Another restraint put on Layden was "character". He may have assembled the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, but let's not forget Dolan is a re-born, and thus the god-squad was put in effect.

When the fans turned on the approach, and Ward made his disparaging comments, Dolan decided to let Isiah go in any direction he chose, at least with regard to character. There are limits though. I don't see Artest ever landing here. Isiah may love him, but he's not a Dolan kind of guy.

Jerome James would have barley got any burn if any at all. Frye, Lee, Jefferies would have gotten more mins at Center than James allowing Balkman to get burn. Balkman would have gotten more mins at SF then James would get at center. You could probably slide Lee or Jefferies to the center spot and Balkman to the SF spot.

Isiahs bench destroys Laydens bench. Isiahs Knicks also have Eddie Curry 6'11, Frye 6'11, Jefferies 6'11, Lee 6'9, and if they wanted to throw in James or Cato they could and they are both 7'0. Isiahs knicks would have a HUGE size advantage and would give Laydens Knicks a ton of trouble in the paint. KT & Doleac would have had all they could handle in the paint. But KT & Doleac would be able to hit those 15fters that Curry wouldn't defend. Lee & Balkman are also very atheltic which would give laydens athletic challenged team fits. Laydens team was excellent in ball control and 3pt shooting.

If matched up in a 7 game seres it comes down to Eddie Curry's effectiveness vs the very small frontcourt for Layden. VS Layden Knicks excellent 3pt shooting and ball control vs our very poor ball control and very very poor 3pt defense. If Curry eats up Laydens frontcourt Isiahs knicks win. If Layden's Knicks is able to hold Curry off a little but nail there 3pters. Layden's Knicks win.

Coaching wise also Isiah Thomas or Don Chaney?

Posted by TheGame:

The point is which team will be better in 2-3 years. IT's Knicks are young and can improve. Layden's Knicks had maxed out their potential. I suspect this will not even be a conversation after Lee, Balkman, Collins, Nate and Curry have another season or two to play with each other and develop their games.

Fair point, but a tangent from the thread. The point of this thread is simply who would win. The main themes are simple: 1) a balanced team has a better chance at success than a mish-mosh of "talented" players, 2) athleticism ISN'T the only thing that matters, 3) everyone says the Layden era was terrible, yet most feel his team could beat ours... what does that say about our team?

Posted by misterearl:

BlueSeats - c'mon, what else was Frank Layden supposed to say about his son?

Sheesh, no thanks for giving you a ready made response?

C'mon people... look forward.

Thought this was a thread looking back.

Posted by Solace:

Posted by TheGame:

The point is which team will be better in 2-3 years. IT's Knicks are young and can improve. Layden's Knicks had maxed out their potential. I suspect this will not even be a conversation after Lee, Balkman, Collins, Nate and Curry have another season or two to play with each other and develop their games.

Fair point, but a tangent from the thread. The point of this thread is simply who would win. The main themes are simple: 1) a balanced team has a better chance at success than a mish-mosh of "talented" players, 2) athleticism ISN'T the only thing that matters, 3) everyone says the Layden era was terrible, yet most feel his team could beat ours... what does that say about our team?

It says that they have went 3-13 there last 16games. If you posted this when they went 19-16 (for a stretch) the polls would be different. If you posted it when we started the season when they went 6-13 in the begining of the season the polls would be negative again. If you posted this when we went 3-0 or 4-2 in preason lol the polls would probably be positive.

[Edited by - newyorknewyork on 04-15-2007 6:13 PM]

BlueSeats - the Knicks are able to suit up only eight guys.

c'mon....

really

This pathetic team had a low post presence in Curry, the layden team didn't and still played their ass off in a tougher division.

It's comical how Layden suddenly gets extra credit for all the Knicks positive traits during his sad tenure.

None of the players Layden acquired in New York made a difference towards the positive development of the franchise. NUNNA DEM.

Zip. Zilch. Zero. Nyet. Fugeddaboudit. A null set.

None.

If Scott Layden was so gash darn excellent why is he relegated to charting deflections in Utah?

help me out here people

Posted by misterearl:

If Scott Layden was so gash darn excellent

As usual, nobody said anything of the sort and you're adding your own garbage. If you don't have anything to contribute to the thread, don't post. It would be much appreciated. Thanks.

"Hey, get those handcuffs offa me!"

"Ouch!"

"Hey, why you hittin' me with that club!"

"Call my attorney!"

Posted by misterearl:

Solace - you have my most sincere apology if my remarks on the beloved Scott Layden do not meet with your editorial approval.

Call the forum police!

Again, not the point. It's just, if you want to post, add to the discussion. That means, responding to what people ACTUALLY say, not your convoluted version, which has little to nothing to do with what was posted. No offense, dude, but you should be nicknamed 'The Thread Killer'. I'm still waiting for you to make a single post this week that actually has content.

ALSO, STOP making 3-5 POSTS every time you want to respond. That's fcking annoying and has killed many a thread. If you want to up your post count, do it in the testing forum.

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled program...


[Edited by - Solace on Apr 16 2007 10:48 AM]