to get the starters to wake the eff up. Could keep the same minutes. This is something that happens often in hockey, demote guys to the 3rd or 4th line for a game or three with the intent of putting them back into the 1st or 2nd line once they get their **** together

fishmike wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

fishmike wrote:where's Mitch?

hopefully out of the rotation

lol cause he's a liability like Rudy Gobert yeah? Man you are special

Your comparing Mitch to Rudy....That's hilarious

From a talent stand point it's not even close, from a team impact it's not even remotely close

Small Ball ERA, either get with the program or get left behind.

The JAZZ got bounced in the PO in 5 games, the kawhi-less clippers went small and ran them off the court.

knicks1248 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

fishmike wrote:where's Mitch?

hopefully out of the rotation

lol cause he's a liability like Rudy Gobert yeah? Man you are special

Your comparing Mitch to Rudy....That's hilarious

From a talent stand point it's not even close, from a team impact it's not even remotely close

Small Ball ERA, either get with the program or get left behind.

The JAZZ got bounced in the PO in 5 games, the kawhi-less clippers went small and ran them off the court.

We got guys here comparing Elf to Ron Artest in his prime

Philc1 wrote:Fournier contract starting to look really bad. Maybe we can salary dump it on some western conference team. Burks is clearly a better player on both ends and RJ should move to SF so IQ can start st the 2 and we can call up McBride to be the backup pg

A simpler fix is to swap Burks and Fournier. This starting unit needs Burks and this team needs a confident Fournier. The energy of the 2nd unit would help Fournier regain his mojo, without messing up chemistry since Fournier is not an iso player. He plays within the system.

Nalod wrote:Not 20 games in, and after last season, we don’t give our FO or coaches the benefit of the doubt?

If not 20 then when? I agree, we shouldn't jump to any quick solutions. Lets see how these vets can solve this. Fournier already provided his solution, which is to move the ball and cut down the 1 on 1 iso plays. He's probably standing there just watching Randle and RJ fight over the ball. If you watch the game, it's crazy when RJ has the ball, Randle put his head down and others are running towards RJ. Or the other way around, RJ is running towards the ball, with his hands open vs running a set play of motion or setting back picks or something. There's only 1 ball and RJ / Randle believes the ball should stay in their hands. It's not a problem when we win....but looks bad when we lose.

Hey, it took Thibs less than 20 games to bench Fournier for the entire 4th quarter. While Burks stepped up and proved why we should use him more often. It's only a matter of time, before Thibs is forced into a move. Rose, IQ or Burks seems to be the options to pick from. And Burks is a bigger guard who can also guard the small players that IQ and Rose guard. So it just makes too much sense to move Burks into the starting lineup. He could replace Kemba, which will give us a taller starting 5. But leaves our bench extremely small with a Kemba, Rose and IQ rotation. I would hate to be in Thibs shoes right now, moving forward.

blkexec wrote:

Nalod wrote:Not 20 games in, and after last season, we don’t give our FO or coaches the benefit of the doubt?

If not 20 then when? I agree, we shouldn't jump to any quick solutions. Lets see how these vets can solve this. Fournier already provided his solution, which is to move the ball and cut down the 1 on 1 iso plays. He's probably standing there just watching Randle and RJ fight over the ball. If you watch the game, it's crazy when RJ has the ball, Randle put his head down and others are running towards RJ. Or the other way around, RJ is running towards the ball, with his hands open vs running a set play of motion or setting back picks or something. There's only 1 ball and RJ / Randle believes the ball should stay in their hands. It's not a problem when we win....but looks bad when we lose.

Hey, it took Thibs less than 20 games to bench Fournier for the entire 4th quarter. While Burks stepped up and proved why we should use him more often. It's only a matter of time, before Thibs is forced into a move. Rose, IQ or Burks seems to be the options to pick from. And Burks is a bigger guard who can also guard the small players that IQ and Rose guard. So it just makes too much sense to move Burks into the starting lineup. He could replace Kemba, which will give us a taller starting 5. But leaves our bench extremely small with a Kemba, Rose and IQ rotation. I would hate to be in Thibs shoes right now, moving forward.

Fournier just is what he is. He’s a good shooter and and can create his own shot. On defense he’s a stereotypical euro guy. Our shooting percentages were a little flukey last season so we needed to add shooters but he’s not a fit defensively at all