[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

one big thing that i think can help is moving jc to PG
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 1 of 2  1  2 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
7/28/2005  3:56 AM
reasons

6-5 pg
can see over his defender
can post up almost any 1
his body becomes a positive instead of a negative, he becomes long and disruptive instead of skinny and smallish, negating his defensive defeciencies
has an incredible handle
can penetrate at will
keeps his head up, sees the floor
he can really pass the ball
moves him away from the 3 pt line and uses his particular skills in a pro-TEAM way.
knows how to run-push the ball-not the fastest, but fast enough
can rebound from 1
can be a GREAT mid range shooter IMHO can use his floater more into the lane

we used to talk here about acquiring JC, but that was as a 6-5 PG--I think that has been the biggest problem--he has the attributes and assets to be a great PG, and he has been used incorrectly by chicago and the Knicks--JCs best position is PG.
RIP Crushalot😞
AUTOADVERT
raven
Posts: 22454
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #316
Canada
7/28/2005  4:16 AM
Briggs, mate, don't you just ever sleep ??? i mean, it's 10AM in France...
raven
Posts: 22454
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #316
Canada
7/28/2005  4:18 AM
btw JC has all the skills and talent to be a great PG (not good, I'm thinking high).

Thing is, he's got like 2 yrs of HS and 1 of collge ball under his belt. Then he only payed on a bad team (chicago was in disarray).

I'm sure brown can help him tremendously, maybe more than marbury who seems to be a head case.

JC seems to be more teachable and coachable. that's my feeling at least.

But then, JC at starting PG, so with nate from the bench you must have marb at SG ??? or do you imply that Stephon should be traded quickly ?
rain
Posts: 20762
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 11/13/2002
Member: #353
USA
7/28/2005  5:33 AM
I was at a local park (for some benefit game) this past weekend. Nate, Tre Simmons, Will Conroy, and Crawford were there, so was kemp (who wasn't fat btw).. anyhow, Crawford looked to dish alot. Was very good on the drive and dish.. He was the most physically talented on the court. No kneebrace, btw.. he looked healthy. I think he could run the point for 10 to 15 a game. But would be best served playing both.
bobs3304
Posts: 24827
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 7/5/2005
Member: #948
7/28/2005  7:38 AM
So we play Crawford at point and Marbury at SG, where he does...what exactly?


Marbury is not a 2. And if you don't believe me, ask around. Either way, that would **** the rotation over pretty bad. Q would have to fight for minutes, and don't get me started about Timmy, Ariza, etc.

Marbury is a pg. He's best breaking down the defense with the ball in his hand. He's utterly useless without the ball...same goes for Crawford. Personally, I think one of them has to go, and it pretty much looks like Crawford should start packin his bags.

[Edited by - BOBS3304 on 07/28/2005 07:38:44]
DLee is the best thing to happen to NY in Isiah's 4 year tenure. And that alone, though a positive on the radar, is sad as hell.
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
7/28/2005  7:45 AM
I think hes a tweener and I think LB can run the offense in a way that gets the most out of his skills.

He has zero post game that anyone has ever seen unless you have been sneaking in knicks practice facilities.

I am not convinced he should spend all or most of his time there. He should have small stretches at the PG and play alongside Marbs. Theres nothing wrong with having 2 guards who can score and distribute. They played well alongside each other many times last year.

Marbs is a better pg by far, if one of them plays it it should be Marbs.
bobs3304
Posts: 24827
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 7/5/2005
Member: #948
7/28/2005  7:48 AM
actually, i felt they didn't mesh well at all. not sure which team you were watching out there...
DLee is the best thing to happen to NY in Isiah's 4 year tenure. And that alone, though a positive on the radar, is sad as hell.
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
7/28/2005  8:16 AM
Posted by bobs3304:

actually, i felt they didn't mesh well at all. not sure which team you were watching out there...

I'd argue that was coaching and how they were being used.

However, while Craw is talented, I think he's best as the third guard off the bench to spell both 1 & 2- the problem is that Nate might actually be a better player and better at the 1 than crawford.

So, when Nate comes in, you can move marbs over or play q there.

I wouldn't be surprised if Nate proves he's ready that Craw doesn't get package mid season.

And, I'm not so sure Houston gets released- if he has anything left in the tank, he is our only sure fire outside shooter-

so, your back court would primarily be Marbs & Q with Nate getting major minutes and Houston as an emergency/spot player.

