Posted by Marv:

Posted by bobs3304:

E.) Again. An Earl Watson or Eric Snow would get 20-25 MPG max. So it wouldn't effect how much floor time Crawford or Nate get. And, to me at least, making that move is the difference b/w shopping Crawford and justifying him staying. For some of you to feel safe with a liability at guard is just weird...

[Edited by - BOBS3304 on 08/05/2005 08:07:26]

I don't see how you're figuring this. 20-25 minutes out of 96 guard minutes/game is a huge chunk. Marbs sits? Goes to 2? Craw and Nate don't back him up? Q sits or goes to 3?

Our backcourt still has question marks, but personally i'd be quite comfortable going into the season with these 4. Nate might turn out to be ready for those minutes. He could be an absolute dog on D and a lightening rod on O.

Marbury - 35 M
Crawford - 30
Watson/Snow - 20
Nate - 10

Please don't forget that Nate is a ROOKIE.

there's a problem with that rotation. It leaves Q, TT, Ariza, JYD and Rose left with only minutes at the 3.

I would rather see something like
PG Marbury 30/Crawford 18
SG Crawford 15/Nate 15/Q or Ariza 18

There will be times you want to go big in the backcourt with Q or Ariza with the other playing time at the 3.

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/36908/20050805/snow_ollie_may_be_on_knicks_list/


All doubting me, read ^

That's right. It's completely unsubstantiated.


That wasn't the point. It's to show that others realize the need for that type of PG, too.

[Edited by - bobs3304 on 08/05/2005 10:08:22]

1.) Watson did NOT go to Boston. Look it up homie.

2.) You, like about 90 % of Knick fans, underappreciate the problem we have in the backcourt. I like Crawford, don't get me wrong, but how does the saying go "once a duck, always a duck" ? He is who he is, and while Brown may get him to buy into the team defense, it doesn't take away from the fact that, on his own, he's a poor defender. It's by nature buddy.

3.) You're tellin me "Why would Memphis want Timmy?" Hmm, well let's see. Jerry West just traded Jason Williams and James Posey for Eddie freakin Jones. Horrible. And you think he's not gonna trade Wright and Watson? You think he's gonna bounce back after 3 or 4 years of sub-par moves to make one awesome one? He's been selling low and buying high for a long time (the Wells trade is the only one I can think of that was a steal, and they only ended up dealing him a few years later anyway...)

4.) I already broke down the minutes for you. Don't act like you didn't see it.

5.) I'm not saying that trade would or could or will go down, but I'm trying to get the ball rolling here.

6.) We don't need Snow or Watson? Are you sure about that? See, I'm not sure if you happen to think that Marbury and Crawford are good defenders that should be playing most of the game together, or if you think Larry Brown will transform them into something they're not, but either way you're sorely mistaken.

Remember what I said about balance? Well...you need it. Crawford and Marbury are both perimeter oriented, shoot-first PG's that like to slash and distribute from time to time. And you want both on the same court? Are you sure about that, I mean take some time now. Mull it over a bit.

Done? Good. Here's the thing. Bringing in a Watson, or Ollie, or Snow, or WHOEVER would NOT TAKE AWAY FROM Crawford's time or Nate's time. Why? B/c they'd only be brought in to solidify the backcourt and ensure it's not a defensive liability. 20 MPG. That's it. No more than that. There's PLENTY of time for Nate and Crawford. Plenty.

Not only that, but in my eyes, bringing in that type of player actually justifies KEEPING Crawford. Remember how I went on a tirade about how we need Crawford gone? - well that was before this came to light. If you have balance in your rotation, that's all that matters.