Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

dk7th wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

dk7th wrote:trade which melo? the one that played here prior to this season or the one that is playing great since the arrival of kp?

What difference does it make? Trade the former you also traded the latter.

Correct. You trade both Melos, especially today's DadMelo to get some value back, so you can finally move forward as a franchise.

you're really getting carried away. melo is a very valuable player right now. i enjoy watching him play for the first time. the issue is the unfortunately-titled thread. seems like trying to stir up trouble where it just isn't warranted.

the issue is that we have not seen this melo ever before, so why pretend otherwise, which is why the thread-starter is a wee bit gratuitous and jejune.

I don't mind Melo's play right now. It's all the critics ever wanted from him from the get go.

From George Karl, from Mike D'Antoni, from Mike Woodson. They all wanted this version of Melo.

Someone that's a willing distributor that picks their spots to take over, and play defense on every possesion, not when they feel like it.

Anyone that thinks Melo's always played this way in the past is just delusional biased rose tinted glasses homer liars.

who thinks melo has played this way in the past? obviously hes changed his game up a bit and has started trusting his teammates much more than he ever has. i don't think there is a person on this board denying that.

There's a small segment in here that think Melo's always played like this, just his supporting cast has changed. That he's been passing as much as he is now and playing D, but the guys around him weren't good enough.

That is obviously patently wrong.

But more importantly, why is it relevant?

Porzingis is an awesome rookie who would be good without Melo and will someday be great without him.

Melo is a very good player who had been hurt by his own hand and his circumstances in the past.

Porzingis is likely better with Melo than without and that will likely be true for some time.

Melo is likely better with Porzingis and to other lesser degrees Lopez and Afflalo.

Knicks are improving and likely at their best this year and next with Porzingis and Melo.

These things can all be true at the same time. Why is the minutiae of it so important?

Shouldn't be any minutiae. Shouldn't be relevant is the whole point.

OP wanted to incite another Melo wankfest as to saying Melo's absence was the sole reason KP struggled and the Knicks lost.

It was a 1 possession game with 2 minutes left against the lowly Nets! Really this thread should never have been created.

Fair enough, but you're a big role player in this board dynamic too, consistently fixated on the minutiae of the pecking order of KP and Melo when it is not relevant and who is helping who more.

I'm all for righting wrongs. When I see a mistake I try to correct it.

You have no means to persuade others to what you see as more accurate views when you forgo credibility by hypocrisy. Responding with happy faces when this is fairly pointed out to you just undermines you more.

Stay in character then and don't point fingers at others. Yours have all been cut off long ago.

Looks like LivingLegend and gunsnewing have grown back my fingers.

Okay, are you saying there "shouldn't be any minutiae. Shouldn't be relevant is the whole point."

Or are you saying on any given day you are not fixated on the minutiae of the pecking order of Melo & KP?

Can't be both.

On this given day the minutiae of the pecking order of Melo & KP was irrelevant.

This particular game (Nets) was lost by the coach. Too many minutes to tired players, didn't make adjustments, didn't get out on Bogdanovich, didn't extend his rotation even a little bit.

That's what I'm saying. Forget about Melo and KP hierarchy for one second. OP was trying to paint a picture that 1 guy affected the game, it's players and outcome. It did but only a certain extent. It didn't affect KP's tired legs, it didn't affect the overall Knicks team flat in the beginning of the 1st quarter, and it didn't effect the atrocious rotations in the 4th quarter.

Do you understand, or do I have to break it down in even simpler terms?

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

But more importantly, why is it relevant?

Porzingis is an awesome rookie who would be good without Melo and will someday be great without him.

Melo is a very good player who had been hurt by his own hand and his circumstances in the past.

Porzingis is likely better with Melo than without and that will likely be true for some time.

Melo is likely better with Porzingis and to other lesser degrees Lopez and Afflalo.

Knicks are improving and likely at their best this year and next with Porzingis and Melo.

These things can all be true at the same time. Why is the minutiae of it so important?

Shouldn't be any minutiae. Shouldn't be relevant is the whole point.

OP wanted to incite another Melo wankfest as to saying Melo's absence was the sole reason KP struggled and the Knicks lost.

It was a 1 possession game with 2 minutes left against the lowly Nets! Really this thread should never have been created.

Fair enough, but you're a big role player in this board dynamic too, consistently fixated on the minutiae of the pecking order of KP and Melo when it is not relevant and who is helping who more.

I'm all for righting wrongs. When I see a mistake I try to correct it.

You have no means to persuade others to what you see as more accurate views when you forgo credibility by hypocrisy. Responding with happy faces when this is fairly pointed out to you just undermines you more.

