The team's not gonna win with Marbury until he gets a good supporting cast, which should happen in 1 to 2 years if Isiah uses all of the team's assets well. You can mention the below .500 record, but "losers" like Kobe, Garnett, and Lebron missed the playoffs too. I noticed you were never very eager to get Marbury off the team until that rumor came out that he had some say in the Van Horn trade...

My friend has a theory that the Brooklyn Nets are gonna get Lebron because Lebron loves Jay-Z and Jay-Z is part owner of the Nets. In all likeliehood, the nets will have more cap room than us regardless of what we do.

I also think it's crazy to bank all of our hopes on 1 player, at the expense of everything else. We have something here, it doesn't make sense to throw that away for the remote possibility of getting Lebron. Marbury shold be playing at a high level up until his contract expires. I think it is you guys who are not thinking long range. We have a good chance this off-season, next year and the following year to add good pieces to our team and make a run at a championship.

In the 06-07 season we have 40 million dollars in expiring contracts. that represents a serious oppurtunity for us.

Marbury's defense is not a problem. It's not great, but it's about average. (If you go by stats, it's way above average, actually.) Crawford's is atrocious with guys shooting about 55% against him.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Marbury's defense is not a problem. It's not great, but it's about average. (If you go by stats, it's way above average, actually.) Crawford's is atrocious with guys shooting about 55% against him.

Post the Marbury numbers on defense. If you're right about the percentage, something's wrong because I see him getting burned off the dribble 80% of the time.

we got torched by guys like Milt Palacio, Tyronn Lue, Brevin Knight & Rafer Alston this year, so please stop w/the "Marbury's defense isn't bad" notions...anyone who watches the games & sees his effort on defense can tell you that his defense is poor...a few stretches of games where he might decide to play some D doesn't mean squat...it's all about consistent effort...Marbury spends most of that effort & energy on the offensive end, but is way too inconsistent on the defensive end...anyone know when the last time Marbury drew a charge on a player driving to the hole? i can't remember a single time he's even done it since he's been here.

Marbury gets burned on back door cuts and off the dribble, a lot, and doesn't put his hand up on opponenets shot attempts. His defense is a problem which can improve, and he certainly has the aquickness to stay in front of any guard besides Iverson and Kobe and T-Mac. The guy gets beat by a lot of guys, and saying "Well, it's very tough to stay in front of quick guards' is not an excuse, b/c it is very tough. But hey, Chauncey can do it, and Marbury is much quicker. You have to put your head and ars into it and Marbury doesn't do that. He even said once, about a year ago "I'll rest on defense." What???!!! If I were Isiah, I would have torn him another hole for saying that.

And for the not having a backcourt excuse: Just more reason to try harder on the man to man.

This is something where stats don't come in handy. you have to watch the games. He gets burnt like a bird caught in a jet engine.

Posted by Allanfan20:

Marbury gets burned on back door cuts and off the dribble, a lot, and doesn't put his hand up on opponenets shot attempts. His defense is a problem which can improve, and he certainly has the aquickness to stay in front of any guard besides Iverson and Kobe and T-Mac. The guy gets beat by a lot of guys, and saying "Well, it's very tough to stay in front of quick guards' is not an excuse, b/c it is very tough. But hey, Chauncey can do it, and Marbury is much quicker. You have to put your head and ars into it and Marbury doesn't do that. He even said once, about a year ago "I'll rest on defense." What???!!! If I were Isiah, I would have torn him another hole for saying that.

And for the not having a backcourt excuse: Just more reason to try harder on the man to man.

This is something where stats don't come in handy. you have to watch the games. He gets burnt like a bird caught in a jet engine.

He said that because he was expected to go 48 minutes that game and did. There's no way any player, even Chauncey, can give full effort on both ends of the court for 48. The Knicks as presently constructed need him to go 80% on defense and 100% on offense because he's the only good scorer on the team. If he goes 100% on defense, he'll be too tired on offense and the team will have zero scorers.
It doesn't look to me like Chauncey does a better job of keeping his man in front of him; he just has three outstanding defenders in the frontcourt. Every time a guard gets by him, it results in nothing because the Wallaces stop that guard. We forget about the play because it resulted in nothing. Put Chauncey with Kurt, Mike Sweetney, and TT and guards still get by Chauncey, but it will suddenly result in scoring opportunities. I agree that Marbury doesn't move his hands enough on defense. I think if he was in the right situation (i.e., not playing 41 mpg and not depended on to carry a team on offense), he'd be more aggressive on D. (We saw exactly that when he played on the Suns.) Put Billups in Marbury's situation (including having to carry the offense) and he'll have no energy on D either.



[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 05/01/2005 16:50:22]