Craw & TT for what?
bobs3304
Posts: 24827
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 7/5/2005
Member: #948
7/28/2005  8:47 AM
I think you're right on the money. Timmy and Crawford are the most likely to be dealt. But I'm not sure if it they'd be packaged together (with picks) for a legit star, or if they'd be dealt separately and at different times.
DLee is the best thing to happen to NY in Isiah's 4 year tenure. And that alone, though a positive on the radar, is sad as hell.
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
7/28/2005  9:41 AM
unless you're trading Marbury, moving JC to PG is a bad idea imo...Marbury isn't as talented a scorer as an Allen Iverson for example, so we're better off taking advantage of his ability to dish & find the open man & allow him to orchestrate as he's been doing since he came into the NBA...he's not the classic PG in the mold of a John Stockton or Jason Kidd, but Marbury is the best ball distributor we have...unless you're trading him to get a bigman, it doesn't make any sense to move him to SG & weaken 2 spots in the starting rotation.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
7/28/2005  9:54 AM
Posted by TMS:

unless you're trading Marbury, moving JC to PG is a bad idea imo...Marbury isn't as talented a scorer as an Allen Iverson for example, so we're better off taking advantage of his ability to dish & find the open man & allow him to orchestrate as he's been doing since he came into the NBA...he's not the classic PG in the mold of a John Stockton or Jason Kidd, but Marbury is the best ball distributor we have...unless you're trading him to get a bigman, it doesn't make any sense to move him to SG & weaken 2 spots in the starting rotation.

Marbury at the 2 long term doesn't make sense- he will get posted, he's not an outside shooter and he's best with the ball in his hands.
Pharzeone
Posts: 32183
Alba Posts: 14
Joined: 2/11/2005
Member: #871
7/28/2005  10:11 AM
Posted by TMS:

unless you're trading Marbury, moving JC to PG is a bad idea imo...Marbury isn't as talented a scorer as an Allen Iverson for example, so we're better off taking advantage of his ability to dish & find the open man & allow him to orchestrate as he's been doing since he came into the NBA...he's not the classic PG in the mold of a John Stockton or Jason Kidd, but Marbury is the best ball distributor we have...unless you're trading him to get a bigman, it doesn't make any sense to move him to SG & weaken 2 spots in the starting rotation.
The only player since Oscar Roberston to average a career 20ppg and 8 assist. The "point guard" Nash only got 2 more assist last season than Marbury and scored nearly 6 points worst. Marbury isn't your problem on this team. The problem last year was that Crawford was asked to play more minutes at the 2 guard where he couldn't post up more physical 2 guards. Believe it or not Marbury will probably be your best post up guard even with the addition of Q Rich. Starting Ariza will help alot defensively, and still allow the Knicks to attack the basket. Marbury forces to teams to double down on him because he can penetrate rather easily. Hopefully the Knicks will continue to work with Ariza in helping him establishing position, glad to see he added 10 pounds of muscle too.
I don't like to play bad rookies , I like to play good rookies - Mike D'Antoni
diderotn
Posts: 25657
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/15/2004
Member: #650
USA
7/28/2005  10:15 AM
All of the things that I have highlighted will get Crawff in mad trouble with Brown as coach. I am predicting that Craw will immediately be in Brown's dog house...He is young and not a smart player...

Posted by BRIGGS:

reasons

6-5 pg
can see over his defender
can post up almost any 1his body becomes a positive instead of a negative, he becomes long and disruptive instead of skinny and smallish, negating his defensive defeciencies
has an incredible handle
can penetrate at will
keeps his head up, sees the floor
he can really pass the ball
moves him away from the 3 pt line and uses his particular skills in a pro-TEAM way.knows how to run-push the ball-not the fastest, but fast enough
can rebound from 1
can be a GREAT mid range shooter IMHO can use his floater more into the lane

we used to talk here about acquiring JC, but that was as a 6-5 PG--I think that has been the biggest problem--he has the attributes and assets to be a great PG, and he has been used incorrectly by chicago and the Knicks--JCs best position is PG.
The true Knickabocker..........
diderotn
Posts: 25657
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/15/2004
Member: #650
USA
7/28/2005  10:16 AM
Nate has something that Crawff doesn't: heart...

Posted by franco12:
Posted by bobs3304:

actually, i felt they didn't mesh well at all. not sure which team you were watching out there...

I'd argue that was coaching and how they were being used.

However, while Craw is talented, I think he's best as the third guard off the bench to spell both 1 & 2- the problem is that Nate might actually be a better player and better at the 1 than crawford.

So, when Nate comes in, you can move marbs over or play q there.

I wouldn't be surprised if Nate proves he's ready that Craw doesn't get package mid season.

And, I'm not so sure Houston gets released- if he has anything left in the tank, he is our only sure fire outside shooter-

so, your back court would primarily be Marbs & Q with Nate getting major minutes and Houston as an emergency/spot player.

Craw & TT for what?
The true Knickabocker..........
diderotn
Posts: 25657
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/15/2004
Member: #650
USA
7/28/2005  10:20 AM
Marb is not considered a talented scorer as Allan mainly because he doesn't take as many shots as Allan. Allan takes as many as 30 shots per game...while Marb only average 15 to 20 shots..and he is also asked to play the point...