Stay in character then and don't point fingers at others. Yours have all been cut off long ago.

Looks like LivingLegend and gunsnewing have grown back my fingers.

Okay, are you saying there "shouldn't be any minutiae. Shouldn't be relevant is the whole point."

Or are you saying on any given day you are not fixated on the minutiae of the pecking order of Melo & KP?

Can't be both.

On this given day the minutiae of the pecking order of Melo & KP was irrelevant.

On EVERY given day, is the point.

That's what I'm saying. Forget about Melo and KP hierarchy for one second.

And that's hypocrisy, because you never forget it and make a point of it all the time including when it's not relevant, because it never is.

OP was trying to paint a picture that 1 guy affected the game, it's players and outcome. It did but only a certain extent.

Fair enough. Melo may or may not have flipped the outcome of the game, right?

Melo playing, probably a coin flip, because he would have dead 31 year old legs as well.

Sure he would've helped, but Fisher has to know when to extend the rotation.

He played 8 guys. On a back to back. That is why they lost simple and plain.

Can't win when you got guys running on fumes and have no legs. Can't defend, can't contest. Nets shooting like 52% overall and 52% from 3 attest to this, and that's uncharacteristic of both teams. Knicks have become one of the best contesters of 3s in the league, and the Nets are near the bottom of most offensive categories including 3s and 3 point percentage(31% from downtown collectively).

CrushAlot wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:Kp has been erratic with his shot regardless of melo's presence.

Thid misconception that melo never played with this quality of talent is as far from the truth as anything stupid. When Amare was relatively healthy he never pass the ball to him. It would something like, melo 25 SHOT ATTEMPS, AMARE 8 ATTemps. I wouls feel more confident given the ball to Amare them lopez.

MDA, and Woodsons communication, was nowhere near the skills of phil jackson. MDA quit base on melos play, woodson gets fired base on his philosophies.

How can anyone be surprise at the play of melo after witnessing the transformation of MJ amd Kobe who were the biggest ball hogs in the history of the NBA, prior to phil.

Amare was healthy for the first two months after the trade in 2011. He was never healthy again during his knick career.

Even when Amare was healthy, Melo never really dished it to Amare the way he looks to setup KP. Like he actively sets picks for KP with vigor and overpasses in some cases to get KP involved. Never did this with Amare.

Even as a Knicks fan you can acknowledge this, right?

ChuckBuck wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:Kp has been erratic with his shot regardless of melo's presence.

Thid misconception that melo never played with this quality of talent is as far from the truth as anything stupid. When Amare was relatively healthy he never pass the ball to him. It would something like, melo 25 SHOT ATTEMPS, AMARE 8 ATTemps. I wouls feel more confident given the ball to Amare them lopez.

MDA, and Woodsons communication, was nowhere near the skills of phil jackson. MDA quit base on melos play, woodson gets fired base on his philosophies.

How can anyone be surprise at the play of melo after witnessing the transformation of MJ amd Kobe who were the biggest ball hogs in the history of the NBA, prior to phil.

Amare was healthy for the first two months after the trade in 2011. He was never healthy again during his knick career.

Even when Amare was healthy, Melo never really dished it to Amare the way he looks to setup KP. Like he actively sets picks for KP with vigor and overpasses in some cases to get KP involved. Never did this with Amare.

Even as a Knicks fan you can acknowledge this, right?

crzymdups wrote:

dk7th wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

dk7th wrote:trade which melo? the one that played here prior to this season or the one that is playing great since the arrival of kp?

What difference does it make? Trade the former you also traded the latter.

Correct. You trade both Melos, especially today's DadMelo to get some value back, so you can finally move forward as a franchise.

you're really getting carried away. melo is a very valuable player right now. i enjoy watching him play for the first time. the issue is the unfortunately-titled thread. seems like trying to stir up trouble where it just isn't warranted.

the issue is that we have not seen this melo ever before, so why pretend otherwise, which is why the thread-starter is a wee bit gratuitous and jejune.

It's gratuitous and jejune and inflammatory to point out that Melo helps get KP easier shots?

This wasn't the intention. It's to point out another faucet of how well Melo is playing. And how ridiculous a notion it is to trade him to "help" KP as some posters on this very page are still suggesting.

who other than chuckbuck is suggesting trading "this" melo? the main thing for me is that melo is playing in a way that justifies his price tag this season. this is the first season he has done so.

that said, kp's floor impact is ELITE. remove him from this team and we would quite possibly see the same old melo. you imply in your post that without melo kp would struggle, but you omit the salient point of the team sport: without kp not only would melo struggle but so would the team.

they need each other just like garnett and pierce needed each other.

agreed?

