GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:

martin wrote:This game clearly shows why Randle is a solid #2 or more realistically a #3 on a very good team IMHO. He just doesn’t have that killer, clutch sense about him.

He is more workhorse type dude. RJ probably same but not as talented.

I think Randle also doesn't have the offensive repertoire that he needs to go one on one especially late in a game. His offense is better suited to get during the flow of a game. Randles isolation offense is plain ugly.

YES

Having a guy like Brunson on team has taken ball out of Randle's/RJ's hands, super good thing.

Need one more guy to be a bigger Alpha to remove the ISO Randle at critical junctures.

Wow, that was "heresy" a few days ago lol. Ive maintained that its going to be hard to do without moving Randle. Not impossible, but difficult. Would have to be through some clever cap mgmt, I imagine.

Respectfully disagree with both of you on this one. When Randle is in the zone. Which I mean to be that he's pitch perfect with his shot selection. Not necesarily hitting them all. He's one of the best scorers in the league. Which I believe he became when he cut out the "spinovers" (credit to crush for that one) and became a threat from everywhere.

The only difference I see in the 4th quarter too often, is that Randle looks flustered. Ive havent doubted Randle's skills, except one. Being a consistent 4th quarter threat.

Delivering in crunch time would be great. But I'd be happy as a fan to see more 4th quarter scoring. Not necessarily in crunch time. To keep us from going to crunch time.

I guess I don't understand what you are disagreeing with.

Is it your supposition that Randle is good enough to be a closer on a high level team?

Cause that's the level I'm referring to.

Chandler wrote:Sure it was disappointing to lose the game but i saw a lot of good things last night including our potential on full display.

i continue to think we're one player away -- not a star, but a robert horry, mario elle type

they had Joe Ingles hitting big shots (he was the difference last night pulling them out of a huge deficit with Giannis on the bench); we trotted our Evan.

As much as I'd like to think EF could be the guy we trot out when we need to hit some threes/big shots -- he's not that guy; he's not that guy

we need a cold-blooded dead eye off the bench

For me, to be a solid top 4 team in a conference and legit'ish deep playoff team, you need both types of guys on your team.

ISO guy to just give the ball to in crunch times during game (Brunson is the only guy on team IMHO that does it right now) and a guy off bench who can be focus of offense (like Rose was for Knicks in 2020 season).

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:

martin wrote:This game clearly shows why Randle is a solid #2 or more realistically a #3 on a very good team IMHO. He just doesn’t have that killer, clutch sense about him.

He is more workhorse type dude. RJ probably same but not as talented.

I think Randle also doesn't have the offensive repertoire that he needs to go one on one especially late in a game. His offense is better suited to get during the flow of a game. Randles isolation offense is plain ugly.

YES

Having a guy like Brunson on team has taken ball out of Randle's/RJ's hands, super good thing.

Need one more guy to be a bigger Alpha to remove the ISO Randle at critical junctures.

Wow, that was "heresy" a few days ago lol. Ive maintained that its going to be hard to do without moving Randle. Not impossible, but difficult. Would have to be through some clever cap mgmt, I imagine.

Respectfully disagree with both of you on this one. When Randle is in the zone. Which I mean to be that he's pitch perfect with his shot selection. Not necesarily hitting them all. He's one of the best scorers in the league. Which I believe he became when he cut out the "spinovers" (credit to crush for that one) and became a threat from everywhere.

The only difference I see in the 4th quarter too often, is that Randle looks flustered. Ive havent doubted Randle's skills, except one. Being a consistent 4th quarter threat.

Delivering in crunch time would be great. But I'd be happy as a fan to see more 4th quarter scoring. Not necessarily in crunch time. To keep us from going to crunch time.

I guess I don't understand what you are disagreeing with.

Is it your supposition that Randle is good enough to be a closer on a high level team?

Cause that's the level I'm referring to.

You're agreeing with BRD's contention that Randle doesnt have the "offensive repertoire" to be the go to guy in the 4th. Im saying you're both wrong, that the problem is mental, nothing to do with his game.

You can either do it or you flub it, and for me mental is a critical part of the game, and Randle does not have it IMHO, not at the level necessary to carry a team consistently.

You can certainly grow it with experience but Randle's decision-making process is not as high as someone like Brunson and a ton of other guys. He is a second tier guy at best; that's his ceiling right now.

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:

martin wrote:This game clearly shows why Randle is a solid #2 or more realistically a #3 on a very good team IMHO. He just doesn’t have that killer, clutch sense about him.

He is more workhorse type dude. RJ probably same but not as talented.

I think Randle also doesn't have the offensive repertoire that he needs to go one on one especially late in a game. His offense is better suited to get during the flow of a game. Randles isolation offense is plain ugly.

YES

Having a guy like Brunson on team has taken ball out of Randle's/RJ's hands, super good thing.

Need one more guy to be a bigger Alpha to remove the ISO Randle at critical junctures.

Wow, that was "heresy" a few days ago lol. Ive maintained that its going to be hard to do without moving Randle. Not impossible, but difficult. Would have to be through some clever cap mgmt, I imagine.

