Posted by Killa4luv:


Marv you raise very many questions that are good questions. Do I think the trades for Nash and J. Kidd were good? Yes. Do I say that they are the sole reason for those teams turning it around? No. Do I think Steph could do comparable things as what happened in those places if he had the same squad? yes. has he ever played with a squad as talented as the one those guys have? No. We could go on and on with this, but I understand your point, I just don't agree. Each situation in NJ and Phoenix was more than simply the swapping of players into the same situations. But whatever.

I don't see how you watched this team, this year, before his injury and say he was a part of the problem here. He was leading us on the court masterfully. And its ironic to me how most of the same people who want steph gone are the same ones who see Jamal Crawford as this magically improved player because he played well during games that meant nothing. But Yes, i think overall, it is lazy logic, its not quite like saying 'he's a loser' but its slightly more developed than that, and there is some logic to it, just not many details, which is why I call it lazy.

killa, I think you're resorting to the only argument left to defend Marbury's status - coulda's and woulda's. "Could" Marbury have accomplished the same things as Kidd in NJ and Nash in PHO? You said yes - I say no. But that's all you got left with Steph - a trail of coulda's. The guy doesn't atually do it - but he always "coulda."

I agree that he played great for a short spell this year, right before the injury. That's part of the point I've been making too. He's brilliant sporadically. Every year he's great for a while. Never sustains it. No franchise is ever able to build on Steph sustaining his best play.

And btw I have never been on Jamal's jock. That guy is leading no one anywhere either.

killa, look how long Steph's been in the league. And all you got for him now is the coulda's, the if he had a better surrounding cast's, the if he hadn't gotten hurt's? If he was the right guy to count on as your point guard, yoiur on-court leader, we'd know it by now. He's been in the league a long time now and just keeps accumulating coulda's.

Posted by Marv:

Posted by Killa4luv:


Marv you raise very many questions that are good questions. Do I think the trades for Nash and J. Kidd were good? Yes. Do I say that they are the sole reason for those teams turning it around? No. Do I think Steph could do comparable things as what happened in those places if he had the same squad? yes. has he ever played with a squad as talented as the one those guys have? No. We could go on and on with this, but I understand your point, I just don't agree. Each situation in NJ and Phoenix was more than simply the swapping of players into the same situations. But whatever.

I don't see how you watched this team, this year, before his injury and say he was a part of the problem here. He was leading us on the court masterfully. And its ironic to me how most of the same people who want steph gone are the same ones who see Jamal Crawford as this magically improved player because he played well during games that meant nothing. But Yes, i think overall, it is lazy logic, its not quite like saying 'he's a loser' but its slightly more developed than that, and there is some logic to it, just not many details, which is why I call it lazy.

killa, I think you're resorting to the only argument left to defend Marbury's status - coulda's and woulda's. "Could" Marbury have accomplished the same things as Kidd in NJ and Nash in PHO? You said yes - I say no. But that's all you got left with Steph - a trail of coulda's. The guy doesn't atually do it - but he always "coulda."

I agree that he played great for a short spell this year, right before the injury. That's part of the point I've been making too. He's brilliant sporadically. Every year he's great for a while. Never sustains it. No franchise is ever able to build on Steph sustaining his best play.

And btw I have never been on Jamal's jock. That guy is leading no one anywhere either.

killa, look how long Steph's been in the league. And all you got for him now is the coulda's, the if he had a better surrounding cast's, the if he hadn't gotten hurt's? If he was the right guy to count on as your point guard, yoiur on-court leader, we'd know it by now. He's been in the league a long time now and just keeps accumulating coulda's.

ok, we have heard all those arguements before, tell me this...What good team has Steph been on, where they should have won and gone deep into the playoffs and didn't because of Marbs...Don't say Phoenix, they weren't ready to take it to the next level yet....Tell me the team that Steph actually held back from achieving it's goals...



[Edited by - holfresh on 04-23-2006 10:38 AM]

Posted by McK1:

how many teams did Steph help overachieve?

Nets were a young team like these current Knicks.

they went from 26 wins to 52 minus Steph plus Kidd. I know Steph didn't have RJ off his bench...lol.

Steph didn't have RJ and KMart...KMart broke his leg that year...Kittles and KVH was hurt for an extended portion of the season as well...

But you guys don't care about that...You will always say when Kidd, who is a great player in his own right, got there it all turned around....nice...



