Posted by eViL:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Posted by eViL:

Team performs better AFTER MARBURY.

Marbury put the team on his back for one of those games. Remember when he broke the Dream Team scoring record? Yeah, he was the problem.

This is what Marbury is good for -- stats and losses. I thought all he needed was support. Well, look at the Olympics. Marbury had the best players in the world around him and they couldn't win. But hey, at least his numbers looked good. Marbury is and always has been out for dolo. He's undisputedly a carreer loser whose only claim to fame is filling up the box score for the losing side on a nightly basis.

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Some translations here:
Woman during break: "It's not you; it's me."
Translation: "It's you!"
LB sympathizer:, "It was just a bad fit."
Translation: "Coach underperformed."
LB sympathizer: "Our team has so many problems."
Translation: "If you have many bad apples, you can't get rid of any of them!"

Bonn how were we doing before LB got here. Honestly I don't understand why you guys care about him. Your team quit. Look at the scores from February on. Your team didn't even give a fight. Instead of getting pissed off about that we have guys complaining that we aren't on national tv. Okay you hate lb. Everyone hate's LB. So what. What in the f does that have to do with today. What are our players going to do from this point.

I just fired one of my managers because he wasn't getting along with our group. It was a bad fit. Bad hire by me. Okay, I can sit here with all my people and whine and moan about how bad he was for the next 6 months or I can figure out what we need to do from here. Those people that didn't work because he was a bad manager have another thing coming if they think I'm going to excuse that. Some people settle. Some don't Organizations that settle go 35 years without championships. Was LB or Don Chaney or Herb to blame for 35 years. Where woudl this organization be if we never won the lottery with Patrick. It's embarrassing. Get over LB. If he "got his" tomorrow, it would not matter we would still be where we are.

Where do we go from here. Does Isiah stick with his plan and help build a team around our youth. Or does he follow a pattern of move after move after move to save a job. This is your Knicks and you don't even realize it.

I'm starting to talk to myself now. Bonn was with me when I was typing this same nonsense after Chaney and Lenny and Herb. How could he and any of the others miss it.

Posted by crzymdups:

Posted by Andrew:

Why is this about LB? The team USA concept is completly revamped. How did the US team do at the 2002 world championships? Who coached them then?

George Karl is just as bad as LB. Both coaches think egos start and stop on the floor with their own sizeable egos. Both are slow to adapt and horrible offensive coaches.

George can use a roster excuse, but he clearly had the best roster there. Larry Brown can use a roster excuse, too, but he also had the best roster - including Wade, Bron, Melo and Amare who he used sparingly or not at all. What would you call a coach who used Carlos Boozer over Amare? a genius?

Your saying Caarlos Boozer and Amare are better than Shaq, Duncan and/or KG? Half of those players are not even all-star savvy, let alone Olympians.

Posted by JohnWallace44:

You missed the point. They would not have won the bronze without Marbury. Let's be fair here. That team was ill constructed without a Redd or an Allen, but Marbury was not responsible for their losses, much to the contrary.

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by eViL:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by eViL:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Posted by eViL:

Team performs better AFTER MARBURY.

Marbury put the team on his back for one of those games. Remember when he broke the Dream Team scoring record? Yeah, he was the problem.

This is what Marbury is good for -- stats and losses. I thought all he needed was support. Well, look at the Olympics. Marbury had the best players in the world around him and they couldn't win. But hey, at least his numbers looked good. Marbury is and always has been out for dolo. He's undisputedly a carreer loser whose only claim to fame is filling up the box score for the losing side on a nightly basis.

So your saying that the USA team lost because of Marbury?? Thats the problem. Everyone on the USA team played poorly but because of Marbury's past he gets blamed for it.

#1 Which was touched on in an article posted on Realgm. USA team last yr was built on Atheltism, Speed, Quickness, Strength. Instead of using that to press and run teams out of the building. We played a halfcourt set offense which we didn't have the makeup, the shooters, or the practice to get chemistry down to do so.

#2 The USA team had 1 combo guard and 2 SGs. 5SFs, 1PF, and 2Cs. While they did have players that can play other positions. They just weren't balanced. They didn't have one pure PG. Or one long range sharpshooter. Iverson-Wade do the same things though Wade is more skilled right now. Jefferson & Melo do the same thigns though Melo is more skilled. Marion & Jefferson & Stoudemire & Boozer can put up high #s. But need a pure pg to really dominate. And USA didn't have one.

#3 Even though the makeup was bad. Larry Brown had no reason to play Jefferson over Lebron James. Especially with Lebrons vision and passing ability. He would have been a great compliment to the scoring guards like Marbury-Iverson-Wade. Odom and Duncan have the same ability as well. Brown could have ran the ball through James-Odom-Duncan, probably the best creaters on the team. They could have been the ones that got others involved, and got others the easy looks, and made others better.

Without adapting though. USA was put in a position to be overmatched. Same with the knicks this season. Anybody could be broken down that way.

I was just kidding. I love Marbury. His 20 and 8 the last few years have really made me forget about being above .500 and having deep playoff runs. Who needs that when you can watch Starbury?