Marbury isn't as talented a scorer as an Allen Iverson for example, so we're better off taking advantage of his ability to dish & find the open man & allow him to orchestrate as he's been doing since he came into the NBA...he's not the classic PG in the mold of a John Stockton or Jason Kidd, but Marbury is the best ball distributor we have...unless you're trading him to get a bigman, it doesn't make any sense to move him to SG & weaken 2 spots in the starting rotation.
The true Knickabocker..........
tkf
Posts: 36487
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 8/13/2001
Member: #87
7/28/2005  10:34 AM
I remember the Cleveland cavs had two nice young PG's, in mark Price and Kevin Johnson, they had to make a choice because clearly neither was a back up PG or a SG. So they made the decision to keep the one best for their team and not necessarily the one with the most talent. So they kept price and traded KJ. We know the nice career price had in cleveland before the injuries and we know what KJ did in pheonix. Sometimes you have to trade the more talented player to have the player that best fits your team to play the position he needs to play. Is crawford the better fit for the knicks? that is the question...
Anyone who sits around and waits for the lottery to better themselves, either in real life or in sports, Is a Loser............... TKF
TMS
Posts: 60684
Alba Posts: 617
Joined: 5/11/2004
Member: #674
USA
7/28/2005  10:37 AM
Posted by diderotn:

Marb is not considered a talented scorer as Allan mainly because he doesn't take as many shots as Allan. Allan takes as many as 30 shots per game...while Marb only average 15 to 20 shots..and he is also asked to play the point...

Marbury isn't as talented a scorer as an Allen Iverson for example, so we're better off taking advantage of his ability to dish & find the open man & allow him to orchestrate as he's been doing since he came into the NBA...he's not the classic PG in the mold of a John Stockton or Jason Kidd, but Marbury is the best ball distributor we have...unless you're trading him to get a bigman, it doesn't make any sense to move him to SG & weaken 2 spots in the starting rotation.

please, don't start in with this again...i think Iverson is way above Marbury's league in talent...that's my opinion...you're free to have your own.
After 7 years & 40K+ posts, banned by martin for calling Nalod a 'moron'. Awesome.
Pharzeone
Posts: 32183
Alba Posts: 14
Joined: 2/11/2005
Member: #871
7/28/2005  10:56 AM
Posted by TMS:
Posted by diderotn:

Marb is not considered a talented scorer as Allan mainly because he doesn't take as many shots as Allan. Allan takes as many as 30 shots per game...while Marb only average 15 to 20 shots..and he is also asked to play the point...

Marbury isn't as talented a scorer as an Allen Iverson for example, so we're better off taking advantage of his ability to dish & find the open man & allow him to orchestrate as he's been doing since he came into the NBA...he's not the classic PG in the mold of a John Stockton or Jason Kidd, but Marbury is the best ball distributor we have...unless you're trading him to get a bigman, it doesn't make any sense to move him to SG & weaken 2 spots in the starting rotation.

please, don't start in with this again...i think Iverson is way above Marbury's league in talent...that's my opinion...you're free to have your own.
Well according to C-Webb, AI has to change his "talent level" and try to get his teammates more involve in the offense. You now have a couple of max players on that team.
I don't like to play bad rookies , I like to play good rookies - Mike D'Antoni
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
7/28/2005  11:00 AM
Posted by BRIGGS:

reasons

6-5 pg
can see over his defender
can post up almost any 1
his body becomes a positive instead of a negative, he becomes long and disruptive instead of skinny and smallish, negating his defensive defeciencies
has an incredible handle
can penetrate at will
keeps his head up, sees the floor
he can really pass the ball
moves him away from the 3 pt line and uses his particular skills in a pro-TEAM way.
knows how to run-push the ball-not the fastest, but fast enough
can rebound from 1
can be a GREAT mid range shooter IMHO can use his floater more into the lane

we used to talk here about acquiring JC, but that was as a 6-5 PG--I think that has been the biggest problem--he has the attributes and assets to be a great PG, and he has been used incorrectly by chicago and the Knicks--JCs best position is PG.

Briggs, I've been thinking the same thing. The Knicks tried this a little immediately after the trade deadline last year - there were several games where Crawford only took a few shots and iniated the offense quite a bit. I think Craw's future is as a PG. He has far more value there.

I'm not sure if Marbury can adjust to playing off the ball. It's something he CAN do, but it would be a huge adjustment.

I have a feeling Brown will try it though. If it doesn't work, I think one of the two will go.
¿ △ ?
Allanfan20
Posts: 35947
Alba Posts: 50
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #542
USA
7/28/2005  11:32 AM
I have been saying this for a few months now, b/c putting Crawford gives us a major size advantage at the onem plus he is put in position to be a much better defender. He wont have to be worrying about the posting up SGs of the world like Ricky Davis. This is why I say trading Marbury can be an advantage, even though Marbury is a BETTER PLAYER than Crawford. However, I am one of the few who does NOT like the idea of putting Marbury at the 2, mainly for defensive purposes. I'm just one of those guys who doesn't like to see a 6'2" who's game is driving, swooping to the hoop and dishing (A pgs role) as opposed to being a shooter. Hence, if we can't trade Marbury, then it's best to have Crawford come off the bench. Either way, no matter what, I want Q at the starting 2, and I don't care who guards him, it's who he guards that I'm focused on.

Like I said though, I think Crawford is better fit at the one.
“Whenever I’m about to do something, I think ‘Would an idiot do that?’ and if they would, I do NOT do that thing.”- Dwight Schrute
Page 1 of 2  1  2 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
one big thing that i think can help is moving jc to PG
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy