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

Q move is curious now, no?
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 1 of 2  1  2 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
djsunyc
Posts: 44929
Alba Posts: 42
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #536
7/28/2005  2:21 PM
with LB in tow, you'd figure kurt would be an LB type of player.

but we moved him for Q (who, on paper, isn't really a LB type of player). was it purely b/c of nate?

or was this trade made before any indication of LB coming here? (i, personally, find that hard to believe. i think this was in the works since game 7).
AUTOADVERT
jaydh
Posts: 23150
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/16/2001
Member: #96
7/28/2005  2:25 PM
having brown here still wasnt going to keep athletic PFs from constantly driving around KT and going to the hoop
diderotn
Posts: 25657
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/15/2004
Member: #650
USA
7/28/2005  2:25 PM
the Kurt trade is the best thing that has happened to the Knicks since the Ewing draft. Although Larry would probably appreciate Kurt's style of play, but Larry is smart enough to know that Kurt is a liability at his position.
The true Knickabocker..........
Killa4luv
Posts: 27769
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
7/28/2005  2:26 PM
Posted by jaydh:

having brown here still wasnt going to keep athletic PFs from constantly driving around KT and going to the hoop
Agreed.

Trading Kurt for the best deal possible was an absolute necessity. Kurt woulda been great on Detroit, they are a complete team.
bobs3304
Posts: 24827
Alba Posts: 3
Joined: 7/5/2005
Member: #948
7/28/2005  2:26 PM
Q Rich is an average defender. If you're trading anyone it's Tim Thomas, Crawford, or Mo Taylor....preferably 2/3.
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.
Nalod
Posts: 71892
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
7/28/2005  2:31 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

with LB in tow, you'd figure kurt would be an LB type of player.

but we moved him for Q (who, on paper, isn't really a LB type of player). was it purely b/c of nate?

or was this trade made before any indication of LB coming here? (i, personally, find that hard to believe. i think this was in the works since game 7).

I read an article this morning saying the same thing.

I think we overemphasize what KT does not do, but didn't give him enough credit for the things he did well. Like was the 6th best rebounder in the League last year.

ITs water under the bridge.
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/28/2005  2:33 PM
Posted by bobs3304:

Q Rich is an average defender.
I agree; I think he's at least average. I didn't hear people knocking his defense until he became a Knick. Last year, I thought the Suns had solid defense 2 through 5 with Nash being their only liability on defense. (The Suns gave up a lot of points in part because they played such a fast paced game; they were 12th out of 30 teams in opponent's FG%.)
diderotn
Posts: 25657
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 4/15/2004
Member: #650
USA
7/28/2005  2:38 PM
Q can defend and he is a LB type of player. He will play the Aaron Mckey role. can guard the opposition SG, can rebound and shoot the ball fairly well. He is an excellent postup player in his own right also. We suddenly have a lot of post player from 1 to 5.....Marb can postup, Q, TT, Frye/Mo/Sweet, Frye/James.....
The true Knickabocker..........
Marv
Posts: 35540
Alba Posts: 69
Joined: 9/2/2002
Member: #315
7/28/2005  2:39 PM
Guys - get used to saying it - Q and Nate! It was a steal trade for us. Q had a dynamite year as a starter at small f'g forward for heaven's sake on a 62-win conference final team. He will be a dynamite player for us at 2 and 3.

D is being overemphasized on a lot of these posts. Mike D'Antoni for example structures his team to be an O-first D-last unit. Larry could take that same team and emphasize D if he wanted and get a whole different reslut. Our D is gonna be so much batter because it's going to be emphasized in a system where the coach knows what he's doing.

And I'm all for KT being gone. He would have hurt the growht of 3 players that we have to get production out of to move forward - Frye, Sweets and Big James.
franco12
Posts: 34069
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 2/19/2004
Member: #599
USA
7/28/2005  3:08 PM
Posted by Marv:

Guys - get used to saying it - Q and Nate! It was a steal trade for us. Q had a dynamite year as a starter at small f'g forward for heaven's sake on a 62-win conference final team. He will be a dynamite player for us at 2 and 3.