What can I say. If you want to pin what happend with USA on Marbury then thats cool. All I can give you is other valid reasons that factored into them losing. Which I did. Im not telling you to forget Marburys part in the teams failure. But you make is seem like Marbury single handedly is the reason USA lost.

You saying that Marbury is never responsible for his teams poor play is not true in the least. But guys like me like to look at the whole picture and keep things in perspective. Maybe is just me. But things like unbalanced rosters, and lack of practice time do tend to have some type of impact. Especially when facing Euro teams that have both things going for them. I could name things Marbury did wrong. But you could do that for every player on that team. So just because I didn't add Marbury to the list of things that went wrong above don't mean that I believe he wasn't a factor in USA losing. I didn't write about Jefferson shooting 25%, It don't mean I don't believe it didn't hurt us.

Also the USA team was not Marburys team. And he wasn't even close to being the best player on it. So like crzymdumps stated earlier. If Marbury was that much of a problem and brought the team down that much why didn't Brown play Marbury way less?? Why didn't he play Wade more, or even play Lebron at PG some? Obviously if to you Marbury is that horrible then those moves would have been way better options right. And if you could see that then how didn't a hall of fame coach like Brown see that?

Posted by 4949:

Posted by eViL:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

You missed the point. They would not have won the bronze without Marbury. Let's be fair here. That team was ill constructed without a Redd or an Allen, but Marbury was not responsible for their losses, much to the contrary.

Marbury is never responsible for his team's poor play. It's always some extraneous factor that causes his teams to lose. Either his teammates suck, the system sucks, everyone is injured or his coach sucks. Somehow those problems and the losses tend to dissappear when he leaves a team and then lo and behold the problems begin to appear with his new team.

I cut that guy so much slack when he joined the Knicks. I thought he was a loser before he got here and I gave him every chance to win me over and still he lost me.

From forcing a trade out of a good situation with the T-Wolves, to writing "all alone" on his sneakers, to trying to sabotage D'Antoni in Phoenix, to declaring himself "the best PG in the NBA", to complaining about his role after two straight wins, to wilting under the criticism and pressure of Larry Brown -- Marbury has solidified himself as a me-first player who will need a radical attitude adjustment if he is ever to be a key piece on a winning team.

The point of this thread was that Team USA is playing better without LB. Well guess what? Stephon "they wouldn't have won the Bronze without him" Marbury didn't get asked back by Team USA either. So I guess the selection committee wasn't impressed with Marbury's statistical performances -- why should I be? After five straight losing seasons (3 with Marbury), why should any NY fan care about Marbury's numbers?

He's done it everywhere he goes -- fill up the stat box and lose. If there was a Most Valuable Loser award he'd win it every year. Starbury for MVL.

I agree with this 99.99%.

Posted by joec32033:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by eViL:

Posted by newyorknewyork:

Posted by eViL:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Posted by eViL:

Team performs better AFTER MARBURY.

Marbury put the team on his back for one of those games. Remember when he broke the Dream Team scoring record? Yeah, he was the problem.

This is what Marbury is good for -- stats and losses. I thought all he needed was support. Well, look at the Olympics. Marbury had the best players in the world around him and they couldn't win. But hey, at least his numbers looked good. Marbury is and always has been out for dolo. He's undisputedly a carreer loser whose only claim to fame is filling up the box score for the losing side on a nightly basis.

So your saying that the USA team lost because of Marbury?? Thats the problem. Everyone on the USA team played poorly but because of Marbury's past he gets blamed for it.

#1 Which was touched on in an article posted on Realgm. USA team last yr was built on Atheltism, Speed, Quickness, Strength. Instead of using that to press and run teams out of the building. We played a halfcourt set offense which we didn't have the makeup, the shooters, or the practice to get chemistry down to do so.

#2 The USA team had 1 combo guard and 2 SGs. 5SFs, 1PF, and 2Cs. While they did have players that can play other positions. They just weren't balanced. They didn't have one pure PG. Or one long range sharpshooter. Iverson-Wade do the same things though Wade is more skilled right now. Jefferson & Melo do the same thigns though Melo is more skilled. Marion & Jefferson & Stoudemire & Boozer can put up high #s. But need a pure pg to really dominate. And USA didn't have one.

#3 Even though the makeup was bad. Larry Brown had no reason to play Jefferson over Lebron James. Especially with Lebrons vision and passing ability. He would have been a great compliment to the scoring guards like Marbury-Iverson-Wade. Odom and Duncan have the same ability as well. Brown could have ran the ball through James-Odom-Duncan, probably the best creaters on the team. They could have been the ones that got others involved, and got others the easy looks, and made others better.

Without adapting though. USA was put in a position to be overmatched. Same with the knicks this season. Anybody could be broken down that way.

I was just kidding. I love Marbury. His 20 and 8 the last few years have really made me forget about being above .500 and having deep playoff runs. Who needs that when you can watch Starbury?

What can I say. If you want to pin what happend with USA on Marbury then thats cool. All I can give you is other valid reasons that factored into them losing. Which I did. Im not telling you to forget Marburys part in the teams failure. But you make is seem like Marbury single handedly is the reason USA lost.

