Clean wrote:

Nalod wrote:So we learning perhaps not benching him, or sending him to Gleaugue was not the answer. I thought Knee jerk fans suggetions were the best ways to fix a team!
Yes, letting a player work thru things. New season, new rules, new expectations, new skills………new players to adjust.

Not at all. We see things differently. The way I see things is that Grimes could have helped us all those games when Quickley was in his slump. For some reason people thinking going to Grimes means Quick will never see the floor again. That is not the case. I wonder what our record would have been if Grimes would have helped us those 6 or so games Quick was shooting in the mid 20%. Grimes after getting his 1st chance at real NBA minutes already proved he would have helped on both sides of the floor.

Grimes got 2 minutes and thats it. Griimes might make worse. You don’t know. The idea is IQ plays thru it.
Grimes might be the next big thing, but is he ready? We don’t know.
That thibs gave him some burn is a good thing.

SergioNYK wrote:I really like how IQ has been playing the last 3 games. He's taking good shots and making them and he's playing good defense. Might be our best defensive guard in this stretch.

what stretch are you referring to because we have been brutal on the perimeter.
?

Clean wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Clean wrote:

Nalod wrote:So we learning perhaps not benching him, or sending him to Gleaugue was not the answer. I thought Knee jerk fans suggetions were the best ways to fix a team!
Yes, letting a player work thru things. New season, new rules, new expectations, new skills………new players to adjust.

Not at all. We see things differently. The way I see things is that Grimes could have helped us all those games when Quickley was in his slump. For some reason people thinking going to Grimes means Quick will never see the floor again. That is not the case. I wonder what our record would have been if Grimes would have helped us those 6 or so games Quick was shooting in the mid 20%. Grimes after getting his 1st chance at real NBA minutes already proved he would have helped on both sides of the floor.

Grimes got 2 minutes and thats it. Griimes might make worse. You don’t know. The idea is IQ plays thru it.
Grimes might be the next big thing, but is he ready? We don’t know.
That thibs gave him some burn is a good thing.

I can tell you one thing it would have been extremely hard to play worse than Quick did during that slump. He was literally shooting mid 20% overall FG% and 3pt FG%. the only 2 times Grimes got playing times he played well. once in the preseason and during the Cavs game.

This is water under the bridge now since Quick looks like he is finally out of his slump. Unlike what people might think I am a Quick fan and I am glad he seems back to his normal self. If any Knicks player goes on an extended slump like his I will also be calling on giving others a try until they are out of it. I just believe in using all the option available to me. Other people have different thought on that and that is fine. A world where everyone agrees is boring.

Just curious....if a player is benched when he enters a slump, how would you be able to tell they are out of it if they are on the bench?

franco12 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Clean wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Clean wrote:

Nalod wrote:So we learning perhaps not benching him, or sending him to Gleaugue was not the answer. I thought Knee jerk fans suggetions were the best ways to fix a team!
Yes, letting a player work thru things. New season, new rules, new expectations, new skills………new players to adjust.

Not at all. We see things differently. The way I see things is that Grimes could have helped us all those games when Quickley was in his slump. For some reason people thinking going to Grimes means Quick will never see the floor again. That is not the case. I wonder what our record would have been if Grimes would have helped us those 6 or so games Quick was shooting in the mid 20%. Grimes after getting his 1st chance at real NBA minutes already proved he would have helped on both sides of the floor.

Grimes got 2 minutes and thats it. Griimes might make worse. You don’t know. The idea is IQ plays thru it.
Grimes might be the next big thing, but is he ready? We don’t know.
That thibs gave him some burn is a good thing.

I can tell you one thing it would have been extremely hard to play worse than Quick did during that slump. He was literally shooting mid 20% overall FG% and 3pt FG%. the only 2 times Grimes got playing times he played well. once in the preseason and during the Cavs game.

This is water under the bridge now since Quick looks like he is finally out of his slump. Unlike what people might think I am a Quick fan and I am glad he seems back to his normal self. If any Knicks player goes on an extended slump like his I will also be calling on giving others a try until they are out of it. I just believe in using all the option available to me. Other people have different thought on that and that is fine. A world where everyone agrees is boring.

Just curious....if a player is benched when he enters a slump, how would you be able to tell they are out of it if they are on the bench?

I don't know that anyone is saying sit IQ forever. Maybe try Grimes for a game instead of quick. It's about trying to get a spark on offense when things dry up, and on defense when we're giving 6 foot wide open 3 pointers repeatedly in a game.