Don;t forget Jason Collins was not on that team as well....but it's all good...



[Edited by - holfresh on 04-23-2006 10:49 AM]

Posted by holfresh:

ok, we have heard all those arguements before, tell me this...What good team has Steph been on, where they should have won and gone deep into the playoffs and didn't because of personel...Don't say Phoenix, they weren't ready to take it to the next level yet....Tell me the team that Steph actually held back from achieving it's goals...

I think the argument gets too circular. If his teams had won, then someone could say he had good personnel around him. If they didn't, then he had poor personnel around him. You can look at this any way you want. For example, did Boris Diaw get this good this year because he played with Steve Nash? Or did Nash have the good fortune of "good personnel" of Boris Diaw to benefit from? Did Sam Cassell turn LA into a winner, boost Elton Brand into a 25 ppg scorer and grow Kaman's game? Or did Cassell luck out from his personnel? You can decide to look at it whatever way you want. As for me, I'm looking at the results of Steph's career, which is pretty lengthy at this point. And I'm deciding he's not the guy I want leading my team. And for people who say well he's not a leader, so discount that part - I say he's a ball-dominating pg, high-scoring, highly-paid, high-profile guy, He's gonna be your on-court leader whether you want him to be or not. I'm judging by his record. I'm ready to move on. You can question his personnel over his entire career all you want. Like I said, to me that's resorting to a coulda perspective on the guy, and I'm afraid that's all Steph has left to gain peoples' continued investment in him. Just not a good choice for the Knicks anymore IMO.

Posted by Marv:

Posted by holfresh:

ok, we have heard all those arguements before, tell me this...What good team has Steph been on, where they should have won and gone deep into the playoffs and didn't because of personel...Don't say Phoenix, they weren't ready to take it to the next level yet....Tell me the team that Steph actually held back from achieving it's goals...

I think the argument gets too circular. If his teams had won, then someone could say he had good personnel around him. If they didn't, then he had poor personnel around him. You can look at this any way you want. For example, did Boris Diaw get this good this year because he played with Steve Nash? Or did Nash have the good fortune of "good personnel" of Boris Diaw to benefit from? Did Sam Cassell turn LA into a winner, boost Elton Brand into a 25 ppg scorer and grow Kaman's game? Or did Cassell luck out from his personnel? You can decide to look at it whatever way you want. As for me, I'm looking at the results of Steph's career, which is pretty lengthy at this point. And I'm deciding he's not the guy I want leading my team. And for people who say well he's not a leader, so discount that part - I say he's a ball-dominating pg, high-scoring, highly-paid, high-profile guy, He's gonna be your on-court leader whether you want him to be or not. I'm judging by his record. I'm ready to move on. You can question his personnel over his entire career all you want. Like I said, to me that's resorting to a coulda perspective on the guy, and I'm afraid that's all Steph has left to gain peoples' continued investment in him. Just not a good choice for the Knicks anymore IMO.

Steve Nash has always had good personel to play with everywhere he has been...Sam Cassell has always had goo personell to play with everywhere he has been...Hell, Dallas improved when Nash left and is even better two years removed...Who has Mar\bs played with that should have won?...If you can't answer the question you have no point...

Posted by McK1:

Posted by holfresh:

Posted by McK1:

the 04-05 team wa sbetter than its record. If Steph was ny kind of leader they'd have won 46 games but instead he lets is team get beat in the fourth by the likes of Jason Hart (Bobcats) Milt Palacio (Toronto) Tyronn Lue (Atlanta) Dan Dickau (Hornets) the Hot Potato game that sunk Lenny vs Houston.

PATHETIC

I see your point...They should have won 8 games less than the Pistons that year with bascally the same roster as this year just exchange Eddie Curry and AD for TT and Sweetss...If youo really believe that....What should they have won this year and how do you really feel about the Job Brown has done...If you are saying the Knicks should have won 46 last year...What was you number for this year 52?

38. after they won 33 with a better TEAM my expectations lowered. A ton of scoring talent on paper doesn't win games becaus in the end

THERE IS ONLY 1 FUCKING BALL

If you think that team last year should have won 46 games then you are looking at this through rose colored glasses...