You saying that Marbury is never responsible for his teams poor play is not true in the least. But guys like me like to look at the whole picture and keep things in perspective. Maybe is just me. But things like unbalanced rosters, and lack of practice time do tend to have some type of impact. Especially when facing Euro teams that have both things going for them. I could name things Marbury did wrong. But you could do that for every player on that team. So just because I didn't add Marbury to the list of things that went wrong above don't mean that I believe he wasn't a factor in USA losing. I didn't write about Jefferson shooting 25%, It don't mean I don't believe it didn't hurt us.

Also the USA team was not Marburys team. And he wasn't even close to being the best player on it. So like crzymdumps stated earlier. If Marbury was that much of a problem and brought the team down that much why didn't Brown play Marbury way less?? Why didn't he play Wade more, or even play Lebron at PG some? Obviously if to you Marbury is that horrible then those moves would have been way better options right. And if you could see that then how didn't a hall of fame coach like Brown see that?

Bro...look at the title of the thread. It is placing the blame soley on LB. Raising the fair and accurate point that in spite if his "great" numbers, Marbury was also not asked back to even tryout for team USA-is totally impartial. From what I read noone is blaming Marbury exclusively for the failure of the team, but the point remains, neither LB or Stephon were ivited back to tryout. Now, if you want to look and say LB did a piss poor job on the team cool(hey there were things I would have done different too), but Marbury actually put up numbers and wasn't iovited back..what does that say about him? Are Bryan Colangelo and Coach K now crazy and have something out for Steph for not inviting Steph back? Or do they see something we don't?

[Edited by - joec32033 on 08-06-2006 3:32 PM]

Marbury is never responsible for his team's poor play. It's always some extraneous factor that causes his teams to lose. Either his teammates suck, the system sucks, everyone is injured or his coach sucks. Somehow those problems and the losses tend to dissappear when he leaves a team and then lo and behold the problems begin to appear with his new team

Team performs better AFTER MARBURY.

Marbury had the best performance in the last Olympics.
If it wasn't for him the U.S. would have shamefully walked away without any medal.

This is what Marbury is good for -- stats and losses. I thought all he needed was support. Well, look at the Olympics. Marbury had the best players in the world around him and they couldn't win. But hey, at least his numbers looked good.

Posted by JohnWallace44:

Posted by 4949:

Posted by eViL:

Posted by JohnWallace44:

You missed the point. They would not have won the bronze without Marbury. Let's be fair here. That team was ill constructed without a Redd or an Allen, but Marbury was not responsible for their losses, much to the contrary.

Marbury is never responsible for his team's poor play. It's always some extraneous factor that causes his teams to lose. Either his teammates suck, the system sucks, everyone is injured or his coach sucks. Somehow those problems and the losses tend to dissappear when he leaves a team and then lo and behold the problems begin to appear with his new team.

I cut that guy so much slack when he joined the Knicks. I thought he was a loser before he got here and I gave him every chance to win me over and still he lost me.

From forcing a trade out of a good situation with the T-Wolves, to writing "all alone" on his sneakers, to trying to sabotage D'Antoni in Phoenix, to declaring himself "the best PG in the NBA", to complaining about his role after two straight wins, to wilting under the criticism and pressure of Larry Brown -- Marbury has solidified himself as a me-first player who will need a radical attitude adjustment if he is ever to be a key piece on a winning team.

The point of this thread was that Team USA is playing better without LB. Well guess what? Stephon "they wouldn't have won the Bronze without him" Marbury didn't get asked back by Team USA either. So I guess the selection committee wasn't impressed with Marbury's statistical performances -- why should I be? After five straight losing seasons (3 with Marbury), why should any NY fan care about Marbury's numbers?

He's done it everywhere he goes -- fill up the stat box and lose. If there was a Most Valuable Loser award he'd win it every year. Starbury for MVL.

I agree with this 99.99%.

Listen, you want to say Marbs has been bad here? You want to say that he disappears in the clutch? You think we'd be better without him? You may have a point.

I'm not a pro Marbs guy. But in those games, we won some because of him and didn't lose any because of him. I watched them, you can't lay the losses on him. There was a difference in the Olympics too, in that there were plenty of other choices if Marbs wasn't preforming. The Knicks don't have the same luxury. But, let's just be fair here. Marbs was a hero in those specific games where other guys mailed it in.

That said, I think we can win with Marbs. Its like the A-rod situation. We'd better figure out a way to live with him, because he ain't going anywhere. Marbs needs to be told to push it at all times, because as fast as he is he is too hesitant to push the ball. He also needs to be told to drive with the purpose of picking up a foul or kicking it out every time he sees the opportunity. Picking up fouls is one thing that this team can do better than any other and we didn't use that to our advantage enough last year. Marbs, Francis, Nate and Craw all have that talent more than almost anyone in the league... so just do that until the other teams starting backcourt is riding the pine. If Marbs is left to dribble out the clock without making a move or passing the ball, that's precisely where he gets into major trouble.