Respectfully disagree with both of you on this one. When Randle is in the zone. Which I mean to be that he's pitch perfect with his shot selection. Not necesarily hitting them all. He's one of the best scorers in the league. Which I believe he became when he cut out the "spinovers" (credit to crush for that one) and became a threat from everywhere.

The only difference I see in the 4th quarter too often, is that Randle looks flustered. Ive havent doubted Randle's skills, except one. Being a consistent 4th quarter threat.

Delivering in crunch time would be great. But I'd be happy as a fan to see more 4th quarter scoring. Not necessarily in crunch time. To keep us from going to crunch time.

I guess I don't understand what you are disagreeing with.

Is it your supposition that Randle is good enough to be a closer on a high level team?

Cause that's the level I'm referring to.

You're agreeing with BRD's contention that Randle doesnt have the "offensive repertoire" to be the go to guy in the 4th. Im saying you're both wrong, that the problem is mental, nothing to do with his game.

You can either do it or you flub it, and for me mental is a critical part of the game, and Randle does not have it IMHO, not at the level necessary to carry a team consistently.

You can certainly grow it with experience but Randle's decision-making process is not as high as someone like Brunson and a ton of other guys. He is a second tier guy at best; that's his ceiling right now.

Of course, I agree with what you wrote, and the value of being clutch. What I disagreed with was Randle not having the "repertoire" to be a closer. That usually refers to what a player can do with the ball. 3pt shooting, post game, etc. Randle has it all except the closer part. Not consistently anyway.

Not trying to sound flip, but many pro ahtletes see sports a psychologist when they hit a slump, or have trouble in crunch time. Might help Randle, and dealing with the stressors of being a pro athlete.

In the meantime, I agree we need another closer alongside Brunson. The young guys are getting there, but they arent there yet.

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

BigRedDog wrote:

martin wrote:This game clearly shows why Randle is a solid #2 or more realistically a #3 on a very good team IMHO. He just doesn’t have that killer, clutch sense about him.

He is more workhorse type dude. RJ probably same but not as talented.

I think Randle also doesn't have the offensive repertoire that he needs to go one on one especially late in a game. His offense is better suited to get during the flow of a game. Randles isolation offense is plain ugly.

YES

Having a guy like Brunson on team has taken ball out of Randle's/RJ's hands, super good thing.

Need one more guy to be a bigger Alpha to remove the ISO Randle at critical junctures.

Wow, that was "heresy" a few days ago lol. Ive maintained that its going to be hard to do without moving Randle. Not impossible, but difficult. Would have to be through some clever cap mgmt, I imagine.

Respectfully disagree with both of you on this one. When Randle is in the zone. Which I mean to be that he's pitch perfect with his shot selection. Not necesarily hitting them all. He's one of the best scorers in the league. Which I believe he became when he cut out the "spinovers" (credit to crush for that one) and became a threat from everywhere.

The only difference I see in the 4th quarter too often, is that Randle looks flustered. Ive havent doubted Randle's skills, except one. Being a consistent 4th quarter threat.

Delivering in crunch time would be great. But I'd be happy as a fan to see more 4th quarter scoring. Not necessarily in crunch time. To keep us from going to crunch time.

I guess I don't understand what you are disagreeing with.

Is it your supposition that Randle is good enough to be a closer on a high level team?

Cause that's the level I'm referring to.

You're agreeing with BRD's contention that Randle doesnt have the "offensive repertoire" to be the go to guy in the 4th. Im saying you're both wrong, that the problem is mental, nothing to do with his game.

You can either do it or you flub it, and for me mental is a critical part of the game, and Randle does not have it IMHO, not at the level necessary to carry a team consistently.

You can certainly grow it with experience but Randle's decision-making process is not as high as someone like Brunson and a ton of other guys. He is a second tier guy at best; that's his ceiling right now.

Of course, I agree with what you wrote, and the value of being clutch. What I disagreed with was Randle not having the "repertoire" to be a closer. That usually refers to what a player can do with the ball. 3pt shooting, post game, etc. Randle has it all except the closer part. Not consistently anyway.

Not trying to sound flip, but many pro ahtletes see sports a psychologist when they hit a slump, or have trouble in crunch time. Might help Randle, and dealing with the stressors of being a pro athlete.

In the meantime, I agree we need another closer alongside Brunson. The young guys are getting there, but they arent there yet.

Or fire Randles whisperer and hire a better one. We need to babysit Randle more. We need to make sure we have the right players around him. We need to watch his mins so he’s not Burnt out in the 4th. We need to do a lot for Randle to play at an all star level.

I don’t know about other star players but I’m so glad we DONT have to babysit JB. Love his game and his fire. I still think he’s more of a scorer than a passer but he’s probably perfect for this team the way it’s constructed.

Am I a big fan of Randle? Nope. Never was. But that doesn’t mean I’m not happy for him and how he’s been playing and how his play helps us win. But as we saw, his play can also help us lose.

He’ll bounce back next game, not worried about that. My worry is more long term. Every bad game reminds me of the playoff Randle from the ATL series. That’s the growth I would like to see and it starts in crunch time during regular season games. And so far he has some work to do.