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

But more importantly, why is it relevant?

Porzingis is an awesome rookie who would be good without Melo and will someday be great without him.

Melo is a very good player who had been hurt by his own hand and his circumstances in the past.

Porzingis is likely better with Melo than without and that will likely be true for some time.

Melo is likely better with Porzingis and to other lesser degrees Lopez and Afflalo.

Knicks are improving and likely at their best this year and next with Porzingis and Melo.

These things can all be true at the same time. Why is the minutiae of it so important?

Shouldn't be any minutiae. Shouldn't be relevant is the whole point.

OP wanted to incite another Melo wankfest as to saying Melo's absence was the sole reason KP struggled and the Knicks lost.

It was a 1 possession game with 2 minutes left against the lowly Nets! Really this thread should never have been created.

Fair enough, but you're a big role player in this board dynamic too, consistently fixated on the minutiae of the pecking order of KP and Melo when it is not relevant and who is helping who more.

I'm all for righting wrongs. When I see a mistake I try to correct it.

You have no means to persuade others to what you see as more accurate views when you forgo credibility by hypocrisy. Responding with happy faces when this is fairly pointed out to you just undermines you more.

Stay in character then and don't point fingers at others. Yours have all been cut off long ago.

Looks like LivingLegend and gunsnewing have grown back my fingers.

Okay, are you saying there "shouldn't be any minutiae. Shouldn't be relevant is the whole point."

Or are you saying on any given day you are not fixated on the minutiae of the pecking order of Melo & KP?

Can't be both.

On this given day the minutiae of the pecking order of Melo & KP was irrelevant.

On EVERY given day, is the point.

That's what I'm saying. Forget about Melo and KP hierarchy for one second.

And that's hypocrisy, because you never forget it and make a point of it all the time including when it's not relevant, because it never is.

OP was trying to paint a picture that 1 guy affected the game, it's players and outcome. It did but only a certain extent.

Fair enough. Melo may or may not have flipped the outcome of the game, right?

Melo playing, probably a coin flip, because he would have dead 31 year old legs as well.

Sure he would've helped, but Fisher has to know when to extend the rotation.

He played 8 guys. On a back to back. That is why they lost simple and plain.

Can't win when you got guys running on fumes and have no legs. Can't defend, can't contest. Nets shooting like 52% overall and 52% from 3 attest to this, and that's uncharacteristic of both teams. Knicks have become one of the best contesters of 3s in the league, and the Nets are near the bottom of most offensive categories including 3s and 3 point percentage(31% from downtown collectively).

Played 9 against the Hawks, then 10 against the Heat in Miami last week. Two of 10 played 8 (Grant) and 5 (O'Quinn) mins, respectively.

So O'Quinn, Seraphin and/or Amundson for x mins means the Knicks win the game? No doubt about it?

Yup. Every minute counts. If you don't think those breathers mean anything, you obviously never played sports.

btw, none of this changes your hypocrisy on the Melp/Kp minutiae issue, but that said...

If you've ever played sports you know there is no certainties like you're suggesting. Any of those three guys could have had a negative impact on the game, making winning a steeper hill to climb for the rotation guys. The exact impact of a handful of minutes is unknowable. KP could have had a bad shooting night in 30 mins as opposed to 40.

If you want to continue to suggest a undetermined # of mins by 3 arguably net-negative players would guarantee a different outcome in the game, you're giving up any claims to having played sports on a competitive level.

Might have given the Knicks a better shot? Maybe. That's a reasonable argument. But nothing is as absolute as it being made to be.

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

But more importantly, why is it relevant?

Porzingis is an awesome rookie who would be good without Melo and will someday be great without him.

Melo is a very good player who had been hurt by his own hand and his circumstances in the past.

Porzingis is likely better with Melo than without and that will likely be true for some time.

Melo is likely better with Porzingis and to other lesser degrees Lopez and Afflalo.

Knicks are improving and likely at their best this year and next with Porzingis and Melo.

These things can all be true at the same time. Why is the minutiae of it so important?

Shouldn't be any minutiae. Shouldn't be relevant is the whole point.

OP wanted to incite another Melo wankfest as to saying Melo's absence was the sole reason KP struggled and the Knicks lost.

It was a 1 possession game with 2 minutes left against the lowly Nets! Really this thread should never have been created.

Fair enough, but you're a big role player in this board dynamic too, consistently fixated on the minutiae of the pecking order of KP and Melo when it is not relevant and who is helping who more.

I'm all for righting wrongs. When I see a mistake I try to correct it.