Bingo! It is not that hard to give Grimes some time if Quick was in the middle of a long slump and in the 1st half came out still bricking shots. Or even goto Grimes for a game and then try Quick again the next game. This is not an all or nothing situation. There are shades of gray in the game of basketball.

Clean wrote:

franco12 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Clean wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Clean wrote:

Nalod wrote:So we learning perhaps not benching him, or sending him to Gleaugue was not the answer. I thought Knee jerk fans suggetions were the best ways to fix a team!
Yes, letting a player work thru things. New season, new rules, new expectations, new skills………new players to adjust.

Not at all. We see things differently. The way I see things is that Grimes could have helped us all those games when Quickley was in his slump. For some reason people thinking going to Grimes means Quick will never see the floor again. That is not the case. I wonder what our record would have been if Grimes would have helped us those 6 or so games Quick was shooting in the mid 20%. Grimes after getting his 1st chance at real NBA minutes already proved he would have helped on both sides of the floor.

Grimes got 2 minutes and thats it. Griimes might make worse. You don’t know. The idea is IQ plays thru it.
Grimes might be the next big thing, but is he ready? We don’t know.
That thibs gave him some burn is a good thing.

I can tell you one thing it would have been extremely hard to play worse than Quick did during that slump. He was literally shooting mid 20% overall FG% and 3pt FG%. the only 2 times Grimes got playing times he played well. once in the preseason and during the Cavs game.

This is water under the bridge now since Quick looks like he is finally out of his slump. Unlike what people might think I am a Quick fan and I am glad he seems back to his normal self. If any Knicks player goes on an extended slump like his I will also be calling on giving others a try until they are out of it. I just believe in using all the option available to me. Other people have different thought on that and that is fine. A world where everyone agrees is boring.

Just curious....if a player is benched when he enters a slump, how would you be able to tell they are out of it if they are on the bench?

I don't know that anyone is saying sit IQ forever. Maybe try Grimes for a game instead of quick. It's about trying to get a spark on offense when things dry up, and on defense when we're giving 6 foot wide open 3 pointers repeatedly in a game.

Bingo! It is not that hard to give Grimes some time if Quick was in the middle of a long slump and in the 1st half came out still bricking shots. Or even goto Grimes for a game and then try Quick again the next game. This is not an all or nothing situation. There are shades of gray in the game of basketball.

Does this only apply to Quickly or to every player on the roster?

foosballnick wrote:

Clean wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Clean wrote:

franco12 wrote:

foosballnick wrote:

Clean wrote:

Nalod wrote:

Clean wrote:

Nalod wrote:So we learning perhaps not benching him, or sending him to Gleaugue was not the answer. I thought Knee jerk fans suggetions were the best ways to fix a team!
Yes, letting a player work thru things. New season, new rules, new expectations, new skills………new players to adjust.

Not at all. We see things differently. The way I see things is that Grimes could have helped us all those games when Quickley was in his slump. For some reason people thinking going to Grimes means Quick will never see the floor again. That is not the case. I wonder what our record would have been if Grimes would have helped us those 6 or so games Quick was shooting in the mid 20%. Grimes after getting his 1st chance at real NBA minutes already proved he would have helped on both sides of the floor.

Grimes got 2 minutes and thats it. Griimes might make worse. You don’t know. The idea is IQ plays thru it.
Grimes might be the next big thing, but is he ready? We don’t know.
That thibs gave him some burn is a good thing.

I can tell you one thing it would have been extremely hard to play worse than Quick did during that slump. He was literally shooting mid 20% overall FG% and 3pt FG%. the only 2 times Grimes got playing times he played well. once in the preseason and during the Cavs game.

This is water under the bridge now since Quick looks like he is finally out of his slump. Unlike what people might think I am a Quick fan and I am glad he seems back to his normal self. If any Knicks player goes on an extended slump like his I will also be calling on giving others a try until they are out of it. I just believe in using all the option available to me. Other people have different thought on that and that is fine. A world where everyone agrees is boring.

Just curious....if a player is benched when he enters a slump, how would you be able to tell they are out of it if they are on the bench?

I don't know that anyone is saying sit IQ forever. Maybe try Grimes for a game instead of quick. It's about trying to get a spark on offense when things dry up, and on defense when we're giving 6 foot wide open 3 pointers repeatedly in a game.