Posted by holfresh:

Posted by Marv:

Posted by holfresh:

ok, we have heard all those arguements before, tell me this...What good team has Steph been on, where they should have won and gone deep into the playoffs and didn't because of personel...Don't say Phoenix, they weren't ready to take it to the next level yet....Tell me the team that Steph actually held back from achieving it's goals...

I think the argument gets too circular. If his teams had won, then someone could say he had good personnel around him. If they didn't, then he had poor personnel around him. You can look at this any way you want. For example, did Boris Diaw get this good this year because he played with Steve Nash? Or did Nash have the good fortune of "good personnel" of Boris Diaw to benefit from? Did Sam Cassell turn LA into a winner, boost Elton Brand into a 25 ppg scorer and grow Kaman's game? Or did Cassell luck out from his personnel? You can decide to look at it whatever way you want. As for me, I'm looking at the results of Steph's career, which is pretty lengthy at this point. And I'm deciding he's not the guy I want leading my team. And for people who say well he's not a leader, so discount that part - I say he's a ball-dominating pg, high-scoring, highly-paid, high-profile guy, He's gonna be your on-court leader whether you want him to be or not. I'm judging by his record. I'm ready to move on. You can question his personnel over his entire career all you want. Like I said, to me that's resorting to a coulda perspective on the guy, and I'm afraid that's all Steph has left to gain peoples' continued investment in him. Just not a good choice for the Knicks anymore IMO.

Steve Nash has always had good personel to play with everywhere he has been...Sam Cassell has always had goo personell to play with everywhere he has been...Hell, Dallas improved when Nash left and is even better two years removed...Who has Mar\bs played with that should have won?...If you can't answer the question you have no point...

Sam was a Net. His last Nets teams finished 43-39. The next season with Marbury (the strike shortened one) they inished 16 games under .500. Marbury got there about 11 games into the season.

same roster, finished worse

http://www.nba.com/nets/roster/alltime_roster.html

and Nash led Phoenix to 50 wins without Amare all season and tradedowns talent wise in Bell and Diaw versus Q and Joe.

Steph had for about the first 15 games Amare, Joe, and a still able Penny and was leading that team to the bottom of the Pacific.

Posted by holfresh:

Posted by McK1:

Posted by holfresh:

Posted by McK1:

the 04-05 team wa sbetter than its record. If Steph was ny kind of leader they'd have won 46 games but instead he lets is team get beat in the fourth by the likes of Jason Hart (Bobcats) Milt Palacio (Toronto) Tyronn Lue (Atlanta) Dan Dickau (Hornets) the Hot Potato game that sunk Lenny vs Houston.

PATHETIC

I see your point...They should have won 8 games less than the Pistons that year with bascally the same roster as this year just exchange Eddie Curry and AD for TT and Sweetss...If youo really believe that....What should they have won this year and how do you really feel about the Job Brown has done...If you are saying the Knicks should have won 46 last year...What was you number for this year 52?

38. after they won 33 with a better TEAM my expectations lowered. A ton of scoring talent on paper doesn't win games becaus in the end

THERE IS ONLY 1 FUCKING BALL

If you think that team last year should have won 46 games then you are looking at this through rose colored glasses...

particular games against those 5 right there they had no business losing raises the win total to 38. More off the top of my head:

The game in Sac where minus Cat, Bibby and Brad were allowed to go off for 75 of the Kings 116 including the game winner by Mike - 39

the loss at Minny to start the season came down to fourth quarter execution in which Steph did none of - 40

losing to the Mobley-less Magic and Carter-less Raps at home later in the season - 41 and 42

going 1-3 overall against toronto, 1-2 against the Magic and 1-2 against the Bucks - disgusting.

[Edited by - McK1 on 04-23-2006 11:27 AM]

Posted by holfresh:



By your accounting methods the Pistons should be 82-0....

no they shouldn't. they weren't better than every team every night.

NY loss a lot of games they had won due to brain-farts the size of Texas on the offensive end and zero defensive effort down the stretch from last years starting backcourt.

Posted by BlueSeats:

if marbury were on the suns instead of nash they'd be in the lottery, the locker rom would be fractured, players would be bickering over roles, the quality of his supporting cast would ridiculed, the coach's system would be considered miscast to the talent, d'antoni would be on the hotseat and trade rumors would engulf the franchise.

So bacially what's happening here now...I hope Marbury settles on a consistant lineup next year..I hope he also give the rooks more playing time....



[Edited by - holfresh on 04-23-2006 6:24 PM]