Posted by RemBee76:
Posted by eViL:
A lot of the problems you point out (i.e. no chemistry) can be directly connected to decisions that he's made.
Actually evil, I don't think this team has chemistry problems right now. Marbury has deferred to his teammates as asked, Crawford and Curry have an esp thing going, Lee's rebounding feeds off of the attention Eddy gets, the team stood together through some tumultuous episodes last season while staying positive about each other and their coach after a 33 win season.
But Marbury backs up his starting center by saying he should have done better in the all-star balloting, and all you hear from some here is about how "Starbury" is being a bad influence. How exactly?
Isiah has been an awful GM in terms of wins, the only measure that ultimately counts. But, apparently, even Solace will tell you he has collected a great deal of young talent on this team, now he needs to get that talent to gel into a winning team.
For some one off season should be enough to do that, and you feel any other way you aren't basing your arguments in "reality". I disagree, in the politest, least gimmicky way I possibly can.
Fair enough -- maybe they finally will have good chemistry this year. However, Isiah has had many seasons to throw together something that works and has yet to succeed. The one consistent thing that he has done is that he has gotten the most talented player in almost every deal that he has made. He never seems to lose the talent end of the deal. But the man has a lot to learn about creating chemistry.
For example, why make these moves -- from a chemistry standpoint and in general, from a bball standpoint:
Maurice Taylor
Jerome James
Jared Jeffries
Steve Francis
The reason I selected these moves is because these four moves were almost universally panned on this board with no hindsight necessary (maybe JJ2 not so much -- but still, many questioned the logic of signing him and drafting Balkman, not to mention the price tag for such a limited player). Many people knew these were losing moves from the start. Maybe some of these folks are a bit frustrated that this guy is still running the team despite lacking the foresight to avoid these obvious failures.
Now in retrospect we can go back and see that the Marbury move was losing move for us. We gave up too much value for Curry. Lenny Wilkens was not the right coach. Tim Thomas was not what we needed at SF. Doleac and Van Horn fit better with Marbury. Etc. Etc. I can't say too much to complain about these moves because, at the time, I liked what Isiah was doing. Some people didn't. I argued with them about it. In the end, they were right. They hated the moves because they loved the Knicks and they knew the moves would set us back.
I don't think anyone on this board is necessarily hating the Knicks. I think they are hating the fact that our GM doesnt seem to have a clue. I realize that not every move is gonna be a winner. And in many ways, people have probably enjoyed Isiah more than Layden because at least Isiah pulls the trigger. We all know scared money don't make money. But I feel that ultimately, we are not much better off than the Layden era. It's just a different type of suck that we endure. Now we suck but our guys are quick and can dunk but don't play defense. Back then we sucked, got dunked on, never dunked on nobody, but played hard a competed every night. Isiah's teams underachieve and pull out win totals in the mid-thirties. Layden's teams overachieved and had win totals in the mid-thirties. I'm not happy with either.
For whatever reason, we could all find harmony in hating Layden. But Isiah has still got some people's trust. I don't know where that trust comes from and why it still exists...
check out my latest hip hop project: https://soundcloud.com/michaelcro http://youtu.be/scNXshrpyZo
8/10/2007 5:44 PM