I was a fan of Thibs when we hired him, but that slowly slipped away when I saw some of his flaws, mainly his rigid approach, lack of in game adaptability and how he manages Randle. And for the most part when we lose, all my fears for both comes out. When we win, seems like Randle is on and Thibs is making the right moves. So I’ll wait and see how thibs and Randle rebounds from this.

“Playing EF zero mins in the 3rd and 9 mins in the 4th? 🤦‍♂️ “

“Randle started out bricking in the 1st and failed to perform in the 4th.”

So if Randle doesn’t have it early, and we know he struggles late, seems like that’s all you need to see in order to determine a win vs a loss. Each win rest on Randles shoulders. Maybe RJ will help. But damn, another double digit blown lead? How many is that? We gotta be top 3 on the league for blown leads. This is crazy.

Go New York Go New York Go!

Nalod wrote:Is it better to have loved, then never to have loved at all?
Is it better to have had a lead, then never to have had one at all?
If you lose the game, you lose the game.
No credit to Milwaukee? Its randles fault, or Thibs, or whom ever.
Sometimes you get beaten by a better team.
Somtimes that better team need comeback.
Either way losing sucks.
Brunson close it out in Toronto. Not last night. RJ has had good close out games. Sometimes not.
Knicks are improving, but Milwaukee is a lot better.

I agree, we don't talk about the other team that beat us, but there's a very easy explanation.

Since the only thing we can control is us. Any defensive changes is directed at the knicks, not the bucks. Like I tell my kids, focus on what you can control. We can talk about Grimes defense on Holiday all day (for example). But talking about Holidays makes in crunch time doesn't correct how Grimes did not close the gap on Holiday. Thats something Grimes can improve on (playing defense for the entire game), change or adjust for next time. Great learning lesson for him and others. This is why I wanted the yoots to play. Not because it gives us a better chance to win. It's a learning lesson for them. And real time experience is the best way to learn.

The Bucks played a great game. Not sure anybody is denying that, they are the former champs. But my point remains, we control what we can control. So thats why most people jump straight into what we can fix. Who's at fault. Will Thibs adjust? Will Randle adjust? etc.... Forget the bucks at this point! It's all about repair, learn and move on.

Example of things we can control:
Grimes defense on Holiday
Thibs playing EF in the 4th after zero mins in the 3rd.
Randle taking too many early jumpers before realizing he's off.
Playing EF over Grimes.
Playing Hart over Sims.
Real time Defensive Adjustments
etc....

Example of things we can't control:
How good Milwaukee is.
Milwaukee is a better team

Holiday had 3 step backs to the same spot. Not sure anyone can do a better job on those unless they can read the guy's mind.

to each his own, but to my eyes the issue boiled down to us not controlling Ingles. Ingles does one thing on the court (shoot) and we let him go off. We needed to account for him better and we should have punished him on the other end (we didn't). Guy can't guard any of our guys

GustavBahler wrote:

martin wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/JCMacriNBA/status/1612817749012779009

Ouch. Thats not good. Mitch not being able to create makes it worse. We gotta add a big who can get buckets in the paint.

Comparing Quickley at PG and SG, is starting to feel like left Twix, right Twix. He's figuring things out at both position.

Last night the Ref watched Portis elbow Grimes for a KO and made no call!
I guess the NBA Referee's got tired of watching the Knicks SELFISH trio of Brunson, Randle, and Quickley hog the ball all game stopping any team ball-movement during the game (The trio combine for 73 FGA out of the team 100 FGA in the game).
And Quickley's 9-14 shooting for 23 points were the best % shooter on the court last night, but in the 4th quarter Brunson and Randle held tight on the ball never giving the ball to Quickley to take a shot in the 4th quarter. Selfish! Selfish! Selfish!
Quickley played 12 minutes in the 4th quarter and took NO shots !!!

The Tom Thibs 9 man rotation is for the Knicks trio ball-hoggers Brunson, Randle, and Barrett to control the offense decision-making for 48 minutes a game.
The Knicks coach Tom Thibs never put an all bench lineup on the court this season. Why?
Because veteran D.Rose (and Taj Gibson) all bench lineup out-shine coach Thibs starter lineup last season, and in the playoff vs Hawks.
Not giving a healthy D.Rose an all bench lineup to mentor for the playoff means the Knicks organization are TANKING !!!

martin wrote:Do you guys think Kemet is just an unleashed Knicks AI troll bot?

What do u think ???

How do u watch a game, and don't know the Final quarter of a Basketball or Football game are the important part of the team performance, In the 4th qtr. is where u see the star-players step-up a level, plus if the team have same-page chemistry on offensive scoring and defensive STOPS ???
The Bucks showed us last night the first 3 quarters of the game mean little, it's the 4th quarter performance u evaluate a winning or loser team.
The Knicks practically played 4 players for 40 minutes last night, the Bucks most minute player was Giannis for 36 minutes last night.
The Bucks/Celtics/Nuggets/Mavs/Warriors could run a 9 man rotation they have an NBA MVP player in their rotation.

martin wrote:Do you guys think Kemet is just an unleashed Knicks AI troll bot?

Miserable knick fan.