You have no means to persuade others to what you see as more accurate views when you forgo credibility by hypocrisy. Responding with happy faces when this is fairly pointed out to you just undermines you more.

Stay in character then and don't point fingers at others. Yours have all been cut off long ago.

Looks like LivingLegend and gunsnewing have grown back my fingers.

Okay, are you saying there "shouldn't be any minutiae. Shouldn't be relevant is the whole point."

Or are you saying on any given day you are not fixated on the minutiae of the pecking order of Melo & KP?

Can't be both.

On this given day the minutiae of the pecking order of Melo & KP was irrelevant.

On EVERY given day, is the point.

That's what I'm saying. Forget about Melo and KP hierarchy for one second.

And that's hypocrisy, because you never forget it and make a point of it all the time including when it's not relevant, because it never is.

OP was trying to paint a picture that 1 guy affected the game, it's players and outcome. It did but only a certain extent.

Fair enough. Melo may or may not have flipped the outcome of the game, right?

Melo playing, probably a coin flip, because he would have dead 31 year old legs as well.

Sure he would've helped, but Fisher has to know when to extend the rotation.

He played 8 guys. On a back to back. That is why they lost simple and plain.

Can't win when you got guys running on fumes and have no legs. Can't defend, can't contest. Nets shooting like 52% overall and 52% from 3 attest to this, and that's uncharacteristic of both teams. Knicks have become one of the best contesters of 3s in the league, and the Nets are near the bottom of most offensive categories including 3s and 3 point percentage(31% from downtown collectively).

Played 9 against the Hawks, then 10 against the Heat in Miami last week. Two of 10 played 8 (Grant) and 5 (O'Quinn) mins, respectively.

So O'Quinn, Seraphin and/or Amundson for x mins means the Knicks win the game? No doubt about it?

Yup. Every minute counts. If you don't think those breathers mean anything, you obviously never played sports.

btw, none of this changes your hypocrisy on the Melp/Kp minutiae issue, but that said...

If you've ever played sports you know there is no certainties like you're suggesting. Any of those three guys could have had a negative impact on the game, making winning a steeper hill to climb for the rotation guys. The exact impact of a handful of minutes is unknowable. KP could have had a bad shooting night in 30 mins as opposed to 40.

If you want to continue to suggest a undetermined # of mins by 3 arguably net-negative players would guarantee a different outcome in the game, you're giving up any claims to having played sports on a competitive level.

Might have given the Knicks a better shot? Maybe. That's a reasonable argument. But nothing is as absolute as it being made to be.

You keep side stepping the issue though. Looks like you're the hypocrite. Fisher should've extended the rotation on a back to back. He let his players languish unnecessarily. He let his prized rookie play 37 minutes on a night he was clearly winded. KP and RoLo were routinely getting roasted out there uncharacteristically. Fisher should've played Lou and KoQ even for a couple minutes each. PERIOD.

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

But more importantly, why is it relevant?

Porzingis is an awesome rookie who would be good without Melo and will someday be great without him.

Melo is a very good player who had been hurt by his own hand and his circumstances in the past.

Porzingis is likely better with Melo than without and that will likely be true for some time.

Melo is likely better with Porzingis and to other lesser degrees Lopez and Afflalo.

Knicks are improving and likely at their best this year and next with Porzingis and Melo.

These things can all be true at the same time. Why is the minutiae of it so important?

Shouldn't be any minutiae. Shouldn't be relevant is the whole point.

OP wanted to incite another Melo wankfest as to saying Melo's absence was the sole reason KP struggled and the Knicks lost.

It was a 1 possession game with 2 minutes left against the lowly Nets! Really this thread should never have been created.

Fair enough, but you're a big role player in this board dynamic too, consistently fixated on the minutiae of the pecking order of KP and Melo when it is not relevant and who is helping who more.

I'm all for righting wrongs. When I see a mistake I try to correct it.

You have no means to persuade others to what you see as more accurate views when you forgo credibility by hypocrisy. Responding with happy faces when this is fairly pointed out to you just undermines you more.

Stay in character then and don't point fingers at others. Yours have all been cut off long ago.

Looks like LivingLegend and gunsnewing have grown back my fingers.

Okay, are you saying there "shouldn't be any minutiae. Shouldn't be relevant is the whole point."

Or are you saying on any given day you are not fixated on the minutiae of the pecking order of Melo & KP?

Can't be both.

On this given day the minutiae of the pecking order of Melo & KP was irrelevant.

On EVERY given day, is the point.

That's what I'm saying. Forget about Melo and KP hierarchy for one second.

And that's hypocrisy, because you never forget it and make a point of it all the time including when it's not relevant, because it never is.