D is being overemphasized on a lot of these posts. Mike D'Antoni for example structures his team to be an O-first D-last unit. Larry could take that same team and emphasize D if he wanted and get a whole different reslut. Our D is gonna be so much batter because it's going to be emphasized in a system where the coach knows what he's doing.

And I'm all for KT being gone. He would have hurt the growht of 3 players that we have to get production out of to move forward - Frye, Sweets and Big James.

I disagree a bit- D'antoni was a perferct fit on the suns- he had a style of play that fit his players talents.

LB on the suns probably doesn't get as many wins- just cause his style of play might not fit their players.
Pharzeone
Posts: 32183
Alba Posts: 14
Joined: 2/11/2005
Member: #871
7/28/2005  3:30 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

with LB in tow, you'd figure kurt would be an LB type of player.

but we moved him for Q (who, on paper, isn't really a LB type of player). was it purely b/c of nate?

or was this trade made before any indication of LB coming here? (i, personally, find that hard to believe. i think this was in the works since game 7).

You are saying this like Isiah knew for sure that LB would be his coach. Besides I think KT had run his course with this organization. He began to mouth off alot, he always talk about being traded (even before Marbury and Isiah got here). KT was just getting older and less mobile. I know this is a Knick board but it is more curious about the Suns making this deal. I understand the need to clear salary for JJ but that team has now given up multiple draft picks and possibly could be worst this year. JJ is serious about leaving Phoenix too.
I don't like to play bad rookies , I like to play good rookies - Mike D'Antoni
Rich
Posts: 27410
Alba Posts: 6
Joined: 12/30/2003
Member: #511
USA
7/28/2005  3:44 PM
That's why I'm glad KT is gone. Larry would have overused him, and not developed Sweetney and Frye.
PhilinLA
Posts: 24941
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/12/2004
Member: #696
7/28/2005  3:50 PM
KT was overrated.
http://amonthhoffundays.blogspot.com/ We got a ringer.
jaydh
Posts: 23150
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/16/2001
Member: #96
7/28/2005  3:52 PM
Posted by PhilinLA:

KT was overrated.

very
Allanfan20
Posts: 35947
Alba Posts: 50
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #542
USA
7/28/2005  4:19 PM
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by bobs3304:

Q Rich is an average defender.
I agree; I think he's at least average. I didn't hear people knocking his defense until he became a Knick. Last year, I thought the Suns had solid defense 2 through 5 with Nash being their only liability on defense. (The Suns gave up a lot of points in part because they played such a fast paced game; they were 12th out of 30 teams in opponent's FG%.)

Maybe you're referring to everyone else, but for me, I saw the Suns a # of times last year, mainly b/c my best friend is a Suns fan, and I saw Q-Rich. He was not a good defender. Nobody on that roster was particularly good on defense, b/c JJ is best fit at the 2, while Marion is a 3 and Amare is a 4, and they all played out of position. Nash was a bad defender and Q wasn't exactly good. It wasn't a good makeup for a defensive squad. However, this is why I say KT can help that team so much, b/c Amare can switch to the quicker guys while KT guards the post up guys, and Marion plays the 3s at all times, and JJ gets to take advantage of his good D at his natural 2g position. The only defensive liability would be Nash.

I have faith in Q to become a good defensive player, under the Wing of Larry Brown however. This is the best thing that could have happened to the Knicks organization in quite sometime. But if nobody on the team Ds up, even under LB, then Isiah needs start looking at some different players and start trading guys.
“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
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
7/28/2005  4:23 PM
Posted by djsunyc:

with LB in tow, you'd figure kurt would be an LB type of player.

but we moved him for Q (who, on paper, isn't really a LB type of player). was it purely b/c of nate?

or was this trade made before any indication of LB coming here? (i, personally, find that hard to believe. i think this was in the works since game 7).

The Brown thing was in the works since February, at least. Not officially, but I feel quite certain that Isiah heard through the grapevine that Bill D was getting sick of LB and LB was getting antsy. That 17 game break wasn't all about health, I don't think.