Bingo! It is not that hard to give Grimes some time if Quick was in the middle of a long slump and in the 1st half came out still bricking shots. Or even goto Grimes for a game and then try Quick again the next game. This is not an all or nothing situation. There are shades of gray in the game of basketball.

Does this only apply to Quickly or to every player on the roster?

I already answered this a few minutes ago.

Clean wrote:This is water under the bridge now since Quick looks like he is finally out of his slump. Unlike what people might think I am a Quick fan and I am glad he seems back to his normal self. If any Knicks player goes on an extended slump like his I will also be calling on giving others a try until they are out of it. I just believe in using all the option available to me. Other people have different thought on that and that is fine. A world where everyone agrees is boring.

Fair enough. Let's play this out.

You started calling for Quickly to be benched due to slump at 4 or 5 games in. So let's say its another player. Randle, Barrett, Rose? You are essentially saying that if they run into a bad streak of games - they should sit (for at least a game) and give a bench player a chance.

Let's actually take a better example. Kemba has essentially slumped over his last 4 games, have you called this out as a slump and him needing to be benched?

I am guessing you don't read my posts too often unless its in this thread. In game threads and the Thibs thread I have said we need to play our defenders more multiple times. Miles McBride is in that group of defenders. He plays PG so chances are for him to get some playing time he would have to take time from Rose or Kemba. When looking at the plus/minus numbers I think we all would have a good idea of which player those minutes would come from. Thibs is also balancing playing time between Rose and Kemba by who is having a better game. So in essence he is mini benching one if they are having a bad game and the other is having a good game. Which is why in games like vs Milwaukee Kemba only played 15 minutes. Do you think I want any player who is playing badly to play a lot of minutes when someone else could possibly help? That was my whole point with Quick and it is my whole point with everyone else on this team. If they can't contribute maybe someone else on the bench can.

Here is one of the posts i'm referencing.

Clean wrote:Normally I would say this is not on Thibs but on players having terrible defense but I think this time Thibs has a role in it. We only switched 2 players. Those players have gone games not getting much playing time due to playing poorly and team defense was still poor. We have good defenders stuck on the bench who until last night never got to sniff real game action. McBride still has not gotten any action but Grimes came in for his 1st real NBA action and showed right away he can help us on BOTH sides of the floor. Remember these guys also got next to no preseason time either. It is amazing how well Grimes has done with so little burn. We are already bottom of the league in regards to defense. If we don't want to give the defenders on our team a try we will be fighting for last in defense before too long.

So many complain about how coach Thibs doesn't or isn't (just yet) giving kids like Obi, McBride and Grimes etc proper playing time (making them work for it), but then we immediately not even 5-10 games into the season begin to demand Immanuel Quickley be benched and shut down until he "gets it together "?

That's horse crap.

▪︎ SEC PLAYER OF THE YEAR @ KENTUCKY.

▪︎100+ 3'S made as a Rookie just last year (with a beautiful floater off the quick drive too).

▪︎ Performed strong enough as a sleeper pick of a steal as a Rookie to the point of being selected as a team U.S.A. Select selection.

▪︎ Was a high energy spark plug off the bench and helped lead us to the postseason as an electric combo guard @ PG/SG.

And you mean to tell me that, that the very moment I.Q. entered his 2nd season and didn't shoot too good we all forgot all of the above (in bold) like 5 games into the season? And then coach Thibs is supposed to straight up quit on this kid and shut him down before giving him an opportunity to return to form while not even 10 games into his 2nd season?

Nah. We've gotta support this kid and why? Because he's a true talent and a true building block off the bench as a future and potential X-Factor. Previous 3 games he's combined for 31 points off 6/12 from 3 along with another 9 assists, 4 steals and 3 rebounds. With only 2 turnovers. With only 17 minutes per game. But yet 5 games ago many were ready to give him the "Thibs treatment"? No.

Mitchell Robinson is another one. Another kid. Last year all we could do was complain how bad we missed Mitch vs Atlanta 4-1 playoffs beat down. But now? Not even 20 games into the season? It's fk Robinson while forgetting how he missed the end of last year, the 1st round, damn near all of his offseason and why? Because an injury that kept him off his feet? And we're ready to throw this talented Center to the wolves and all because his stamina and condition and maybe confidence isn't up to date just yet? Give him until his 20th game. Against the Atlanta Hawks; and I BET he's coming to impact down low vs. Clint Capela.