Ah, to me this gets to the heart of the argument. You call it a failed experiment. I call it deliberate and experienced team management. I believe Larry knew exactly what he was doing and played people into this position. He needed what he got from Malik and AD early on.
What did he get from Rose and AD? Really bad play? He purposefully ran the team into a 7/21 record?
He needed to have his showdown with Marbs.
You think the showdown with Marbury was all planned? That would mean LB played everything in a way to deliberately piss off Marbury up until Orlando game , then he decided to change it all up one game later. Seems like a stretch to me.
He needed to change Craw, rein in Nate, work on Frye, adapt Lee's game, get Eddy together.
Crawford has not been changed. He is playing somewhat better, but he is still having plenty of bad games with his good. But I like the handling of Crawford. He needed to be benched, and yanked WHEN HE PLAYED BAD, in order for him to discipline himself a little more. I think LB was right on that one.
rein in Nate
Nate could not ask for more opportunity or time. I have no problem with Nate's PT. And why does NR get to work out his kinks on the floor but Lee does not? By any reasonable estimation, Lee had less competition for PT because small forward has been the most glaring hole.
work on Frye
This is where things start getting fuzzy. Work on Frye? What kind of work are you describing? What is different about him? He has been the team's most consistent player, he deserves consistent time. I don't understand how screwing with Frye's time is helpful to him or the team, but I wish someone would explain it to me.
adapt Lee's game
What adaptation? Lee has been working on his shot, fine. I think he would have been working on his shot anyway, though that is purely speculation on my part. Do you really believe that LB just decided that Lee was finally "adapted" just last weekend? He was less valuable to the team on the floor than Rose or Ariza until the last 3 games, then just like that he is ready to start and play big minutes. That is astounding to me.
Even if that were true that he needed to do some work, does that mean he should be crossed out of the lineup until 3 games ago? Maybe that would make sense if any of the forwards ahead of him were performing but they weren't.
get Eddy together
The only difference I see in Curry is that he is playing now, whereas he was not before. When he has been able to play he has played good to pretty good most of the time.
You keep asking for proof of this.
Not proof, but an explanation or a shred of evidence. Nobody has explained yet how LB has worked his midas touch on Lee, or Frye, what is so different about them now from 2 months ago.
Can you prove it's not the case?
I am not trying to prove anything regarding what goes on behind closed doors. That is what everybody who has argued against my point of view has done, and I think that is because they have no reasonable argument to explain what we have all seen on the floor. Blind faith in other words.
I have based my commentary on what we can all see. The games. The youngsters have played well when given the chance and this goes all the way back to the beginning of the season. With the vets in the lineup and a strictly half-court game, the Knicks have looked old, incohesive, just bad.
Now playing time and style of play have totally flipped and the Knicks look decent and are far more entertaining.
Do you really think that Lee is a completely different player than he was 2 months ago? Or any of the other players? Or are they finally being allowed to play, and in a way that suits their abilities. Because that is what I have taken from what we all can see.
oohah
[Edited by - oohah on 01-07-2006 9:38 PM]
). I think there's no "proof" on either side, just different interpretations of what's playing out on the court.