OP was trying to paint a picture that 1 guy affected the game, it's players and outcome. It did but only a certain extent.

Fair enough. Melo may or may not have flipped the outcome of the game, right?

Melo playing, probably a coin flip, because he would have dead 31 year old legs as well.

Sure he would've helped, but Fisher has to know when to extend the rotation.

He played 8 guys. On a back to back. That is why they lost simple and plain.

Can't win when you got guys running on fumes and have no legs. Can't defend, can't contest. Nets shooting like 52% overall and 52% from 3 attest to this, and that's uncharacteristic of both teams. Knicks have become one of the best contesters of 3s in the league, and the Nets are near the bottom of most offensive categories including 3s and 3 point percentage(31% from downtown collectively).

Played 9 against the Hawks, then 10 against the Heat in Miami last week. Two of 10 played 8 (Grant) and 5 (O'Quinn) mins, respectively.

So O'Quinn, Seraphin and/or Amundson for x mins means the Knicks win the game? No doubt about it?

Yup. Every minute counts. If you don't think those breathers mean anything, you obviously never played sports.

btw, none of this changes your hypocrisy on the Melp/Kp minutiae issue, but that said...

If you've ever played sports you know there is no certainties like you're suggesting. Any of those three guys could have had a negative impact on the game, making winning a steeper hill to climb for the rotation guys. The exact impact of a handful of minutes is unknowable. KP could have had a bad shooting night in 30 mins as opposed to 40.

If you want to continue to suggest a undetermined # of mins by 3 arguably net-negative players would guarantee a different outcome in the game, you're giving up any claims to having played sports on a competitive level.

Might have given the Knicks a better shot? Maybe. That's a reasonable argument. But nothing is as absolute as it being made to be.

You keep side stepping the issue though. Looks like you're the hypocrite. Fisher should've extended the rotation on a back to back. He let his players languish unnecessarily. He let his prized rookie play 37 minutes on a night he was clearly winded. KP and RoLo were routinely getting roasted out there uncharacteristically. Fisher should've played Lou and KoQ even for a couple minutes each. PERIOD.

Did you miss that part where I said "Might have given the Knicks a better shot? Maybe. That's a reasonable argument."?

Do you deny had he done that, other and maybe even the same posters would be criticizing him for getting away from what was working?

Let's be clear. MIGHT have helped. That's a reasonable argument.

Would have changed the outcome is a fallacy. We don't know that. Could've made the outcome worse, in which case Fisher would be roasted too.

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

dk7th wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

dk7th wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

dk7th wrote:trade which melo? the one that played here prior to this season or the one that is playing great since the arrival of kp?

What difference does it make? Trade the former you also traded the latter.

Correct. You trade both Melos, especially today's DadMelo to get some value back, so you can finally move forward as a franchise.

you're really getting carried away. melo is a very valuable player right now. i enjoy watching him play for the first time. the issue is the unfortunately-titled thread. seems like trying to stir up trouble where it just isn't warranted.

the issue is that we have not seen this melo ever before, so why pretend otherwise, which is why the thread-starter is a wee bit gratuitous and jejune.

It's gratuitous and jejune and inflammatory to point out that Melo helps get KP easier shots?

This wasn't the intention. It's to point out another faucet of how well Melo is playing. And how ridiculous a notion it is to trade him to "help" KP as some posters on this very page are still suggesting.

who other than chuckbuck is suggesting trading "this" melo? the main thing for me is that melo is playing in a way that justifies his price tag this season. this is the first season he has done so.

that said, kp's floor impact is ELITE. remove him from this team and we would quite possibly see the same old melo. you imply in your post that without melo kp would struggle, but you omit the salient point of the team sport: without kp not only would melo struggle but so would the team.

they need each other just like garnett and pierce needed each other.

agreed?

For just this season, it'll be a chicken and egg scenario. Did Melo's "leadership" and play enable KP to have this breakout rookie campaign, or does KP's early excellence lead to Melo's all around game evolving?

Next season, it'll be unanimous for all Knicks fan eyes and minds to the true leader of the Knicks will be.

Few weeks ago it was your position it was THIS season.

Gotta love fan fixatations.

Make a claim, be totally wrong, just make another.

How am I totally wrong? Season's not done yet, smallbaseketballs.

Few weeks ago, you said it as his team at that moment, not later in the season. It was and right now is not.

If it is later this season, great. I'd LOVE for him to eclipse the recent play of Melo that soon. Sign me the hell up for that.

But you were wrong and were told so at the time. This is a fact.

Not fact quite yet. What if Melo suffers a major injury which is very possible at his age.

If Knicks somehow squeak into playoffs, we'll see who shines the most.