The Q thing was neccessary. You can't play Jamal and Marbury in the same back court for long stretches - you just can't. They needed a big guard to hold the JRich, Ricky Davis, Kobe, Pierce, Joe Johnsons of the world in check. Nate was icing on the cake, and Zeke was wise to hold out for that pick. I don't think you can fault this pick - WE'RE REBUILDING. He traded a 34yr old power forward for a 25yr old bruiser of a SG who can play in the post, and with effort can be a good defender. Again, with Nate, for a rebuilding team, that trade is a COUP.
¿ △ ?
gunsnewing
Posts: 55076
Alba Posts: 5
Joined: 2/24/2002
Member: #215
USA
7/28/2005  4:50 PM
[/quote]
The Q thing was neccessary. You can't play Jamal and Marbury in the same back court for long stretches - you just can't. They needed a big guard to hold the JRich, Ricky Davis, Kobe, Pierce, Joe Johnsons of the world in check.
[/quote]

exactly! its good to know we can go back to agreeing on things after that whole draft shizzle. The only reason people here think Crawford is a SG is because Isiah says so. Even then I'm sure the plan was for Crawford to be the backup combo guard off the bench for Allan and Steph
Bonn1997
Posts: 58654
Alba Posts: 2
Joined: 2/2/2004
Member: #581
USA
7/28/2005  4:52 PM
Posted by Allanfan20:
Posted by Bonn1997:
Posted by bobs3304:

Q Rich is an average defender.
I agree; I think he's at least average. I didn't hear people knocking his defense until he became a Knick. Last year, I thought the Suns had solid defense 2 through 5 with Nash being their only liability on defense. (The Suns gave up a lot of points in part because they played such a fast paced game; they were 12th out of 30 teams in opponent's FG%.)

Maybe you're referring to everyone else, but for me, I saw the Suns a # of times last year, mainly b/c my best friend is a Suns fan, and I saw Q-Rich. He was not a good defender. Nobody on that roster was particularly good on defense, b/c JJ is best fit at the 2, while Marion is a 3 and Amare is a 4, and they all played out of position. Nash was a bad defender and Q wasn't exactly good. It wasn't a good makeup for a defensive squad. However, this is why I say KT can help that team so much, b/c Amare can switch to the quicker guys while KT guards the post up guys, and Marion plays the 3s at all times, and JJ gets to take advantage of his good D at his natural 2g position. The only defensive liability would be Nash.

I have faith in Q to become a good defensive player, under the Wing of Larry Brown however. This is the best thing that could have happened to the Knicks organization in quite sometime. But if nobody on the team Ds up, even under LB, then Isiah needs start looking at some different players and start trading guys.
If everyone on their team was bad at defense, how did they manage to hold their opponents to 44.5% shooting, which was above average? I know you don't like stats, but they must have done something okay on defense if the opponent was missing 55.5% of the shots.

[Edited by - Bonn1997 on 07/28/2005 16:53:10]
Allanfan20
Posts: 35947
Alba Posts: 50
Joined: 1/16/2004
Member: #542
USA
7/28/2005  4:57 PM
My friend, lets just say it's not b/c of Q. They still weren't a good defensive team. Like I said though, this isn't Q hate coming from me. I would love him at the starting 2 with either Marbury at the one and Craw and Nate and possibly Houston coming off the bench, or possibly having either Craw or Marbury traded. I think he can still be a good defensive player. But RIGHT NOW, he isn't.
“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
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
7/28/2005  5:22 PM
Posted by Allanfan20:

My friend, lets just say it's not b/c of Q. They still weren't a good defensive team. Like I said though, this isn't Q hate coming from me. I would love him at the starting 2 with either Marbury at the one and Craw and Nate and possibly Houston coming off the bench, or possibly having either Craw or Marbury traded. I think he can still be a good defensive player. But RIGHT NOW, he isn't.

A lot of things about Q's game last season were tailored to fit the Suns fastbreak style of play. I'm not making excuses for him on defense, but their coach wasn't interested in defense. Q won't be shooting 8 threes a game here, it's not his game. He'll play much more under control. I think he can be better on defense too.
¿ △ ?
Page 1 of 2  1  2 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Q move is curious now, no?
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